What is worse...

Xev,
There isn't, but there's a reason to reproduce with attractive people. Attractive people, on average, live longer than uglier people. So if sex feels good because it is beneficial, then having sex with attractive people (people who have presumably good genes, or at least good environmental conditions) must be beneficial as it is pleasurable.
Pardon, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Fair enough.
Would you agree taht most things that feel good feel good because they are good for us? Of course there are limits, or drugs, but for the most part, stuff that feels good is meant to feel good for a biological reason. Likewise for things that hurt.

There's evidence that attractive people live longer. Regardless of why they live longer (societal implications?), attractive people nevertheless do. Perhaps that's why we find them attractive? We wish to reproduce with someone that is healthy and will love long. As sex is not just sex, but a mechanism to ensure genetic suvival of an individual, then it makes sense that reproducing with fitter individuals (in this case, attractive people) is not only advantageous but also more enjoyable.
 
Roman:
If you mean living long as in living past menopause, it makes very little difference.
How does the song go? "I'd rather flame out, than fade away"
Living a long life does not benefit one genetically. Having lots of offspring does, and since human females reach an upper limit around their thirties...

As for your argument, I see it but it doesn't work experience wise. We don't think of our genetic interests when we're coming. Nor is there any reason to suppose sexual satisfaction and looks are linked. Ron Jeremy is incredibly well endowed. Ron Jeremy is physically unappealing. I don't think it's much different for men.

It 'makes sense' that the earth is flat, but it's not so.
 
Neil Young: I’d rather burn out, than fade away.

Then add emperors line “with strength I burn”.
 
My bad… it’s really: It’s better to burn out, than to fade away.
 
Back
Top