> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.

Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.

No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.

Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.

>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.

This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/

>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.

> No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.

It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time.

Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing.

There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.

Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men.

Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.

Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.

body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s