I guess I can't argue with that.
No, my response was to the original poster of this thread who implied that if we prescribe a new norm for what "masculine" traits are, then women would stop finding the old masculine traits attractive.
If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
My argument is that just because someone has prescribed what masculinity is, doesn't mean that women are going to stop finding the old definition of masculinity more attractive.
Sexual attractiveness just doesn't work like that; you can tell people (and even get them to agree) what a man or a women should be, but that doesn't mean that they are going to find examples of that definition attractive.
I'd also say that
> If it were possible to change what people find sexually attractive all the efforts to "cure" gay people would have worked.
is a pretty flawed assumption.
Even if we assume sexual attraction is purely based on experience/environment that does not imply that the techniques attempted by the various gay conversion "therapies" would be successful in changing it.
I believe I'm the poster in question and I didn't mean to imply that. What I did mean to imply is that masculine traits that elicit desire are viewed through a cultural lens.
If "reliable" or "competent" or "virile" are attractive to women, the ways of signaling that can change over time.
Not finding desirable the traits that you think are masculine traits does not mean that they do not find masculine traits desirable. It just means that what you think is the masculine traits, is wrong.