No, of course humans have image recognizers. I just question that they come preprogrammed with a recognition loop for breasts. Obviously our image recognizers can learn after birth, that is, not all images we recognize are given to us by the genes.
It seems easier to me program reactions to smells, for example, as they are mostly binary receptors?
Also, coming back to the seagull example, I think there are no equivalents for faking beaks to faking breasts? A breast has to look fairly real to be attractive, it is not enough to just have a huge circle with another circle inside of it.
I think it is at least plausible that some fairly complex image recognition could be genetically determined. Indeed, the classic example of the seagull proves that pre-programming such circuitry is possible in animals with significantly simpler brains than mammals. I don't think it's such a wild leap that more complicated image recognition could be possible at birth.
At any rate, it's not even necessary that such image recognition be completely formed at birth. It can develop along with the rest of the visual system and other systems that are tuned for sexual attractiveness. (I'm ignoring breasts-for-food-purposes, the recognition of which is largely determined by tactile stimuli, mediated by the trigeminal nerve).
The article explains the level of image recognition that is available to seagulls from birth (i.e., genetically.) Basically, you can trick them into thinking beak-like objects are actually their mother's beak.
As for the question at hand, we have to ask what happens to a male who never sees any breasts before adulthood. Will he still find them attractive?
I seem to remember from school that the beak recognition is not very good, either. Just any big yellow thing would do - don't know about the seagull specifically, though. Also, they don't recognize if the beak is attached to a seagull or something else.
