/sci/ - Science & Math

Actually, now it's just another USA vs Europe thread.
Polite sage.

>13yo
>breasts

This is why I like my girls younger than 10.

She isn't 13

>>1729236
If she was the Bisphenol A concentration in the water behind her was quite elevated.
Besides I am into other things.

Yet another thread that bitches about the threads in /sci/

These are much worse than the religion vs science threads or the ask for help homework threads.

sage

>>1729199

>>1729333

moar?

>>1729199
OP is a boob hater (homofag)

This girl is a 28 years old mangaka! What now?

>>1729333

>>1729199
>>1729333
Also just for kicks:
While you may be a pedophile or ephebophile, just looking without touching isn't being a child molester. America hasn't YET devolved to fighting thoughtcrime.

those dairy hormones sure do wonders

>>1729338
>>1729350
Moar what? I bubbled the pic. It's your turn.

>>1729358
Soon fictional children will be protected too! And them drawings will be crime! Be afraid!

>>1729386
But then I can never have Kokonoe Rin as my waifu! ;.;

>>1729333

Thank you for clarifying so i didn't have to.

>>1729358
was just reading 1984

You know, this being /sci/, we could have had an interesting discussion on sexual attraction, evolutionary psych and bio, human evolution, natural selection, the Red Queen, dishonesty in sexual signals...

Wait a minute. Who am I kidding? This is /sci/. Of course we couldn't have.

>>1729386
Drawings are illegal too (well, here)!

>>1729358
Thoughtcrime. I would be so dead for my fantasies to hump every 4legger I see.

>>1729425

So you're a pedophile, AND a furry? Why does that not surprise me?

>>1729415
>>1729415
Yes we can. I found a totally simple description of beautiful in scientific terms: humans always perceive features as beautiful which are considered under the general circumstances as hard to acquire or maintain. What's your opinion on this

>>1729440
>>1729440
No, I am only into the 4leggers. That would be a zoophile, right dear? *neigh* from offstage

>>1729442

You mean, things like symmetry in features, specific ratios, skin that is 'clear' (free from blemish, disease, etc,)? Yeah.

Although we might want to figure out some line between Beauty and Sexual Attraction.

In re: OP's pic, blonde hair past early childhood is a dishonest sexual signal.

Also, one can make a good argument that your average man alive today is predisposed to be sexually attracted to teenage (TEENAGE, DAMN YOU. SHOWING SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTICS) girls.

>>1729534
Kinda. But you can even extent this to non sexual stuff. It always works. If you hike antarctica and find a perfectly round piece of ide you'll regard it more beautiful than an odd everyday piece. Because you know that a simple yet not especially likely geometry makes this thing hard to originate in this environment. Your brain figures it is special, assignes a value to it and bang you think its kinda beautiful. The same way is a polished car more beautiful than a dirty car. Especially in the dusty desert. A white spotless tshirt is more beautiful than exactly the same shirt on the some person and so on. We always go for the thing that is hard to acquire or maintain given the circumstances. In Africa the more fat you have the more beautiful people regard you (true) in ancient Europe you were the more beautiful the paler your skin was (no fieldwork at all was hard to life on/seldom, true), today you are more beautiful the more your skin is tanned (we are all locked away in our offices, true) and the thinner you are (we westerners are bathing in food all the time, hard to eat nothing and have lots of spare time for that training, true) ...
Amazing, isn't it?

>>1729568

Yes, but remember, for example in faces, the more "perfect" the face, the more forgettable it is.

>>1729582
really? Source and proposed explanations? Maybe we need 'non average' features so we can assign the name to the face... that is interesting.

>>1729365
Yeah, its not as good as yours.

>>1729629
>>1729333
You both suck at bubbling. ...333 almost crosses the threshold for good in terms of the craftmanship BUT WE STILL SEE NOTHING!!

>>1729601

I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's brought up in the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, which is some damn fine non-fiction.

Basically, some researchers took a bunch of pictures of women's faces and composited them with a computer (Probably Photoshop). They found that the more faces they blended together, and the more averaged and symetrical and closer to perfect proportions the face got, the more attractive it was. But it was also more forgettable. Conversely, faces that had asymettry, or things like scars, were less attractive, but much more memorable; Picture Bill Clinton in your mind -- how clear and well defined is that image? Now do Selma Hayek, or some other very attractive actress or model -- how clear and well defined is the mental image of her face compared to Bill Clinton's?

Basically, the concluded that things that are symmetrical are more forgettable; your brain latches on to the defects, as those are the things that you would want to spot to be able to tell if someone had some bad skin disease, or was malnourished, etc, etc, which were important for finding a mate. Your brain spends more time on the unattractive face than the attractive one, and can recall it better.

More or less. I've tried hard to dig up the actual paper, and I don't have my copy of the book on hand (it's on loan) to look it up. All my journal searches are failing, and Lexus-Nexus is... witchcraft.

Anyway -- the more symmetrical a face, the more beautiful and the more forgetful. I'll never forget what Ross Perot looked like. I doubt I could pick Cameron Diaz out of a crowd.

Pardon misspellings, grammar, etc. I'm drunk.

13 isn't pedophile.

>>1729690
>Pardon misspellings, grammar, etc. I'm drunk.
Thx. And I do. I am German.