[jf-]

I think you’re assuming tabula rasa here; that there is no innate human nature, that everything is socially constructed. If there is such a thing as an innate, biologically derived measure of attractiveness, then your point doesn’t really hold up. Unless we’re comfortable with saying biology is misogynistic. That would be an interesting one.

Frankly it would be great to have real, impartial numbers about all of this so we could actually reach some conclusions, but it’s so politicised that’s effectively impossible.

[JimboOmega]

If you take this extreme reductionist viewpoint, "biology"is misandrist and misogynist both. It reduces human relationships to an exchange of genetic material and its optimization. The male human may as well be the the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that.

And, well, no. We live in an industrialized world where we have all the food we could ever need and yet we have fewer children than ever before in history. People make human decisions that are more than their genetics, even when choosing romantic and sexual partners. Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"?

Another way to put it - I accept these things as true 1) Physical attractiveness is important to most people in picking a partner 2) Physical attractiveness is correlated with fertility 2) Physical attractiveness negatively correlates with age

Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness. Biologically, a post-menopausal woman is not contributing new humans to the world, but she still can contribute to the world as a whole, contributing happiness and meaning to others, doing all kinds of things that make the world a better place. I would argue that meaning in romantic relationships isn't limited to fertility, either.

I don't think is even that controversial a viewpoint, but as a woman, there is certainly a cultural notion that your value IS your attractiveness. If you justify the viewpoint that a woman in her 40s is of no value simply because her fertility is phbbt, that's misogynist.

It is a biological reality that men can remain fertile much longer than women. Using that fact to justify a worldview that women in general have less value, especially past a certain age, is misogynist.

[jf-]

> “biology” is misandrist and misogynist both.

When we’re anthropomorphising facts and telling them that they’re bad, something has gone wrong. Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true.

> The male human may as well be the male anglerfish and the life of the female is barely more meaningful than that.

I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves.

> Why would we take the most socially complex species we're aware of, and then look at one of the most complex social interactions that species engages in, and say "well, but it's really just about making babies"?

Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world?

> Yet I still argue that a woman's worth, not just to the world but even as a partner, is more than her physical attractiveness.

I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.

[JimboOmega]

> Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true.

And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular.

> I’m honestly not sure what meaning you’re looking for here, or what bearing that has on the conversation. There isn’t any meaning to life other than that which we make for ourselves.

This is exactly my point; there is more meaning to our mating choices than merely optimizing for making children. We take meaning from, and find happiness in, things that are much more complex than raw physical attractiveness.

> Because that statement is true? Is your argument that we should reject reality in order to tell ourselves pleasing lies about the world?

It is not; it is absurdly reductionist. We live in a world with as much food as we could ever want, yet we make fewer babies than we ever did before. We live in a world with homosexuality. We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility. A lot of our choices have to do with social signaling, for instance; things that genetics alone can't be controlling directly.

>I agree. There are different kinds of value to be sure. However this is a discussion of sexual attraction and romantic partnership. Someone’s, let’s say, java skills, are not very likely to factor heavily. Nor are they likely to be a replacement for sexual attractiveness if it is absent.

It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three.

There is a viewpoint that couples all three, and that viewpoint is not merely wrong; it is toxic and pernicious. It is fundamentally the viewpoint of the incel community. A viewpoint that, at its extreme, motivates people to acts of violence because they believe their lives are worthless as a result of unchangeable physical traits. It is also a view that is clearly held, at least to some degree, by the letter writer in the parent article. It is a drain on humanity.

Is it the case that a more attractive person will have more people interested in them sexually? Of course. Almost by definition.

However, attractiveness (particularly of the youthful variety) is neither necessary nor sufficient to have positive romantic relationships. Furthermore, positive romantic relationships are neither necessary nor sufficient to having a meaningful, happy life.

Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.

[jf-]

> And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particular.

Which reads as an excuse to dismiss any inconvenient finding as a lie.

Also, to nitpick, the facts themselves still cannot be social actors, they aren’t people.

> We make countless choices about our romantic and sexual partners that have nothing to do with their fertility.

Fertility? Try perceived reproductive fitness instead. Now remove the conscious element, where someone is actively selecting for reproductive fitness, and replace it with a host of emotions and drives that have been selected by evolution for the perception of reproductive fitness without the benefit of reason.

This is where all of the magic of emotionality and meaning that you are talking about comes from. They’re a bunch of imperfect heuristics designed to ensure survival and reproduction. As they are simple they often go wrong and are easily hijacked, see the term super-stimulus for an example.

> It is a discussion of physical attractiveness, romantic/sexual value, and overall human value. I am arguing for decoupling all three.

You seem to want to pretend that attractiveness does not have the value it does so that people who are low in it don’t feel bad. On top of this, you seem to want to force other people to pretend along with you.

> Ultimately I'm arguing that a 35 year old, 40 year old, whatever-year-old woman's life is not over if she's "still" single. Her dating life isn't over either. Do I expect all men to be attracted to her? Of course not; but some definitely would be, and she still has a lot to offer in that context.

I agree. But is she justified in feeling bad about it, knowing that her opportunities have narrowed? Yes. Indeed you seem to acknowledge this. Her life is by no means ruined, but she’d be lying to herself to pretend that it were a bed of roses. This is also about giving advice to younger people, and telling them that following in her footsteps is fine and dandy would be doing them a disservice.

[JimboOmega]

> Which reads as an excuse to dismiss any inconvenient finding as a lie.

No? I'm not even sure what fields we are talking about any more, but the findings of some fields and some works are so thoroughly polluted by their political motivations that they can indeed be dismissed entirely.

There are no doubt scientific works that are manipulated not merely for commercial reasons (e.g., the classic publication bias with pharmaceutical research) but for ideological ones as well. Some fields attract this sort of thing with such regularity that every work in the field is at least somewhat suspect, if the field itself has any credibility left (e.g. phrenology)

> Also, to nitpick, the facts themselves still cannot be social actors, they aren’t people.

Perhaps the term "actor" is the source of the nitpicking; my belief is that some science is done primarily to be a social force; to push a certain ideology.

> This is where all of the magic of emotionality and meaning that you are talking about comes from. They’re a bunch of imperfect heuristics designed to ensure survival and reproduction. As they are simple they often go wrong and are easily hijacked, see the term super-stimulus for an example.

Perhaps we agree here; I am arguing attraction and partnership and all of that is very complex, that there is a lot of emergent behavior. And that, to use your "super-stimulus" as an example, it is often beneficial to consciously override the simplest impulses in order to live a happier and more fulfilling life.

"I only date the most attractive person I possibly can; it's my genetics after all" is about as good a strategy as "I only eat sugar; it's my genetics after all".

> This is also about giving advice to younger people, and telling them that following in her footsteps is fine and dandy would be doing them a disservice.

I stand by my previous reply in that the destructive forms of an attraction-focused ideology are the far larger disservice. The message that a woman's worth is strongly related to her attractiveness which is strongly related to her age is the far more dangerous (and honestly, pervasive) message.

Far too many people are embracing a message that tells them to "lay down and rot" because they aren't attractive and have no chance at a normal, meaningful human relationship. Far too many people are convinced their attractiveness is extremely low, when it is low-average.

Far too many people believe that they are unattractive and unloveable and let that view trap them in bad relationships and decisions; I know I did it. I've seen this stuff rip through my friends and communities far too often. It doesn't even need to be age; there are countless ways people of both genders can be less than ideally attractive and feel worse for it.

My own lived experience tells me that as a 36 year old woman I'm more successful at dating than I was at any previous point in my life. Would I be even moreso if I was 10 years younger? Probably, but in my case success has come only with age, so I find it hard to accept a narrative that insists otherwise.

[jf-]

> No? I'm not even sure what fields...

It’s an easy strategy to fall back on, you don’t like the implications of a piece of research? Claim the researchers are just propagandists. Make this claim of anyone who finds against your claims, actively attempt to damage their careers due to their obvious bias, and effectively censor any research proposal that doesn’t declare it’s findings as being within acceptable bounds before being carried out. Of course this can be applied to honest and dishonest researchers alike, muddying the waters to the fullest.

> Perhaps the term "actor" is the source of the nitpicking; my belief is that some science is done primarily to be a social force; to push a certain ideology.

Indeed, the most obvious example that comes to mind is this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels...

> I stand by my previous reply...

My take on your position is that you want everyone to lie about the way the world really works in a misguided attempt to make things better for some.

This is damaging in the long term, people can only make the best decisions for themselves if they know the relevant facts. Telling young women to ignore the implications of this letter while also telling them a mixture of “it’s not true” and “society is morally bankrupt because it’s true!” does not help them, in fact it actively makes them worse off.

[tomp]

No, even without innate human nature / assuming tabula rasa, it makes logical sense, because we still cannot escape biology (yet). Women can only have kids when young, so youth is hugely important when men choose their partners, and is proxied by beauty. Women also invest much more than men into each kid (9 months of their life and a chance of dying), so it makes sense for them to seek men of wealth, status, power.

In other words, differences in preferences for choosing sexual partners follow directly (logically) from sexual dimorphism, nothing else required, and are thus in a sense “correct”.