Even Darwin recognised that females do not always chose the 'best' mating partners, counter to a commonly held conception (that women mate with the 'strongest' or the most 'willful' as a way of explaining why they mate with criminals, thugs, lowlifes etc), which is really a misconception. If females chose the most genetically viable mates, then they would fly to Novosibirsk University Park, or NASA, or Harvard University to copulate with astronauts, who are both physically fit and mentally sharp (being both fighter pilots and scientists) instead of copulating with criminals, or surfers or beach bums from Bali or Tunis.
Here are Franis Parker Yockeys thoughts on the matter, from his book 'Imperium':
p 116 (72)
Nor is Darwinian sexual selection in accordance with facts. The
female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest
individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other.
The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective - i.e.,
English, capitalistic, parliamentarian - for the utility of an organ is relative
to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of
hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over
the “millions of years” necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did
this process start? For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is
being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for
Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.
Actually all the technics of Darwinian evolution are simply
tautological. Thus, within the species it is individuals which have a
predisposition to adapt themselves that do so. Adaptation presupposes