Now I have seen those studies that suggest that people are very widely (and across divides such as race, or personal ethnicity) attracted to similar physical attributes in others. The problem with such studies is that they assume these attributes towards the attractive are somehow a genetic, rather than a learned preference. Today a tan is considered extremely attractive and the very pale very unattractive. However one hundred years ago it was the opposite, with the tanned skinned associated with labor and the vulgar classes, so naturally everyone wanted to have what the upper classes had and to be pale in order to be more attractive. Narrow hips would have been unattractive in many cultures but predominant. So I think the entire analogy has to be reconsidered through the lens of time, culture, and psychological suggestion that lends us to believe that certain features are more attractive than others.
I often did not find typically handsome men attractive most of the time. I don't even think this is so uncommon. I had friends who were models and there would be times where they would get dumped for MUCH less cosmetically visually appealing women. There really is something else going on when it comes to attraction besides physical appearance--people often seek familiarity or comfort or something that causes a visceral emotional response over and above pure visual aesthetics. In terms of ease of finding constant partners it's true that it's easier for people with a certain visual aesthetic or regularity of features but it's not true that everyone's #1 preference IS such a person.
1) I don't think demandingness tells us much about what's true about morality (... if anything is true about morality, I guess). It's clearly relevant for what norms are worth establishing / enforcing, but that seems like a different question.
2) Appealing to demandingness / psychological difficulty doesn't seem to adequately engage with the calliagnosia hypothetical. If calliagnosia were easy to acquire and didn't come with psychological harm, then I don't think you've presented an argument against the case that it's morally better to get it.
Now I have seen those studies that suggest that people are very widely (and across divides such as race, or personal ethnicity) attracted to similar physical attributes in others. The problem with such studies is that they assume these attributes towards the attractive are somehow a genetic, rather than a learned preference. Today a tan is considered extremely attractive and the very pale very unattractive. However one hundred years ago it was the opposite, with the tanned skinned associated with labor and the vulgar classes, so naturally everyone wanted to have what the upper classes had and to be pale in order to be more attractive. Narrow hips would have been unattractive in many cultures but predominant. So I think the entire analogy has to be reconsidered through the lens of time, culture, and psychological suggestion that lends us to believe that certain features are more attractive than others.
I often did not find typically handsome men attractive most of the time. I don't even think this is so uncommon. I had friends who were models and there would be times where they would get dumped for MUCH less cosmetically visually appealing women. There really is something else going on when it comes to attraction besides physical appearance--people often seek familiarity or comfort or something that causes a visceral emotional response over and above pure visual aesthetics. In terms of ease of finding constant partners it's true that it's easier for people with a certain visual aesthetic or regularity of features but it's not true that everyone's #1 preference IS such a person.
I don't think I buy this, for two reasons.
1) I don't think demandingness tells us much about what's true about morality (... if anything is true about morality, I guess). It's clearly relevant for what norms are worth establishing / enforcing, but that seems like a different question.
2) Appealing to demandingness / psychological difficulty doesn't seem to adequately engage with the calliagnosia hypothetical. If calliagnosia were easy to acquire and didn't come with psychological harm, then I don't think you've presented an argument against the case that it's morally better to get it.