…or is it objective?, and if so, is something wrong with me if I’m not attracted to what’s objectively attractive?

Here we go again, another reaction to an IG reel! What did Mith see on Instagram and get pissed off about today?! I should really just quit that Godforsaken app. — but then where would I get my inspiration for all these blustering blog posts?

With it being Lent, I haven’t actually been on Instagram much lately, but on Sundays we don’t fast, so yesterday I had the opportunity to indulge in some mindless scrolling. And while doing so, I stumbled upon the offending post, the subject of this little essay.

Tl;dr: OP was comparing the attractiveness of actors Henry Cavill and Timothee Chalamet, and trying to use them to make a point: that hormonal birth control, which is so ubiquitous among women these days, is affecting our perception of what is “attractive.” The OP pointed out that if a woman finds Chalamet more attractive than Cavill, her body is clearly not functioning the way it naturally should. Cavill is much more masculine, thus, the OP hypothesizes that if a woman finds Chalamet (who’s more delicate and “pretty” or even, some say, “reptilian” in his good looks) more attractive than Cavill, it’s because she is on BC which is messing her up and she probably “hasn’t ovulated in a decade.” Moral of the story: birth control is evil, and Timothee Chalamet is not hot.

OP is right: birth control is evil. One of the worst societal evils of our time, even. And it is doing bad things to women’s bodies and tampering with their sexuality. And, I agree: Timothee Chalamet, while incredibly beautiful, isn’t that “hot” — to me, at least. Regardless of how Mith feels, though, it is true that Cavill better exemplifies traditionally masculine qualities, so I get where OP is coming from.

So if I’m in full agreement with OP, why am I pissed off?

Because of the implication that failure to be attracted to someone like Henry Cavill means a woman is “broken.” OP is wrong; OP has identified a couple true things, but drawn an illogical, nonexistent connection between the two truths.

Keep in mind that I am no psychologist nor sociologist nor any other -ologist. But, I think it’s clear that “sexually attractive” is a highly subjective descriptor. Sure we can make some generalizations, like: most straight women like Henry Cavill and most straight men like Sydney Sweeney. But really, there’s a lot more to it, physiologically, than just “if you’re a healthy, functioning straight woman, you should like Henry Cavill.”

Don’t tell me who I should and should not find attractive.

Speaking as a straight woman who hasn’t been on hormonal birth control in fifteen years, and who’s had four babies in the last seven years, all conceived naturally, I can assure you that my reproductive system is working exactly the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, I don’t find either Timothee Chalamet or Henry Cavill that attractive.

Sure, I can see how they are both very aesthetically-pleasing and well-formed male specimens. I guess if I were single and had to pick one of them (which, me being a dumpy, lumpy, poorly-dressed, 2.5-3/10 white trash matron with cankles, it’s pretty hilarious to even imagine such a scenario, lmao) I’d go with Cavill, but, he wouldn’t be my top choice of celebrity; I can easily name like six to eight male celebrities more “attractive” than him. But so what? That means nothing to anyone but me. Sexual attractiveness is such a completely subjective matter.

People have all kinds of weird little preferences and peculiar tastes, in this area. Some things may be more popular, but that doesn’t mean someone’s broken for not liking popular things. If someone doesn’t like the taste of chocolate or pizza, would you tell them their mouth is broken? — well, you might, I guess, if you were trying to be funny, but you know you’d be wrong.

Now, some opinions are wrong. Some people have sexual preferences that are objectively bad, like pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Something is indeed very, very wrong with those people. Continuing with the food analogy, we might compare them to someone who’s afflicted with pica, the insatiable urge to eat non-food items.

But when we’re comparing the attractiveness of two healthy adults: it’s basically a case of apples and oranges. Some people prefer one or the other.

“But Mith,” you might be arguing, “You said ‘healthy adults.’ That’s the thing. Cavill looks healthy but Chalamet does not! Cavill appears hardy and hale, while Chalamet looks like a strong wind would blow him over. And it’s natural to desire a partner who’s in good health.”

Both true. Which is why most straight women will prefer Henry Cavill (I’m not sure where OP even came up with the claim that “most” women these days prefer Timothee Chalamet; I think it was just ragebait, because people are still pissed at Chalamet for his recent ballet comment). But like I was saying: within the parameters of moral acceptability, there’s no such thing as “correct” or “incorrect” opinion of sexual attractiveness.

“Oh sure, you’re allowed to like what you want, no one’s saying you can’t; but still: being attracted to someone who appears unhealthy, makes no sense from a biological standpoint. If you’re attracted to someone unhealthy-looking, something is probably wrong with you biologically.”

You’re not wrong that it makes no sense, from a strictly biological standpoint, to be attracted to someone who appears “unhealthy.” But does it follow that something’s wrong with you if you’re attracted to someone who appears “unhealthy”?

No! It does not! Because we are humans.

I think OP forgot to consider that a human being’s sense of sexual attractiveness is not just biological.

Humans are not like other animals. Hence, an individual human’s concept of “sexually attractive” is not simply a biological impulse (clearly; otherwise gay people would not exist), but is heavily influenced by both cultural norms and their emotional/psychological state.

Look at Venus of Willendorf. Back in old times, men liked heftier women because it was a sign of health and wealth: she could afford to eat well, and would survive the winter, bear many children, and etc.

Even among present-day cultures, there are variations. Compare mainstream white pop culture to hip-hop and rap culture. The former values the lithe and rail-thin look, for women; the latter seems to celebrate “thick” and “juicy” female bodies. Different cultures. I used to follow this aspiring rapper who was a white girl, naturally skinny as a pixie, like, most white girls’ dream body — but because she wanted to make it in the rap world, she intentionally gained weight and even (rumor has it) underwent surgery to make herself “thick.” Kind of blew my mind, as someone who envied her “before” body.

My mind is as warped as anyone else’s. I’ll admit that.

Here’s something most people in 2026 (myself included!) don’t want to acknowledge: for women, it’s actually healthier to be slightly overweight than slightly underweight! Ask your doctor if you don’t believe me. So if we’re gonna talk about sexual attraction being “strictly biological,” we need to ask why people think Victoria’s Secret models are the picture of “health.” True, a small percentage of women are naturally that thin (different body types do exist, and different people have different “resting weights”), and that’s fine; but in reality, for most women, “healthy” actually looks like approximately 20-50 pounds heavier than your average Victoria’s Secret model. Most women, when they attain the weight of a Victoria’s Secret model, will actually stop ovulating altogether, and become sick — so tell me how that size is “healthier” and “biologically ideal for reproduction”? A slightly-heavier woman is more likely to survive harsh conditions, to bear children, to not break any bones.

I think it’s plain to see that our perception of über-thin women as sexually desirable, results from a few different factors, none of which are “natural” or “biological.”

Let’s be honest. Men like skinny women because they are easier to physically control and push around — because it makes them (the men) feel stronger. It makes it easier for them. If you want to be the kind of man who can pick up his wife and carry her around, it’s easier to seek out a paper-thin woman than to get stronger yourself so you can carry a heavier one. So, it’s physiological; it’s the man’s emotional/psychological state, desiring to feel big and powerful and dangerous, so when he sees a skinny woman it excites him in a self-centered, “I’m a big tough man” kind of way.

Men (and women) also like skinny women because — modern-day Venus of Willendorf situation — it signals wealth. See a skinny woman: she can afford healthy food and leisure time to work out! It is natural, in a way, but distorted: humans want to go where we think there is abundance, we want to associate with winners. And in 2026, that’s how we have been programmed to perceive skinniness.

So there’s definitely an emotional and psychological aspect to our perception of “sexually attractive.” Isn’t it obvious? If sexual attraction were strictly biological and objective, then uggos like me would never get married!

So if a woman, for whatever reason, prefers a Timothee Chalamet to a Henry Cavill, is something “wrong” with her? No. I don’t think we can say that. Perhaps her sex drive is further removed from that of a soulless primate. Perhaps she’s more cerebral. Perhaps she has some kind of unconscious emotional baggage. Maybe Timothee’s face reminds her of something that makes her happy. People, and their motives, are complicated. But as long as she’s not desiring something immoral, then why is that “wrong”?

Sex and sexual attraction are not just physical, in humans. We’re not dogs.

I dunno about you all, but for me, if I can’t picture an emotional connection with someone when I look at them — some kind of emotional depth — I can’t get into them physically, no matter how beautiful they are. A clean, flawless, perfectly-symmetrical, textbook example of a “Hot Guy” is so uninteresting to me. (I’m not attracted to women, but I feel the same way about women: the really stunning ones, imo, are not the angel-faced beauties, but the ones who look a bit unexpected or imperfect or real.) I need a person to look a little real, like someone I, with all my weirdnesses, could relate to, on a “heart” level, in order for me to find them attractive. Maybe that makes me some variant of “demisexual” and I’m “queer” now and need a pride flag — I don’t subscribe to all of that, though. We’re all gross and messed-up humans; no need to slap a label on all our little sexual foibles and make them into an identity. I’m only mentioning myself to demonstrate that people’s preferences can be vastly different depending on their personality and disposition.

But I guess some people out there really are just moved by biology and nothing more. That’s cool. Those people are valid too. But let’s not accuse those of us who yearn for depth and psychological engagement of being “broken.”

“Breaking news! Local straight conservative woman butthurt about being told who she ‘should’ and ‘should not’ find attractive! — Hypocritical much?” Lol, I see what you did there, & that’s pretty funny; but like I was saying above: there’s nothing moral about finding Adult A more attractive than Adult B. “Should” is a word that carries moral weight. And thus we can’t say that someone should prefer to eat chocolate instead of vanilla. Because that’s not a moral issue. We can, however, say that they should not prefer to eat human flesh. Or asphalt. Or anything else that isn’t food. But as long as we’re within the parameters of moral acceptability, you really can’t tell someone what they should and should not find attractive. So, not hypocritical actually. But if you have any other, better arguments, feel free to leave a comment.