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

[kcr]

121. According to who?

It is a fact that Marilyn Monroe would not have had the same level of success today that she saw in the 50s and 60s with the way she looked then. According to who? What do you mean, according to who? She would have had to starve herself and likely get plastic surgery to succeed by today's standards. Fact.

You are conflating people talking about the problem of these narrowing standards with people telling you shouldn't enjoy something. It's not the same thing. It seems you are aware that there might be a problem, but then you rationalize that there can't be much harm because it's just people blowing things out of proportion on facebook, and anyway, people are fat! And anyway, people want to look at pretty people so do no harm! What ever you have to do to convince yourself you don't have to hear what people are saying and feeling and experiencing.

But look at the pictures of models and actresses over time. There is a difference. It's not about telling people they can't look at people and find them attractive or what their tastes should and shouldn't be. It's about discussigng what's being marketed as the ideal and what everyone else should aspire to and how narrowing it to such a degree that it's difficult for so many to obtain is harmful. Why would it be so wrong for there to be more diversity in posters and magazines and on TV? In the movies? If other points of view weren't constantly dismissed, that would happen.