What are you calling pure conjecture?
1. “The articles in this issue summarize the factors surrounding sex differences with respect to ontogeny, phenotype, and hormone-sensitive actions. They follow a sequence that begins with genetic sex differences and carries through to cell, tissue, organ and, finally, systemic effects… — Naftollin, 1981
Obviously, the ontogenetic pathway to sex differences across phylogeny is gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system. (That’s an animal model.)
2. “The interaction between sensory input and hormonal levels appears to be a general rule in endocrine relationships underlying behavior.” –LeMagnen 1982.
Obviously, the sensory link from the social environment to hormones and sex differences in behavior is the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway. (That’s a summary of the data that fits the animal model).
By telling us that what’s obvious about this animal model is pure conjecture, you reveal that something has gone horribly wrong in the acquisition of information that led you to theorize (i.e., in other discussions on this topic) that culture has anything whatsoever to do with the development of human preferences for visually perceived physical features. I don’t know what the problem could be, and you don’t seem to consider it a problem. I don’t think there’s any point to continuing to try and reach you with a model in your world of theory. On the other hand, I don’t think I should let you make unsubstantiated statements (above) like those that you continue to make.
Minimally, I acknowledge your evolutionary theory (ies), no matter how ridiculous they seem. I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge biological facts — unless you simply cannot understand the difference between theories and facts.
