[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone has claimed that culture doesn't play some small difference. Obviously different cultures find slightly different things more or less beautiful. OP asked which was "more" responsible. To me it's pretty clear that culture's role is pretty insignificant and anyone thinking it is critical is just taking biology's role for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Small" is relative. There are women whom you find super-hot whom you would be completely turned off by given a different environment, and vice versa. That seems pretty "large" to me - obviously it's a bit "small" if your basis for comparison is women with three noses (who probably could be attractive based on environmental concerns), or fish, or protozoa, or rocks. Hell, given the level of variance involved in sexual preference, I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually are attracted to rocks - there are definitely those who are attracted to fish, and whether that's genetic or environmental is anyone's guess.

But that's irrelevant.

The important thing is that neither genetics nor the environment have any meaning independently. Asking which is "more responsible" for a given trait is like asking which factor in 5x15 is "more responsible" for the product of 75. You're basically saying, "if I take one away from 15 then I get 5x14=70, but if I take one away from 5 then I get 4x15=60, and 70 is close to 75 than 60 so obviously the 5 is more important than the 15." A well-constructed argument, and well-expressed, but also nonsensical.