Is there an universal beauty standard for woman? how can we tell?

I don't know if I'd call that beauty, more like sexual attractiveness?
Real beauty isn't as vulgar as you suggest it is.

No in the long term there is a lot of random noise and mistakes involved. The parts of the brain that determine perception and behavior are not perfectly fine tuned machines. Reducing everything down to the most obvious evolutionary mechanism and then saying that anything which diverges from that is just purple pretending to like something is retarded. Fuck off.

without getting too hand-wavy

i think it depends on what the individual values as positive sexual traits

if there was a universal beauty standard, gay people wouldnt exist

>all other beauty standards are actually consolations by people who cant get the objectively good stuff and need to distort the thinking to distract themselves from the fact that they are permanently unsatisfied.
Gays don't exist.

"is there any genuine objective peer review scientifc papers by ivy league colleges about that? im genuinely asking"

agreed, but... I never said that, I never said that there's no "noise"... nigga, how can anyone even say something like "everybody actually likes x, if someone claim to like z, then this person is lying"? I just said that humans "in general" will have a tendency to seek a set of traits since these are the traits seeked by the humans whose offspring had the better rate survival and further reproduction.

Yes. Young, firm skin, symmetrical facial features, child bearing hips, child feeding breasts.

gay behaviour is clearly counter productive when it comes to reproduction. It's a "problem" evolutionarily speeking, they are part of the "noise"(people with counter productive sexual preferences).

got the wrong quote

>people with counter productive sexual preferences

ok, so there is no universal beauty standard

job done

implying there is an empirical universal beauty standard

Could then homosexuality counter productive sexual preference then be enough evidence that being gay is truly as mental heath issue because they don't follow an universal beauty standard?

>Is there an universal beauty standard for woman?
Yes.
It is pic related.

my god, nigga

there are traits that are seeked by a statistically significant majority, but there will be some "noise".

I second this answer

why nigga? why do you need to destroy the thread with "it's a mental disease"? Just "being gay it's evolutionarily counter productive" is enough nigga.

im so soo sorry you want to get a big titted female and you cant, seriously its the best feeling in life, im legit sorry for you. now please provide some scientific evidence for your claims

>universal
>man face
>no tits
>barely passing with an ass that any developing child already has

>Gays don't exist.
are you claiming all gay people would have trouble getting women?

some gays are considered alphas, hence the popular saying "hes too perfect he must be gay"

if i could choose i would have her have bigger tits and wider hips,also i would prefer a bit less talli know im not lying.

of course that is one very atractive female if i had the chance to breed with her i would take it without hesitation

ok how about this?

that does it for me, ideal mate right there, or very close to it.

i must congratulate us all on doing science like this, this is my favorite kind of science

still has a lot of traits that the other woman has, but is less "fit".

Test:

whose is sexier for you?

1)2)

1

>Is there an universal beauty standard for woman? how can we tell?

You can tell by studying the standards of beauty as they have existed throughout history and over various cultures. If they are all the same then that's the universal beauty standard, otherwise there is none and beauty is just a result of societal forces.

I'd say number two would by completely optimal... That being said number one is a very very close secound

Disgusting.

2, no doubt

>You can tell by studying the standards of beauty as they have existed throughout history and over various cultures. If they are all the same then that's the universal beauty standard, otherwise there is none and beauty is just a result of societal forces.

but how about the possibility that there is one absolutely desirable kind of female and everything else is just society's way of dealing with not being able to have what you wantt

NO

different people seeking different traits don't prove that "it's all cultural". Humans are different, maybe different ethnic groups have different preferences duo to genetic differences, maybe different environments make humans seek different traits duo to some epigenetic process. Maybe there is difference from generation to generation duo to epigenetics.

Men are the second sex. They were designed to serve women. But in order to do this, they needed to have greater intelligence than women.

An unintended consequence of this was that men began to control women.

What do you think will happen when AI becomes more intelligent than humans?

>Is there an universal beauty standard for woman?

No, and objectively there can't be since human adaption to varied environments prevents a consistent "standard" for fitness.

And without a consistent universal standard for fitness it is hard to objectively prove a universal standard for beauty regardless of sex.

An example of this would be comparing fitness of sub-sahara africans to artic inuits. Ignoring racial differences, the best body structure to survive in either environment would be different and influence mate attraction.

difference in intelligence between men and women is only 4 points on average, very very small to be honest.

A sexual partner is just as much of a status symbol as a car or something. Most people don't indulge in their fetishes when they're not socially acceptable. Whatever most peoples individual biological quirks are they tend to be subordinated to what's socially considered desirable/appropriate.

>What do you think will happen when AI becomes more intelligent than humans?
we will want to fuck ais? im not sure im following you.

shit imagine how easy a new ai will control us with a credible sexbot

>An example of this would be comparing fitness of sub-sahara africans to artic inuits. Ignoring racial differences, the best body structure to survive in either environment would be different and influence mate attraction

but that would imply that people who live in different environments have different hardwired parts in their brain and thats literally impsosible, men have not lived in those environments for long enough for there to have been an evolutionary adaptation

I have a third theory: the natural state of men is to impregnate absolutely all women.

if you line 10 girls from more ugly to less ugly, and ask a man to tell you honestly who would he fuck, i think the real answer is "all of em"

NO, nigga

you don't need a "new part in the brain", only a variation in the quantity of some neurotransmitter and you have the effect. Just look at how pharma works, some variation in serotonin or dopamine and you have a totally different pattern of behaviour.

2, but it's close

Should universities have straight white male studies courses? I'm none of those, but I would take the course.

3,5 billion women

15 minutes to quick fuck

= 100.000 years fucking

+ All the possible STDs in the world

good luck

>you don't need a "new part in the brain", only a variation in the quantity of some neurotransmitter and you have the effect. Just look at how pharma works, some variation in serotonin or dopamine and you have a totally different pattern of behaviour.
a change that drastic sounds like evolution

bare in mind we are trying to differ what part of atraction comes from the objective physical state of your physicial brain, no impositions of the cultural society

if you bang from 5/10 up your chances of having healthy offspring skyrocket in comparison of just seeking for one 10/10 to fuck

Combination of biological and societal factors. Do you think it's a coincedence that thicc women are in now when skinny women were the thing in most of the 1900's? Think about it, all of a sudden their are almost as many, if not more, chubby/obese people than their are skinny people, and as a result they become more atteactive. You also have the subtle psychological effects of body acceptance movements (which need to die out because obesity is a disease and should not be accepted morally)

>but that would imply that people who live in different environments have different hardwired parts in their brain and thats literally impsosible,

No, it would imply that any possible universal standard for beauty is immediately impeded by local/ regional standards for survival.

>men have not lived in those environments for long enough for there to have been an evolutionary adaptation

You can literally Google studies about epidermis differences between different regional populations around the world.

so definitively not universal

1) Look at the case of the Ashkenazi, substantive evolution in few generations that caused higher IQ and bigger propensity for some mental conditions(There's a Steven Pinker video about that). So yes, significant variance in the brain can happen in few generations.(Also look for the difference in cp from whites, blacks, asians and inuit, big difference in few generations)

2) difference in neurotransmitters can happen very easily, changing your diet can make a huge effect.

fun fact: inuit are the guys with biggest brain in the human species

whites, blacks, asians and jews BTFO

This.

t. great grandfather got some of dat inuit pussy

No you dumbass, you need resources to keep your children alive. Maybe a r-selected species like bunnies would seek to just fuck everything that's not horrible, but K-selected species like humans must be very selective. The average guy don't have enough resources to have a ton of children, he must seek a very good female to produce the few children he'll carry. The only people who can have a lot of children are the very very rich like Trump(who has 5 children with 3 females), also very rich people can chose the female they want so they can have all 10/10. Fucking lot's of 6s and 7s would only be a good strategy if they're going to be single mothers and you aren't going to pay shit.

sorry, I'm not black. She has the body of a woman in her 40s
This girl is perfect:

thats bullshit, in a natural state a guy would impregnate as many girls as possible i know i would

anyone who doesnt think that is has an cultural imposition of not thinking that. Remember, in nature theres no alimony

if i gave you the chance to cum unprotected inside 9 ok girls and a hot one or just inside the hot one, which one would you choose?

women are either ones or zero's. you will or you won't. thats the standard.

Small tited, perky, refined women age better than your cows.
Your tastes a shit.

The whole "muh breeding condition" meme is highly exaggerated anyway, there are other considerations that come on top of that.

And yes there is a single counter example that blows your theory out of the water: cellulitis. Cellulitis is energy reserves, we should all love it according to you. But in reality of course everyone finds it fucking disgusting.

>The only people who can have a lot of children are the very very rich like Trump

Not true, traditionally those invested in agriculture on average can have a high amount of children. Also the poor typically do so too due to more children providing higher chance of acuring more resources in the future.

>i know i would
Until you realize how much ass-busting is needed to keep pregnant women and kids fed.
Then you'll stop having so many kids.

THICC
H
I
C
C

stop being a retard.

Humans are a K-selected species, it means that we tend to focus in fitness of offspring instead of number. We are actually one of the most K-selected species in the fucking planet, very different from r-selected species like bunnies and bonobos. Males needed to provide resources to the offspring, you can't just have a kid and then run away(ok, let's not talk about blacks, I don't want this to become /pol/). If you can't provide the resources to the offspring it will die. Your number of offspring is limited by resources, we evolved in very harsh environments where resources were scarce so we evolved to be selective, we are selective so we can have strong offspring that will compete for the few resouces.

you're into r-selected mindset, that's counter productive, K-selected animals are more cool, wolves are K-selected.

I've slept with women with big and small tits. I prefer anywhere from A to C cup. Any larger and it's a turn off

Fucking this.

"Muh thicc" is a product of the advent of the American woman who stuffs her face with McDonald's every other day.

When people think the jelly-roll infested women like are """""""""""""""""""""""'sexy"""""""""""""""""""' you know humanity is going to shit.

youre thinking about middle class to upper class individuals

most niggers and poor people just impregante around as they want. and poor people are the majority of the human population and are much lcloser to the natural state

niggers act very r-selected, it's weird, so I don't bring them into the equation. I don't understand why poor people act in r-selected way, today I have no explanation. But the fact that humans are selective as fuck is true, humans are very K-selected on average.

Niggers do that too? Our gypsies also breed like rabbits and don't even put kids to school, goverment just pays them child support so more kids = more money.

fat

THICC has always been the beauty standard.

holy shit, is being r-selected the key for being poor? Are gypsies, niggers and arabs more r-selected? That's why they can't stop breeding even if they're poor?

Realize that evolution isn't a perfectly organized system, but one based fundamentally on randomness. Yes, people are likely to find the features you mentioned attractive due to evolutional advantages, but they're not guaranteed to.

Also, sexual preferences isn't decided completely genetically. They can change by experience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulite

>I don't understand why poor people act in r-selected way

Because more children increases likelihood of resource collection for a given local population. Modern economic models just throw this behavior out of wack because it is not inherently adapted to capitalistic optimization.

consider trt

I'm not saying I wouldn't give her descartes, I'm saying she's mediocre at best.

But you still need the resources to feed the offspring while it is still a children in the first place. A lot of your children are also likely to die since they're product of unfit mothers(5s and 6s). So in a very violent and low resource ambient(where we evolved) you would need to find a lot of resources to feed a lot of children, a lot of those children would die what would get you to a few survivors(your best children probably, product of mating with 7s and 8s). Those few children would need to compete with K-selected offspring that would get more resources since they're product of sex with 9s and 10s. The K-selected strategy simply win where there is few resources and violence.

Low t.

Do you at least like THICC centaur girls?

her skin is horrible. bitch needs to exfoliate and moisturize.

Nice meme kiddo

You also talk about capitalism. That's true, capitalism is pro-competition, in pro-competition environments K-selected offspring will always win over r-selected.

...are commies r-selected? sheeeeeeeeit

you really made me think nigga

I don't like morbidly oversized bodyparts.

When it's fictional, it ruins my immersion. When it's real, it turns me off because it looks unhealthy.

A sign of low t.

But it can be fixed.

I prefer pork over beef. Both can sustain a man.

>Both can sustain a man.

>a man
t. skinny virgin numale

not to mention, iq isn't an objective measure of intelligence. we barely understand what intelligence is

What is it with fat celebration and attributing it positive traits?

>low test

Hmmm really makes me think

Not everyone enjoys being reminded of their mother during sex.

The distinct between sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction becomes important here. Humans are one of few species that fuck for pleasure. R-selective mating in humans, which happens between all races, is pronounced when examining the mating-for-pleasure side of things. K-selection is pronounced when traditional mating is examined.

Why do poor tend to have more kids? Probably because they have less access to contraceptives, have more sex for pleasure, and have less desire to mate traditionally.

>Humans are one of few species that fuck for pleasure.
uh wot?
I'm pretty sure every single mammal does it for pleasure otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am sorry senpai, you might be hopeless.

Please get your pedophile ass out of my board!

Dont know if its true because I think I saw it in one of those meme fact images, but weren't dolphins also confirmed to fuck for pleasure?

Actually, beauty standards change based on the society. For example, in the United States, in the late 1800s, the beauty standard was someone who was slightly overweight, as it signified wealth.

That seems like a meme to me.
Humans are one of the few species who fuck for social purposes though, that might be what it meant.

>he thinks thicc women are just a product of being unhealthy

wow, you really are retarded