These reductionist arguments about population propensities -- irrespective of their validity from an evolutionary perspective -- all ignore one fundamental fact. Population data applies to just that -- populations.

Cross-cultural factors influencing attractiveness and fertility are very well-established biologically. But they are only meaningful in terms of understanding population trends; moreover, their influence in a particular society is determined in large part by cultural constraints.

As a population, men favor fecundity and youth. As individuals, the majority of single older men in the U.S. (>45) find partners within their own age cohort. As a population, women favor men of means. As individuals, women in the U.S. overwhelmingly marry men of similar means and education.

I could go on and on, but a simply analogy makes the point. As a population, smokers have a much greater risk of contracting lung cancer; as individuals, a smoker's (or former smoker's) known risk of contracting lung cancer in the next 10 years varies from 1% to 30%, depending upon a host of variables (age, sex, packs per day, genetic factors, overall health etc...) In purely statistical terms, the probability of an individual smoker contracting cancer in a 10-year period is even more indeterminate -- he or she either will (100%) or they won't (0%)

Am I suggesting that smokers shouldn't be concerned about lung cancer? Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is that even when the variables are well-established, there is enormous variability in applying population statistics to individuals. The cultural variables influencing attractiveness and reproductive success are not only poorly understood, they are in many countries in a period of rapid transformation. When it comes to fertility and attractiveness, it would be the height of absurdity to equate biology with destiny.