You picked a bunch of studies where the correlation is obvious.
You have still given no reason why there was a correlation in this study: For example, give me a reason I shouldn’t believe this study wasn’t just a few horny “researchers” trying to get laid. If you read the abstract of the study…they don’t even propose a correlation, or the corresponding reasoning for doing the study in the first place.
You did, however, bloviate and muddy the waters a lot.
You quoted a bunch of studies about mental health/addiction and attractiveness. It’s should be self-evident why those two things are related.
You didn’t address the topic and quote any studies about physical health and attractiveness. Furthermore, you didn’t quote any studies about female sexual health and attractiveness. Furthermore, you didn’t quote any sources about Caucasian female sexual health and attractiveness. Most importantly you didn’t give us a reason why this particular study needed to happen more than a different junk science study with dubious motivations.
Conclusions of the study:
“Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche.”.
PETA aren’t really environmentalists…they’re militantly pro animal.
What I get tired of is critics being lazy and just calling everything hypocrisy. Like…bitch…you don’t need to live in a cave to care about something in the environment.
PETA are annoying, and it’s easy to get all Incel about them…but what they want is pretty straightforward and nobody should be confused.
I’d say the hand…and leave it at that. It’s either AI - or trying to look like AI.
You didn’t make an argument. You just basically said “we can’t find out if they’re related unless we study them”.
I asked you to tell me why the study was done in the first place: what do we learn from the potential result? What potential scientific value did it serve? I didn’t ask you to filibuster me.
My hypothesis that the study was done to bring the researchers closer to attractive women is just as valid as any defence of the study.