</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The apparent evidence suggesting that visual pathways are important in human attractiveness sorting is obvious from the success of the romantic leads in films.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Due to a lifetime of conditioning by pheromones. Visual input alone cannot elicit hormonal change.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />

I happen to buy some of JVK\'s hypothesis---generally mammalian biology has been more successful in explaining significant amounts of human behavior than psychology.

This requires a number of things:

1) humans who are visually more attractive made more and better pheros. This has to be demonstrated experimentally.


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

It has through studies of scent and symmetry, scent and genetic diversity, and ovulatory scent cues versus other menstrual cycle-related cues.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The obvious place to start is female waist to hip ratio which has a very strong and obvious cross-cultual preference. Basically, can it be unambiguously shown that fat chix make worse pheros?

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

No, but fat tissue converts sex steroid hormones, which means that fat chicks produce a somewhat different pheromone signature. Some men prefer fat chicks, most likely because of this variation in scent and its association with sexually rewarding experiences, which are less likely for some men who pursue only \"model\" figures.

\"Visual input as a proxy for pheromones\" is simply saying that the visual response is conditioned to pheromones. But it may say this in a way more people can understand. You seem to have a good grasp of the topic, but it would be nice if you would read my academic papers, which detail the studies that already have been done.