I assumed that was more directed at arranged marriages and less raping.
Little bit of both.
A marriage being arranged just offloads the pickiness to the woman's ancestors.
Specifically, the male ones.
It's practically the same genes guiding the choice.
Except that it's the MALES with those genes guiding the choice. Which sort of invalidates the "this is why women do it that way" argument.
Look at gay communities: research on gay men (there isn't really any good research on lesbians) shows that gay men have way more partners than heterosexual men, and we can probably attribute this to the fact that they don't have to worry about pregnancies and men like to have sex, so it seems to make sense that having two men in a sexual encounter would mean more partners too.
I'd argue that it's just more grist for the "men are less picky" theory. (Or I guess that's probably what you mean by "men like to have sex".)
...and just to reinject some silliness into what HAS become rather a lot of pseudointellectual nonsense, a recent conversation I had:
: It sure is a lot harder to meet women than when I was in college.
: You should try dating men. It's a lot easier.
: I can't help being straight. I was born that way.
: It's a DECISION, Thad. I'll pray for you at my gay church.
Anyway, moreover, there is pickiness in mate selection and there are universal traits that people as an animal find attractive. The most important trait that people AND any other animals find attractive is symmetry. Symmetry, facial symmetry mostly in humans, implies good genes and better quality sperm. This is a universal thing. You show a ton of people several faces anywhere, and they will find the symmetrical faces the most attractive. Also, smiles are attractive. People like smiles. Everywhere. I can't remember any other qualities right now other than the two, but I know those are universal across cultures.
This is true; there ARE traits that are considered attractive regardless of culture and background and can safely be described as products of (biological) evolution.
But, steering this thread back on course (after a multi-page tangent that I admit I am entirely responsible for), as you said a few pages back, weight isn't one of them. I mean, all right, at the extreme end of the spectrum, the morbid obesity side, there IS a weight class that presumably would turn most people of any cultural background off. But short of that, views on what constitutes a good body shape vary quite a bit from place to place and time to time (your Fiji example and my much-less-scientific Rubens example).
...which brings us to...well, nothing, really, because at this point I'm just recapping things we said earlier in the thread.
But I DO think they bear repeating, so, just to summarize one more time: modern American standards of beauty are not representative of all cultures' or all eras', and therefore can't reasonably be described as products of (biological) evolution.
At least, on the subject of weight. On stuff like facial symmetry and smiles, yes, you're totally right, they absolutely can.
