>>453127934>Biological anthropologist here.Still bound by societal pressures. FTFY.
>While woman are very fertile at age 19,20,and 21.Again, those societal pressures. Norms. Morality scales. Could have sworn females can get pregnant much, much earlier. My bad, I am not a westernized "biological anthropologist".
>having "childlike features" does not in any way fulfill copulative requisites to define a man's desire to reproduce with her.Here's a quote from a doctor's explanation on attractive features:
>In both sexes (although more for men than women) features that are typically associated with a baby’s face are deemed attractive. In other words, there’s an apparent preference for “cuteness”, which includes large, closely spaced eyes, a small, slightly upturned (or “button”) nose and a soft, rounded chin. These baby-like features signal nurturance and non-dominance—traits that men appear to find very attractive. Women find these traits attractive too, often because nurturance is a positive quality in a mate (4,9); however, women have a more significant preference for facial features which signal maturity, strength and dominance (11).Of course, you will fight these points because you have an already predisposed view of what constitutes a morally sound position based on your social environment.
Meh. Same religious-like thinking. Very human actually.