Quote from: UCBerkeleyPostop on September 13, 2012, 10:51:32 PM
Basing "hotness" purely on who is the "prettiest"--especially since "beauty" as we know it is a hetero-normative, male construct--is oppressive, particularly oppressive toward many non-cisgender women who are just trying to assimilate, not be beauty queens. And it can be even more oppressive toward older non-cis women who realistically had no opportunity to transition in their youth.
That is why I--and others too--expanded the definition of "hotness."
Jeez, Berkeley, I had no idea that people were still peddling that outdated 70s gender-studies bull->-bleeped-<- at impressionable young minds. 'Beauty' is not 'a hetero-normative, male construct', it is a quality, a fact of life and it is distributed across the population in varying amount just like intellect, athletic ability or any other bodily or personality trait.
A gazillion anthropological studies have shown that the physical traits heterosexual men find sexually attractive in women, in terms of hip/waist/bust ratios, small (pseudo-infantile) facial features, etc, apply across cultures. Equally, the qualities women find desirable in men - height, broad shoulders, strong features - are equally constant. This has nothing to do with ideology. It's biology, basic Darwinian selection and it applies to all species. Males seek out healthy, youthful breeding partners. Females look for strong, healthy males.
Finding people hot because of the way they look is, literally, the most natural thing in the world and everyone - male, female, crossgender, bigender, gay, straight, bi, whatever - does it.
Plus, it's fun
