Okay, I admit it. There is no evolutionary component to sexual attraction.

[RainDog]

21. Nevertheless

that doesn't mean they are without all of the cultural inheritance of tens of thousands of years, either. It's just too facile to go with all or nothing statements about human interactions, imo. It's going to be wrong, no matter which way someone goes with it.

If we know that, genetically, we are influenced by experiences of our recent genetic relatives (epigenetics) - then you would have to try to tease out how much of your response was because of your grandmother rather than your mitochondrial first "y" ancestor.

Obviously humans have the capacity to act like scavenging beasts - we see this during times of war - and those who are victims of war find themselves reduced to living in ways they would never do otherwise. But, because we have a propensity toward aggression in certain situations - this doesn't mean we will always respond with the same sort of reaction - i.e. hit back, for example.

I'm not disputing your claim that humans like to look at other humans - and humans look at humans they would like to have sex with more often than they look at others. No doubt in my mind. Both males and females do this. The way they do this, however - I don't know how much of that is nature and how much is nurture.

iow, basic needs don't describe how those needs are met.