Nope, hot does not exist.
That’s Hollywood and porn brainwashing.
It didn’t exist fifty years ago.
There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.
That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).
Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.
Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.
Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.
It’s obvious with celebrities.
Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?
Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?
What are you being told to select by media?
The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?
The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?
There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.
Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:
Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?
I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!
Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.
I see it all the time.
e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.
Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?
At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.
Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.
We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.
But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.
This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.
In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.
“Hotness” is easier to market.
You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.
He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.
He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).
That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.
Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.
He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.
Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.
Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.
No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.
It’s like pulling up weeds.
Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?
Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.
He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?
That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.
*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.
Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.
Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.
So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.
It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!
There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….
You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.
This guy keeps lying.
You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.
There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.
Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.
This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).
Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!
He doesn’t tell you this.
It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.
Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.
The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.
This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.
He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.
Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.
They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.
Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.
Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?
Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.
I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)
True, they were lying, assuming the other could.
Women, on the other hand, always could.
Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.
I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.
If they’re honest.
An erection is a solid binary.
If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them
Men who can are called gay.
That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.
Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.
Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.
Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.
Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.
I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.
It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.
Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.
It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.
Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)
These people are so condescending and boring
They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.
He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.
Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.
Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).
Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!
It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…
You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.