Uri wrote:
I think there must be a biological or bio-psychological explanation as for why attractive ladies choose abusive boyfriends.
Most of the attractive women (95%) I know are in long-term relationships with perfectly sane men. If most women over 18 still prefered wannabe gangsters, wannabe skaters and similar people (the guys who et the most girls at high school) humanity would degeneate into what we saw in
Idiocracy in a matter of 3—4 generations.
Quote:
Women select mates for slightly different biological reasons. Because youth and physical health aren't essential to the male reproductive role, women instinctively favor mates with pronounced "alpha" qualities, the ability to dominate other males and bring home more than their share of the kill. The assumption is that male dominance ensures the survival of the family group more than youth or beauty. Thus a fifty-year-old chairman of the board - the human equivalent of the silver-backed male gorilla - is as attractive to women as a young, handsome, virile, but less successful male.
An alpha male is a pack leader; in our society the alpha men are few and far between and in a regular town, the alpha men are the charismatic priest that even atheists look up to, the guy who owns the local factories, the best soccer/NFL/whatever players (if they're in the elite series, that is) and the mayor.
I somehow doubt that alpha status is more important than looks, strength and so on, as the latter indicates a good set of genetics an offspring will need. Furthermore, being able to provide isn't important seen from a biological perspective (it's a modern phenomenon that arose with monogamy), as humans didn't live in modern day families the way we do until very recently. Take a look at how chimpanzees live, for instance.
An alpha chimpanzee is the first one who gets to mate (and the first one who gets to eat), but if one of the females would rather mate with a younger and stronger male (which isn't uncommon), he's gonna have to accept it.