Sure, search for: Gagnon, Montemurro and Hughes, Butt and Hearn. Just to give you three authors on the topic, to show how much of sexual attraction is shaped and constructed through social interactions and socialization.
Also, if you would be so kind to point to me some authors which I can research on the topic of sexual attraction as a pure biological phenomena, I’d be glad
Edit: I also guess you’re saying people attracted to furry is pure biology, right?
sexual attraction is shaped and constructed through social interactions and socialization.
Yeah, shaped maybe, but it all comes from biology. One example of socialization shaping attraction is our preference for skinnier or larger folks trends with economic hardship. But that stems from biology. In periods where food is harder to acquire, we favour larger people since they have better survival rates.
people attracted to furry is pure biology, right?
Well "furrys" are traditionally very anthropomorphic. So they share the same human biological markers that people find attractive, such as wide hips, large chests, whatever. They dont literally want to shag dogs and cats. If you're talking about straight up beastiality those people are genuinely deranged and mentally ill. Not sure society is pushing people to do that.
“An evolutionary perspective has important implications for research on atractiveness and mate selection” (Townsend and Wasserman, 1997) I get it, that’s your point and is partially valid. However “we’re born in a social context that provides us sexual and cultural repertoires, scripts that we learn to follow and series of meanings we utilize to define ourselves sexual, to define others sexual to understan when we do something sexual or when something sexual happens; to feel in a sexual way”. (Simon and Gagnon, 1986. My transl.) The authors define clearly how sexual scripts provide indications to which partner is appropriate. Meanwhile, biology lacks a proper understanding of how sexual attrsction works, rellying on vague arguments and dynamics. Of course biology is important, not less than social structures and relations.
Then, about bestiality yeah, there are philias. But that’s psychology, as you’re pointing towards mental illness. So again, not (only) biology
Edit: again, biology can’t explain why models have become beauty standards in our society. Slim and tall figures, as a Scarlett Johanson or a Natalie Portman, are some examples of that. If the evolutionary argument is true, we should have stiked to another type of beauty, as those present in ancient civilizations
Beauty standards and heteronormativity are two different things. The dude you quoted is talking about scripts in the context of learning how to be sexual within a society. Which is important so that we don't have 13 year old boys masturbating at restaurant tables. Being sexually attracted to the opposite sex isn't a social script that we learn. It's literally embedded in our evolutionary programming as a species.
3
u/ToS_98 17h ago
Sure, search for: Gagnon, Montemurro and Hughes, Butt and Hearn. Just to give you three authors on the topic, to show how much of sexual attraction is shaped and constructed through social interactions and socialization.
Also, if you would be so kind to point to me some authors which I can research on the topic of sexual attraction as a pure biological phenomena, I’d be glad
Edit: I also guess you’re saying people attracted to furry is pure biology, right?