One of the time-honored debates in and out of the classroom has undeniably been the theory of sexual selection. Since 1871 when Charles Darwin first proposed that human sexual differences evolved based on sexual selection, it has sparked debate in classrooms, among theorists, and yes... even in discussions at the corner java café. Darwin's sexual selection theory states that specific traits such as mental, physical, and physiological evolved because they assist in the competition which occurs for access to preferred males or that they enhance certain attributes among the sexes to attract mates.
More recently than Darwin's time, phycology researcher David Geary has reinforced Darwin's theory of sexual selection to better explain the differences between men and women from birth, relationships with peers vs. friends, mating choices, and choosing a mate. At focus of Darwin's sexual selection choosing a mate has become the single most important decision made in one's lifetime.
What many people debate is at the core of Darwin's belief which basically theorizes the more men have to offer, the more valuable they become as a means of reproduction. For this reason alone men from every culture become more competitive with each other in achieving social status and wealth, which is a precursor to conflict. The women, in turn, also compete with each other and show this competition in the manner in which they adorn themselves or enhance their traits to make them more appealing to the male sex. They do so because they often degrade or manipulate these traits in other females to lessen the completion per amongst them for their more 'valuable' male counterparts.
So, if Darwin's theory of sexual selection is an absolute truism, are there really males that have superior gene pools and can be ranked according to genetic quality simply because they have status and wealth? And are women really competing for these specific males? And if so, are they always identifiable? And where does homosexuality come into play in relation to Darwin's theory of sexual selection. And what of the attraction we humans feel which leads to our desire specifically for one another regardless if we have 'genetic quality' or happen to be of the same sex? Darwin's theory must be disputed to some extent because of the females' evolvement in today's society. The female no longer needs or relies on a male for reproduction in the traditional role of male-sperm to female reproduction because of the possibilities science has contributed, such as in - vitro fertilization. Females who also no longer have to rely or seek out a male in the role of provider because of their independence from males (having their own status and wealth) greatly diminishes the 'competition' amongst males and females for sexual selection.
Certainly, the debate will continue as more research is compiled amongst males and females in today's current society. Undeniably, there will always be both supporters and opponents of Darwin's theory until there is definitive proof there is little merit his theory of sexual selection.