zlacker

There would appear to be two poles of explanation - that either the media is reflecting desires and not influencing it, or that the media is influencing desires and not reflecting them - or somewhere in-between.

The reflection of biological reality appears easier to justify: that men remain fertile for longer, that the attractive qualities that women care about most (e.g. wealth and personality) tend to improve with age; and that a women's attractiveness is most tied to her skin, which we all know shows aging the most on the body, and is a sign of her reproductive health or ability.

I'm not sure what the argument for the media being able to influence males to the extent suggested would be? Older men were marrying younger women before the printing press, so where did this pressure originate? And what is its mechanism of action?

>>brigan+(OP)
I'm not saying media is influencing this; this preference clearly showed before media! The media here clearly reflects a preexisting preference, but in my opinion, it also makes the world worse for old people, especially women and actresses.

I'm saying media could be changed from this tendency, since this preference is less relevant in modern society and it hurts actresses. Media is a human construct that can be adapted to new needs, it's not a tool of natural selection!

Changing media wouldn't change the sexual preferences of men, and nowhere am I arguing this. It's like inclusivity in media -- is it ever going to eradicate racism? No, but it will make the world a tiny bit fairer.

>>the_af+dt
I agree that falling back on "it's natural" can be a poor excuse, mainly because humans have the power and intellect (maybe not intelligence, but I digress) to change even what is considered nature, but I'm also not for social engineering, and I've seen such a wild increase in social engineering in media over the past 15, maybe 20 years, that I'd err on the naturalistic side now.