Both mating and sexual selection are fundamentally biological issues.

> they certainly have a poor track record, historically

Evolution: a biological explanation for a social phenomena with a poor track record, historically

Um, no? Biological explanations work great. Want to explain the social phenomenon of people going home every night? It's biology: they have to sleep. Want to explain why people smoke? They're addicted. Want to explain why grown up adoptees behave more like their biological parents than their adoptive parents? Genetics.

The parent is hinting at sociobiology. Similarly in biology, we have -nomics: trying to explain every biological phenomenon with genes. See Sydney Brenner's criticism on the latter as well.

I probably should have put 'explanations' in quotes, because I was thinking of the bogus 'biological' just-so stories that have frequently been advanced in the past to 'explain' why women should not or can not do this or that, and the alleged inferiority of various ethnic groups.

It is somewhat moot, however, as my comment is mostly about contemporary mores regarding the use of biological explanations (or 'explanations'), though perhaps I was not explicit enough. I don't know enough to have a definite opinion as to whether, or to what extent, biological explanations apply in this case.

Is mate selection primarily a social phenomenon?