>>164232116>>164230980>>164231169>>164231431>>164231706Female attractiveness is normally distributed.
Male attractiveness follows a right-skewed normal distribution.
Skewed selection curves arise when the incremental cost is far less than the marginal risks. You see this in armored fish, where the average fish has far more armor than the median fish. Expending energy into making and maintaining armor and the decreased freedom of movement negatively affects fitness but the risks of death by predation from insufficient amounts of armor. So some fish produce way too much armor because the population genetics force the fish to risk producing too much armor rather than not enough.
Human women in the past risked a 5% chance of death to carry a child with a 50% chance of surviving to reproductive age. The marginal risks of being attracted to a man were very high but the incremental cost of holding out for a man better than yourself were relatively low.
So women are genetically programmed to hold out for above average sexual partners to compensate for the 5% risk of death they face from pregnancy. They need a partner of higher fitness than themselves to give their own offspring an equal chance at reproductive success to themselves.
Women are not delusional. Female perception of male attractiveness assigns very high values to the most attractive males, making the median male to be unattractive and the average male to be in the 87th percentile, and making most men unattractive.
This also explains why the most attractive women are not as reproductively as average women. They're holding out as they are programmed to do but they will get underbid by less attractive women who out easier. A girl who is +1 SD holds out for a guy who is +2 SD. She's a 1/6 girl (84th percentile) holding out for a 1/50 guy (98th percentile). She is waiting for him to ask her out but multiple 1/2 girls (50th percentile) are begging to be allowed to suck that guy's dick.
