Short answer -- because they can.
@JP - Yes, but there is a more fundamental reason.
Interesting idea and very different from much of what you read in the androsphere/reactionary websites.Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost has written quite a bit lately about sexual selection among tropical peoples vs. temperate peoples. I wonder if there’s a difference in frequency of parental sexual-selection between tropical and temperate peoples. For one thing, there would need to be a strong family structure present in the first place for parental sexual selection to operate.
@BB - "very different from much of what you read in the androsphere/reactionary websites."Yes, it is, isn't it... They make the very foolish error of assuming that how people behave now is indicative of their fundamental nature - whereas how people behave now is the most psychotic and maladaptive in the history of the species. "I wonder if there’s a difference in frequency of parental sexual-selection between tropical and temperate peoples."Yes, for sure. When there are genetically separated populations subject to different environments, differences are to be expected. In this instance the economic situations are very different - for example when women raise children without much paternal investment, and when child mortality is due to disease rather than starvation, one would expect a polygynous system where men compete - by fighting and in other ways - to be one of a few men who get most of the mates and matings. But in societies where disease deaths and violence are lower, and famine is endemic (eg East Asia) and paternal investment is necessary to raise children, a different kind of man would be selected - a breadwinner type. Africa seems to be the exception - and until recently had a very low density of population - due to the massive mortality from diseases like malaria - even among the local, adapted population (before modern medicine, setting foot in sub-Saharan Africa was usually fatal to Europeans).
"this kind of preference is highly likely to be a contingent and ephemeral cultural artefact"The studies which show those preferences going up during ovulation need to be explained.
"They make the very foolish error of assuming that how people behave now is indicative of their fundamental nature - whereas how people behave now is the most psychotic and maladaptive in the history of the species."No. The fundamental nature of people does not change that much. Or rather, it may change slowly due to natural selection pressures and is heavily influenced by genetics. What changes more in the shorter term is how that nature manifests itself in different environments and circumstances. Some situations can bring out the worst in people, but it does not create that nature from nothing. If you want to know the true nature of anyone, give them a high degree of freedom and/or power and see what they do with it. The current environment is one where women have a greater amount of sexual and personal freedom and autonomy than in most other times, so it is a useful experiment to assess the nature and preferences of women.
@Mis - You are correct up until the last paragraph. How can it reveal the 'true' nature of someone to put them in an evolutionarily unprecedented environment? That's like saying that animals revela their true nature in a zoo. Plus, modern women are not 'free' - they are subject to historically unprecedneted levels of evil (i.e. anti-goood) propaganda from the mass media and the bureaucracy.
I don't really understand the notion that because women's marriage partners were largely decided by their parents in the past, this therefore discredits the idea that women are naturally attracted to men with dark personality traits. If anything, it explains how women's psychologically evolved preferences in this regard have not changed as much over time. Women did not really have the chance to evolve and change their behaviour and preferences, as the decision was taken out of their hands. A lot of the traditional customs around courtship and chivalry towards women were developed at a time when the main purpose was to gain the permission of a young woman's parents in order to marry. Being considerate, gentlemanly and nurturing towards women is a good way of gaining the approval of her parents. But it is not a very good strategy for gaining the affection of the woman herself. A lot of wasted time and energy could be saved if men were taught the true nature of women from the start. My main objection to a lot of what is promoted by the Game/manosphere/Red Pill types is that they are very much 'one trick ponies'. The only real insight they have into the human condition is that women are naturally attracted to men with dark personality types. Yet on a whole bunch of other areas they often offer ineffective advice to impressionable men. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Of course if the mainstream of society didn't go to such lengths to suppress the truth and promote comforting lies, these characters wouldn't have an audience to begin with.
"You are correct up until the last paragraph. How can it reveal the 'true' nature of someone to put them in an evolutionarily unprecedented environment?"Because you can assess how their nature and evolved psychology leads them to adapt or adopt different behaviours in different circumstances. Besides, the environment or society does not simply come from nowhere or is artificially imposed. It is heavily influenced by the evolved behaviours and genetics of the population. "Plus, modern women are not 'free' - they are subject to historically unprecedneted levels of evil (i.e. anti-goood) propaganda from the mass media and the bureaucracy."I will grant that neither men nor women are free in most respects. Yet women can be said to have a lot more freedom and agency in today's society at least in the area of reproductive rights, sexual choice etc. So it is worthwhile to look at what they do with those particular prerogatives. It is true that women are subject to a lot of evil propaganda. And it is true that movements like feminism were always largely elitist manipulations to divide and undermine society, rather than genuine grass roots movements. Yet these tactics would not have worked were it not for particular psychological dispositions of women that made them vulnerable to such things.
@Mis - Sexual attraction is something that evolved, it is an adaptation - in other words it is a kind of ability: the ability to be attracted to partners that lead to optimal/ improved reproductive success (on average, and in the ancestral environment). To evolve an attraction therefore needs a reasonable stability of significant selection pressure. What you are calling 'dark' traits is a mangled version of the 'good genes' traits - which are traits that are associated (in a particular species and a particular environment) with a low mutational load - akin to a peacock with a high quality tail, or a stag who can beat (or intimidate) all comers in fights. We need to look at the exceptions - the antidote to modernity is traditional (patriarchal) religion - this renders even modern women substantially immune to the maladaptive traits of modernity. THE most maladaptive trait of modernity is, obviously, voluntary sterility (childlessness) - which is commonest among the most intelligent and highly educated and secular/ left wing women. I have lived through the sexual revolution, and the rate of change (for the worse) in women's behaviour has been astonishing. One factor has been alcohol - most seriously maladaptive behaviour among women is under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol removes powerful inhibitions on promiscuity. In those religious groups which do not allow alcohol - promiscuity is much less of a problem because sober women are *much* better behaved - even if their intentions are bad, they find it hard to make themselves live-down to current standards. But intoxication is not a revealing of true human nature - it is a distortion, and introduces new elements which are otherwise absent. But, if you search 'mutation accumulation' and 'mouse utopia' on this blog, you will see that I believe that modern populations have experienced considerable mutation accumulation over the past several generations - so many of our subtle social and sexual adaptations are impaired. This probably affects (some) men more than women (because that is usually how things are in biology - a greater variance among males) - but will surely have a part to play in increasing generally disorganized and irrational behaviour across the board. So modern humans are genetically impaired - but again, this is not a truth of 'real' human nature - rather it is a loss of distinctive adaptations, and a change (a dysgenic change, reducing genetic quality) of human nature.
I am a regular reader here and I agree with a lot of your hypotheses regarding the effects of dysgenic reproduction. But I'm not sure if that is closely related to factors such as women's sexual behaviour. I agree also that a return to patriarchal religion is really the only thing that can control female sexuality. Although I personally have not been involved with organised religion for a long time, and have long tended more towards New Age spirituality. Yet I recognise that more traditional Christianity is probably necessary as an organising principle for the majority of the population."THE most maladaptive trait of modernity is, obviously, voluntary sterility (childlessness) - which is commonest among the most intelligent and highly educated and secular/ left wing women."This is partly due to the fact that reproduction is fairly dysgenic for women, but slightly eugenic for men. On average, lower intelligence women have more children than higher intelligence women. Women tend to be hypergamous, in that they are attracted to male partners with higher status than themselves. Measures to promote women simply further upset the balance of the sexual market. The increase in female promiscuity is largely linked to incentives and risks. In a world of legal abortion, contraception, increased social acceptance and support for single motherhood, increased enforcement of obligations on absent fathers etc., the downside risks of female promiscuity are fairly comprehensively 'insured' by society. Indeed, I would argue today that casual sex is more risky for men than it is for women. Moreover, in such a world it is much easier for women to indulge their attraction for badboys and ignore the boring, dependable types.