Are tastes subjective?

>>1387543
Of course. And I can't remember what the substance is, but if you eat it, the taste of everything else changes.

>>1387543
Is there any proof of it I wonder

>>1387543
Not quite, in some ways it is very much so but in some it's very much objective instead. Take for an example Yogurt and sour Milk. If you would eat only yogurt for a month or so you would find Sour Milk to be sour and the opposite if you dinned on sour milk for a month and then ate yogurt.
The same for certain body parts. In some cultures and ages big tits are good and in some others they aren't, stuff changes.
Still, there are many objective markers, such as symmetric bodies and facial ratios resembling the golden ratio being seen as more attractive and sweet things being easier to get used to in your diet.
Hope that made sense.

>is something intrinsically subjective, subjective?

No OP, of course not.

>>1387543
Depends on your definition.

In the general sense of taste, all humans are instinctively drawn to certain things and turned off by others.

Almost no human actually likes the smell of decaying flesh.
Or the sound of a screaming child.
Or pictures of penises being cut off.

These are traits were are born with. They are then indoctrinated further into us as we enter society, and for a certain few can be blunted.

Essentially, instinct provides a baseline "taste" for humans. Socialization can change that baseline, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually enjoys hearing nails scratch a chalkboard or watching babies get tossed into grinders.

>>1387776
>>1388506
You're confusing objective with intersubjective.
Sharing subjective feelings does not make a thing objective:
Consensus ≠ truth

How could they not be subjective?

By nature they are subjective.