TER General Board
You are correct that it cannot currently be fully explained. While I agree it is nice and fun to have a veil of romantic mysticism surrounding it; you are falling into the trap of essentially labeling something that cannot be adequately explained using current knowledge as "magic" and "cannot be explained."
This is a form of humanocentrism that argues that humans are somehow exempt from the same laws of nature that affect all other biological lifeforms on the planet.
The fact that a phenomenon has so many variables and responds to so many factors residing on various continuums rather than a bunch of simple "yes/no" questions does not mean it is not susceptible to being more fully understood.
One aspect of this that gives a lot of folks difficulty is that of "odds."
At the level of physics, if I shine a beam of light through a small hole, it will form a diffusion pattern in which the aggregate numbers of photons will decrease the further we get from the center.
Many aspects of humans are like that. There is a complex interplay of behavioral genetics, the fact we have the power to override preferences via explicit processing, beliefs, social pressures, cultural norms and more. And when you see that all of these lie on multiple continuums with varying probabilities; the matter becomes quite complex.
But the fact that such a complex system about which we know so little cannot currently be explained doesn't mean it is magical.
The moment you remove humans from nature, and set us apart from nature and natures laws while declaring our behaviors to be utterly insusceptible to explanation of prediction; although it isn't obvious, you are making an argument in favor of creationism for only by being created apart from nature, in the image of deity, could we be insusceptible to such analysis.
You are arguing against an argument I never made. I never argued in favor of biological determinism; what I argued was that there is an interplay between environment, social forces and biology. That is far from determinism.
Either way, the fact that I can't predict every single aspect of something doesn't mean I can't make good general predictions based upon what is currently known.
For example, I predict that providers put forward the best photos of themselves that they can, especially when their rates exceed the norm for their area. And I predict that even though there are likely hundreds of thousands of women with the exact same degrees so revealing their college majors would not identify them, fewer than 10% will list their college majors on their websites.
Do you know WHY I can predict that?
Because I know that guys like me who are ... attracted ... more by intellect than appearance are the exception rather than the rule; and any woman who wants to make money in the midrange of the market needs to cater to what attracts MOST men -- not the exceptions.
And if men can be predicted in aggregate this way, then so can women.
Granted, an individual man or woman can't be predicted; but aggregate behavior can be. If it couldn't be, advertising would not exist.
having checked out two of the articles you linked (the one claiming women are more attracted to men desired by other females, and the one on female mate selection), i have to say i am shocked that any member of the scientific community could give these "findings" any credibility. in the first, there was only one very small sample group of 28 women, within roughly the same age group, and likely from the same geographical area...not a reliable group with which to draw any remotely scientific conclusions. further, "researchers" of this sort very often take liberty to make connections where none exists. in other words, why is the assumption made that these women were more attracted to men simply because he is pictured with a smiling female? perhaps subtle changes in the stance or expressions of those men (inevitable because someone else is physically present) are what made them more appealing, or perhaps even the attractiveness of the females pictured made a difference...or about a dozen other factors which we will never know.
in the article on female mate selection, as both a woman and an anthropologist i was frankly horrified by the author's narrow-mindedness and grievous misinterpretation of the biology of mate selection, the reproductive drive, sex, and women as a whole. it was also poorly written, but that is just me being nit picky. here is one mind-boggling tidbit: "Biology takes into account that women all highly value and look for qualities of a monogamous caregiver. This means women at some point all desire a single mate that agrees to a exclusive mutual relationship." reading that actually made me lose some of my iced tea to the keyboard! lol. i find it amazing how this person is so certain of what ALL women desire, at any point in their lives. neither human males nor females are wired for sexual monogamy. further, sexual monogamy has no bearing on the quality of caretaking. i can very easily visualize the author picketing outside the local abortion clinic, fake fetus on a stick in one hand, bible in the other...just gave me the willies!
anywho, personally i have never been attracted to a man, any man, based purely on his physical appearance. i am incapable of determining whether or not an unknown man is attractive based on a still picture. this is not to say that i must know a man in order to find him attractive...not hardly. but i must know or perceive something about him...must see the way he walks and carries himself, hear his voice, have some feeling for how he interacts in the world at large. he must have those qualities which i identify with masculinity...strength, a confident/bordering on cocky air, a high level of assertiveness or even aggressiveness, no soft physical features. if a man gives off those vibes, then i will always be physically attracted. but it takes a bit longer than 200ms to pick up on those characteristics.
i care nothing at all about a man's material wealth, and in fact am extremely turned off by those men who introduce themselves by listing their possessions, annual income or net worth. disgusting. and i couldn't have less of an interest in whether or not a man i wish to be with is desired by other women.
on chemistry, i believe Funcooker summed it up best. it's a combination of many factors, most undefinable, which allow two people to just CLICK. i've experienced it with (prior to that moment) total strangers, with men i never laid eyes on (a naughty, blindfolded anonymous encounter), and with men i actually detested. it's inexplicable. but there's no denying it's power.
But sadly(yeah, right) don't have the time tonight.
Gotta feed the boys, myself, and get my lame ass hand to bed to get bitched out AGAIN!
Expect a POV when I get home tomorrow...
When I am to meet up with someone who gives the butterflies in my stomach a reason to be active. Someone whom i really wish to be pleased by and to please without obligation. One can never plan on chemistry, only relish it when it occurs. Chemistry comes into ones life so infrequently that i implore you to embrace it fully while it exists. I did! 