Skip to content

How Women REALLY Pick Men

Channel: PsycheDepth
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdiltxv4dkM

The speaker argues that female mate selection is driven by evolutionary programming rather than social conditioning, and that understanding parental investment theory, sexual selection, and the genetics-vs-investment trade-off explains why women choose some men and reject others. All claims below are presented by the speaker as fact; they are reported here as his assertions, not endorsed.

Key points

  • Two evolutionary forces operate: natural selection (survival traits) and sexual selection (traits that get you chosen). They often conflict, e.g. peacock feathers or risky behavior reduce survival but raise mating success.
  • Sexual selection has two mechanisms: same-sex competition (men competing for status/resources) and mate choice (the selector, usually female). The speaker claims women are the primary selectors for sex, while both sexes select for relationships.
  • Parental investment theory: women face a mandatory 9-month investment (physical vulnerability, mortality risk in childbirth, breastfeeding) while men's investment can be one act of sex. This asymmetry is said to make women highly choosy and men less discriminating, especially short-term.

Cited studies and figures

  • College "would you have sex with me" experiment: ~3 of 4 men say yes to an attractive female stranger; 0 women say yes to an attractive male stranger. Claimed to replicate across cultures.
  • Three-requests study: women approached by men said yes at 50% (date), 6% (apartment), 0% (sex); men approached by women said yes at 50% (date), 69% (apartment), 75% (sex). Only celebrity/high-status men pushed women above 0%, reaching ~3-5%.
  • Intelligence minimums: women want ~65th percentile for marriage, ~60th for casual sex; men drop to ~30th percentile or lower for casual sex.
  • "Sex without love is okay": men average ~5.5/7 (agree), women ~3.5/7 (mildly disagree). Attributed to women linking sex with emotional connection that predicted male investment.

What women are said to assess

  • Standards barely drop for short-term mating; women allegedly cannot separate physical attraction from overall mate value, evaluating every partner as a potential father.
  • Below-conscious "genetic quality assessment" covering health/immunity (symmetry, deep voice, clear skin), intelligence/problem-solving, investment potential, and social dominance.
  • Questions about job, education, family, goals are framed as covert quality assessment, not small talk.

Trade-offs and preference shifts

  • Genetic-quality men (attractive, dominant, risk-taking, higher testosterone, less likely to commit) vs investment men (stable, reliable, agreeable, willing to commit). Few men combine both, producing a claimed "dual mating strategy."
  • Menstrual cycle: ovulation said to shift preference toward masculine/dominant traits; other phases toward kindness, stability, and commitment.
  • Social proof / pre-selection: women use other women's choices as a signal, so men already chosen or popular with women appear more attractive.
  • Dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) framed as attractive signals of confidence and dominance but poor for long-term partnership.
  • "Agreeableness paradox": highly agreeable men seen as less attractive; the claimed ideal is "selectively agreeable" (kind to allies, tough with rivals).
  • Age: women 18-25 said to emphasize genetic quality and excitement; women 25+ to emphasize investment, stability, and compatibility as fertility declines.

Culture, technology, and takeaways

  • Speaker claims modern cultural messages (casual sex empowering, careers over family) conflict with biological preferences, creating confusion.
  • Online dating and social media are said to expand options, increase choosiness, emphasize visual selection, and make outcomes harsher for average men.
  • Suggested self-development: build genuine health/fitness, real competence over showing off wealth, balance kindness with strength, demonstrate value through behavior, and target women who value one's strengths.
  • Closing claim: female choice is not arbitrary but evolved to select good fathers, and the traits women select for (health, intelligence, competence, strength, capacity to invest) also make a more valuable person.

Reception

  • Heavily engaged and largely cynical toward women and modern dating.
  • The top comment and a recurring methodology critique hold that the studies ask women what they want, but women act differently than they answer, so self-report is unreliable; one notes plenty of single moms "considered the 9 months" and still picked the wrong guy.
  • Common cynical reading: young women chase chaos/excitement and reject stable men, then try to return to stable "nice guys" later to extract resources; some conclude relationships are too costly and fragile to bother with.
  • A vocal minority leans further into resignation or grievance (giving up on relationships entirely, citing Andrew Tate), while a few push back on the prescribed self-improvement list as glib and unrealistic ("oh, as easy as that, is it?").
  • One self-described "average" commenter argues at length that you do not need looks or money, just leverage of female psychology (pre-selection/social proof) to change how they see you.