I constantly hear bro-science about female hypergamy, and that women have always been choosers throughout human history.

This is, according to blue pills and reds, why women (regardless of their own genetics) only find a small number of men physically attractive and are always on the lookout for something better.

But what if they're wrong? If mother nature bestowed women with the power of social darwinism and bettering the genepool, it's ridiculous since women of "poor genetic quality" get to reproduce and pass their genes on anyway. It's a tautological argument with little to no basis to it.

It's done to evade what science is showing more and more: women are wired for forced sexual encounters. They learn to love the man who takes them after if the pair-bonding process takes place (of course this is obsolete in modern times since attackers are arrested and put away).

The most realistic theory to hypergamy would be that women are wired to submit to bigger, stronger or smarter/wealthier men. Since there will always be a man who outdoes you in these categories, and in evolutionary times this man could take your woman from you by hook or crook, women are wired to respond and what we developed later (monogamy and sexual assault laws)i s just a social construction to try and civilize this impulse.

Looking at human history and certain dark areas of female psychology they keep private out of shame (like what women masturbate to), this would actually make the most sense.

Here is a feminist sex researcher trying to rationalize it. She studied female genital arousal when exposed to sexual images, including acts of sexual violence: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?mcubz=1&mtrref=www.google.com

"Besides the bonobos, a body of evidence involving rape has influenced her construction of separate systems. She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.”

Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings. Thinking of her own data, Chivers speculated that bonobo coupling, or perhaps simply the sight of a male ape’s erection, stimulated this reaction because apes bear a resemblance to humans — she joked about including, for comparison, a movie of mating chickens in a future study. And she wondered if the theory explained why heterosexual women responded genitally more to the exercising woman than to the ambling man. Possibly, she said, the exposure and tilt of the woman’s vulva during her calisthenics was proc­essed as a sexual signal while the man’s unerect penis registered in the opposite way.

When she peers into the giant forest, Chivers told me, she considers the possibility that along with what she called a “rudderless” system of reflexive physiological arousal, women’s system of desire, the cognitive domain of lust, is more receptive than aggressive. “One of the things I think about,” she said, “is the dyad formed by men and women. Certainly women are very sexual and have the capacity to be even more sexual than men, but one possibility is that instead of it being a go-out-there-and-get-it kind of sexuality, it’s more of a reactive process. If you have this dyad, and one part is pumped full of testosterone, is more interested in risk taking, is probably more aggressive, you’ve got a very strong motivational force. It wouldn’t make sense to have another similar force. You need something complementary. And I’ve often thought that there is something really powerful for women’s sexuality about being desired. That receptivity element. At some point I’d love to do a study that would look at that.”