At what age do women hit their peak physical attractiveness, scientifically speaking

[Anonymous No.11977214]

* In a vacuum, no social mores involved.

[Anonymous No.11977238]

>>11977214
For her it's 12

[Anonymous No.11977247]

>>11977214
probably around 23. in your pic I can easily tell that she's had her first sexual encounter somewhere between 13 and 14, you can see it in her eyes. carry on

[Anonymous No.11977253]

>>11977247
>probably around 23
No way it's after 21 lady. Or even after 18 if we're being honest. Yeah you can like maturity and all that jazz but physically? Lol. Especially today by 23 most have had 6 million partners. Cope.

[Anonymous No.11977268]

>>11977214
this one peaked at 12, but usually it's 12-16

[Anonymous No.11977277]

>>11977214
>>11977247
Another way of framing the question is: how far back does the female trend on pic related go?

[Anonymous No.11977283]

>>11977277
If they didn't use 18 as their arbitrary cut off point that graph would be even funnier.

[Anonymous No.11977285]

>>11977277

[Anonymous No.11977289]

>>11977253
I'm a guy. I've been 3 times by now with girls taking them from 19 through 23 and if they are properly active, hands down they peak at 23, they throw that womanly look into the mix but just a bit as to not overshadow the youthfulness. from 25 onward is usually downhill with no brakes

[Anonymous No.11977292]

>>11977289
>>11977247
Samefag, woman, data denier, etc

[Anonymous No.11977296]

>>11977214
Jeez, if a woman isn't pretty she's nothing.

[Anonymous No.11977299]

>>11977296
not true men will bend over backwards for any woman, google the juggernaut law and i encourage you to try it yourself

[Anonymous No.11977302]

12

[Anonymous No.11977311]

>>11977292
>le epic data XD
not having sex really did a number on you, you should get that fixed or you'll end up completely mentally ill

[Anonymous No.11977312]

>>11977311

[Anonymous No.11977319]

>>11977214
9 Inshallah

[Anonymous No.11977697]

>>11977214
12 in this case

[Anonymous No.11977719]

>>11977214
aFor girls its 14

[Anonymous No.11977730]

For girls, its 14

[Anonymous No.11978266]

>>11977319
>>11977697
>>11977730
>>11977302
>>11977283
>>11977277
Wow look at all these incel pedophiles. This is why people hate nerds.

[Anonymous No.11978316]

>>11978266
Sorry that facts trigger you. The data confirms girls are at peak attractiveness around 14 years old. Seethe roastie/white knight.

[Anonymous No.11978457]

>>11977214
If a male was born in a vacuum, how could we assume that one would be attracted at all? and that all passions between organisms are a result of a collective mimesis, people imitating, probably for the sake of imitating. This male child would have never known or felt its mothers touch or embrace. Freud would probably agree with me that a mans attraction to a woman is generally rooted from this primal interaction.

But alas, humanity is so coupled to this way, that we should never know, and all things considered, its probably a good thing

[Anonymous No.11978518]

>>11978457
>genes don't exist
>I don't know what is meant by the idiom "in a vacuum"

[Anonymous No.11978617]

>>11978518
I just took your idiom and prepostourously extended it to reveal the fruitlessness of this line of questioning. Take away all of the observations that lead to my point but highlight the others, to reach the implicit conclusion. Truth rests closer to we don't know as attractivness is subjective, thus correlated with all state, thus unseparable into any 'vacuum' state. You got the anonymous selection bias. But this result derives from the incentives in society regarding woman in the first place.

So

> place an inseparable item in a vat fallacy
> don't understand the inherent nature of relativism and self reflexivity.

So again, a true vacuum the male would have no conception of self. There's no photons in there, wouldn't even be able to see.

[Anonymous No.11978641]

>>11978617
>I just took your idiom and prepostourously extended it to reveal the fruitlessness of this line of questioning
Doesn't work like that my boy, you clearly changed my meaning and thus strawmanned me. And unironically cited Freud, lel.
>Truth rests closer to we don't know as attractivness is subjective, thus correlated with all state, thus unseparable into any 'vacuum' state.
Probably bait but if not, supreme woman cope lmao. Beauty is objective, QED and rekt.
> place an inseparable item in a vat fallacy
Yep, literal strawman. What I clearly meant was dont claim 23 yos are more attractive because its taboo for an older guy to date an 18 yo
> don't understand the inherent nature of relativism and self reflexivity
Delusional humanities babble
>So again, a true vacuum the male would have no conception of self. There's no photons in there, wouldn't even be able to see
Autistic people dont understand idioms I guess

[Anonymous No.11978655]

>>11978266
your on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11978656]

>>11977214
14

[Anonymous No.11978668]

>>11977277
>white foids
yeah as if the niggers and lat*nos din't get obese. Spotted the shitskin roastie cope

[Anonymous No.11978708]

>>11977214

Another episode of "Let me add scientifically speaking to my thread so I can post any type of bullshit on /sci/"

Kill yourself OP and anyone close to your, family, friends, anyone, your sub-human kind WILL be cleaned from the face of this planet, painfully.

Just wait.

For the 4chan mods: this is what you allow on 4chan and /sci/, pedophiles, you should all go together.

[Anonymous No.11978724]

>>11977285
I really don't believe that graph. Is that like the most desirable male height/dick size plots that just get shifted for lulz?

[Anonymous No.11978725]

>>11978708
>pedophiles,

Teenagers aren't children.