> 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?
The things they are talking about are proxies for being able to provide for one's children. Women need to survive child birth and raise a healthy baby (which required breastfeeding until very recently) hence so much emphasis placed on specific physical characteristics.
Women need men to provide for the family while they take care of the children, hence the emphasis on resource accrual.
Yes there are other options now, but they go against our evolution to date. They are also arguably not child-rearing focused and more along the lines of "providing for you".
Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring, which is exactly what you've said here in slightly different words.
So you've transformed my argument into the ultimate straw-man? Impressive.
What I've said is that we are (and have been for millennia) far more nuanced that merely following evolutionary urges.
Even the "desire for physical attractiveness" that we have today has little to do with "big boobs, lots of fat, she will endure and raise healthy children among snow, animal predators, and scarcity of food", to the point that it's not even much relevant anymore.
There are people who like women with small breasts for example, contrary to naive evolutionary-instincts conceptions. And all kinds of sexual preferences, even down to kinks, that are are adopted by tens of millions, and don't have anything to do with revolutionary urges and instincts. Including, of course, being gay, lesbian, etc.
Heck, at this point, the movies and star system drive our sexual preferences towards appearance, etc, more than evolutionary instincts. Fashion too.
>Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring
And I said even that's not related to fancy cars and suits for the huge majority of people.
Stupid crap to keep up with the Joneses is running me $1000 a month whereas a hooker is what, $200 an hour plus risk of jail time and disease?
Plus there is some inherent value in a nice place and a nice car besides showing off :)
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.