What these studies show, is that given a set of pictures with faces removed, college age women will point to the pictures of guys who go to the gym when asked to say which one is more attractive to them.
Sure, I can get behind that. As a bisexual male, I also kind of get it. People who are in shape are sexier, duh.
Without even digging into the pitiful sample sizes (n=61, n=131) or the fact that these studies were conducted on an incredibly limited and not at all random subset of the population (college age, at one particular college). The conclusions this article comes to and the ones that you have come to are fundamentally different.
This paper is drawing conclusions about specific, visual sexual attractiveness, fixed for all other concerns - ceterus parabus, if you will. It assumes that all other things are equal.
The conclusions you have so quickly come to, are based on the assertion that all other things are equal. They are not. There is a complex system of other sociological cues and interpersonal relationships that signal whether you do or don't want to be with someone.
Think of all the other things you, as a male, might find sexy about someone. Are they into video games? Do they like the same music as you? Are they successful in business / art / a particular 'scene'? Are they smart? Are they bold? Are they funny?
What you have done, in essence, is to assume that women are simple, and easily understood. I would argue that this is patently ludicrous.
To add to that, even the preference identified in those studies is influenced by the specific societal context. Generalizing that to “women prefer fit men” is incorrect, because we know sexual preferences are heavily influenced by the societal context.
Wrong. A generalization can be correct in certain contexts. Take the below sentence:
In general, in the United States, women tend to prefer men who are fit.
The scientific papers I provided establish the generalization within that context.
When someone makes a general statement like saying men tend to be taller than women, that someone does so with the awareness that exceptions and alternative contexts exist because such exceptions and contexts are obvious. Obviously some women are really tall and obviously the context isn't some preselected population of women who are over 6 foot.
Another way to look at my point is that broad generalizations must originate from somewhere. They are often indicative of a population where the majority or major component posseses several or a single identical trait. It is absolutely insane to ignore generalities just as it is insane to declare them as absolute truths. That is my point.
That is the unfortunate reality of the world. Generalities, like stereotypes, illustrate an aspect of a truth. Social justice is important but one cannot change the world by eliminating a truth to mold the universe into a delusion that fits the perception of a social justice ideal.
I find your post delusional. Your conclusion is nowhere near anything I asserted.
I asserted a generalization that women tend to like men who are more fit and I asserted that generalizations apply to the universe. Something along the lines of: Not all women are shorter than men, but in general they are.
Then I used science to establish that generality. That's it. The conclusion of those papers never claimed women are easily understood and I never claimed it either.
The crazy thing is, you claimed to agree with me as "bisexual" man then proceeded to debate a point with an imaginary claim that was never made.
Perhaps you're not delusional and your arguments are tactics and lies used to manipulate a conversation in a direction of your choosing. If that is the case my conclusion is that you're a liar.
Tldr: You are arguing against claims that were never made.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616720730302...