I have the inclination and the ability to educate you in human anthropology and evolutionary biology, but I have no desire to as you have no foundation for it.
As to the rubenesque reference, you will find that although human ideology on what constitutes being attractive for the female form has slightly varied throughout time, one of the constants has always been the hips to breasts to waist ratios. As to your unemployed garbage man/lawyer replies and laughable suggestion women find no benefit in men who will fight for their affections, a dissection would waste my time. I won't get into the benefits of higher sex hormones and their resulting influence upon physical appearance and other traits and the evolutionary success they bring, you will just have to do your own research.
I have read the methodology of the human newborn studies I alluded to. Your reply assumes many hypotheticals without supporting substantiation. Yours are discounted when I said WELL REGARDED and PEER REVIEWED studies..
As to "nature", and "natural", your suppositions are defeated by the dictionary definitions.
I know you haven't had any background of study at all in human behavioral anthropology, but if you want to fast track a foundation, try the Discovery Channel's and the Learning Channels "The Science of the Sexes" and "The Human Animal" by zoologist and anthropologist Desmond Morris.
As to the rubenesque reference, you will find that although human ideology on what constitutes being attractive for the female form has slightly varied throughout time, one of the constants has always been the hips to breasts to waist ratios. As to your unemployed garbage man/lawyer replies and laughable suggestion women find no benefit in men who will fight for their affections, a dissection would waste my time. I won't get into the benefits of higher sex hormones and their resulting influence upon physical appearance and other traits and the evolutionary success they bring, you will just have to do your own research.
I have read the methodology of the human newborn studies I alluded to. Your reply assumes many hypotheticals without supporting substantiation. Yours are discounted when I said WELL REGARDED and PEER REVIEWED studies..
As to "nature", and "natural", your suppositions are defeated by the dictionary definitions.
I know you haven't had any background of study at all in human behavioral anthropology, but if you want to fast track a foundation, try the Discovery Channel's and the Learning Channels "The Science of the Sexes" and "The Human Animal" by zoologist and anthropologist Desmond Morris.