[wyager]

Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.

[coldtea]

>Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile.

Being shallow is exactly that: being "evolutionarily sensible".

Unlike animals, that can be only (or mostly) "evolutionarily sensible", we have critical and self-critical faculties, and can see beyond what's "evolutionarily sensible".

And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has a fast car and a fancy suit, or the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".

>Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.

If they see the world as some kind of jungle where what matters is a partner who can "provide for themselves and their offspring" then they're not just shallow, but also regressive.

[wyager]

You are allowed to have more than one factor in your preferences.

> And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has ... the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring".

Which billions of people? Females? Yeah, they're typically not looking for milk production in a mate. On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures.

As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. (Although personally, I would place substantial value on a mate driving fast cars! I love driving.)

In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?