> At the risk of sounding dumb or right wing or
> something bad, I'm curious why it is crude or slimy to
> surmise that men might be biologically predisposed
> (not rigidly determined) to find apparently fertile
> women more attractive, or to test this proposition, or
> to discover that there is what appears be some
> evidence supporting it?
The problem with sociobiology is that it represents a particularly obnoxious kind of myth making that disguises itself as "objective science." There is nothing wrong with the proposition that mental or cognitive characteristics are biologically determined, the problem is how it is argued.
The particular argument in question is an example of the fallacy known by its Latin name as petitio principii - i.e. the argument resting on the assumption that is either not supported or a part of what is to be proven. Specifically, there is no empirical evidence that offspring of less attractive women have a greater chance of survival that the offspring of more attractive ones, or even that the former have more offspring than the latter. When you think about this proposition by itself, it appears rather ludicrous.
It start "making sense" only when you assume as valid the point that is being argued, namely that there is a connection between fertility and perception of beauty. Only when you assume that conclusion as valid, the assumption on which that conclusion is made rings true.
This line of 'reasoning' is frequently used to justify and legitimate the status quo and for that reason it is particularly obnoxious to someone who is cognitively predisposed toward left-wing weltanschauung.
Wojtek