/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14947431
>No. This isn't a trustworthy number.
What do you mean?
>Many things go into human attraction. It certainly isn't merely down to societal norms, nor is it as easily simplified by evolution.
You're right and I agree with you. What I reject is the idea that social structures don't matter in this case about height preferences.
I do not believe that women are caught in some genetic fisherian runaway for male height.
>It's comic relief, at best.
I don't think it's comical.
>In reality, it's a vile concept. The idea that you would want my own or anyone's children to be considered sexually attractive to adults on a universal level is on par with doing away with age of consent laws. It's nefarious at best, and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.
But I'm not talking about children. This isn't an accurate representation of my idea. I've never actually even put much thought into what the males may look like, as when it comes to that part of it I think of the women.
In a different thread a different anon got me to think of it so I looked around and found some images of what I think are decent representations of what the men may look like. Pic related is sort of there, although he is not as muscular as what men are going to actually be.
Does this render look unattractive to you? I doubt it (imagine him more muscular as well)