>>82156242
A bunch of things, but the overarching point was how well human - in this case, female behavior, and in the context of romance - can be tied to Darwinism. Everything about the woman's sexuality is brutally Darwinian despite whatever moralizing and virtue-signaling crap you'll hear them spout to save face - also a Darwinian quality by the way since the absolute worst outcome for a physically weak, dependent creature like a woman is to out herself from the community/tribe.
I think the most brutal pill is the dark triad pill though. Women select for dominance but dominance is correlated with evil. There is enough of a correlation between the two that women evolved also a preference for evil which is being used as a marker for the true trait which is dominance. Evolution said to the woman that it was better for her to tolerate a little bit of evil from a man in exchange for the protection his dominance provided rather than die because a weak man couldn't protect her and her genes in the form of offspring from tigers or barbarians. Worse yet, a similar correlation exists between kindness and weakness which need not be a 1:1 correlation to generate a disaffinity for kindness. We also see regression to the mean in that evolution isn't perfect so some women have evolved genes for men that can and often do kill them like general serial killers or women-specific serial killers which is why women send them love letters and men can't seem to understand why. Crazy, huh? Most women don't go this far with their bad-boy preference though which is where the "regression to the mean" part comes in because that's not only what we would expect to see from female serial-killer-loving genes self-pruning out of the gene pool but it is in fact what we actually see. It is a spectrum, but from the high school star quarterback jock that bullies nerds to the criminal biker gang member, most women like some flavor of mild to moderate bad boy. It's in their romance novels after all.
