Male paternal investment.
You’re missing an ingredient.
A boner favorable female to male ratio is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for female beauty.
Due to the outsized spermatazoa-to-ovum ratio and the longer sexual market viability of men, you can never truly skew the female-male ratio enough. There will always be men who will give the less good looking women a throw occasionally.
Its not that given the choice of women, men only choose the most beautiful. No. Given the choice of women, men will choose all of them.
Even the ugly, fat woman was 18 and do-able once. (Especially in the evolutionary environment we’re talking with lower obesity rates). And that’s all it takes. She’ll get knocked up and pass on those genes.
What you need is an environment where women are dependent on men. This is most effectively imagined by food. If an African knocks up 50 women, its good for him. The women can gather food for her and the babies. He doesn’t have to see them ever again. An ancient Scandinavian does this, and all 50 women die on the frozen tundra with their fetuses and his genes die. They NEED him to win food for them because they can’t hunt or fish reliably and there’s no gathering to be done. (Now parlay this thought to racial differences in approach anxiety).
It is good ratio, but also male parental investment and female dependence that creates beauty.
Drearily for lovers of Truth&Beauty, the modern Western sexual market may select against the production of exquisite female beauty.
Nope. If anything, there’s a surplus of men in the West. Infant mortality rates have dropped, technology has brought immense comforts, wars of attrition are largely one-sided affairs now, and there’s been an effective elimination of male-skewed early deaths from hunting and disease.
Male paternal investment?
Retreating. Presumably it’s still an innate disposition in White Western men, but shocks to the functioning of the sexual market have incentivized a gradual shift to caddishness and delayed family formation, especially at the margins where there are men who could go either way (towards a dad or cad lifestyle).
Nope. This is the big one. As I’ve argued here before, female economic self-sufficiency like we have now in the West creates massive negative feedback loops in the Male Commitment-Female Commitment Worthiness relationship. And as williamK notes, female independence (in which women can feed, house, and clothe themselves) not only pushes women to emphasize fulfillment of their desire for sexy cads, but it pushes men to DE-EMPHASIZE their beta provider skills. Men don’t feel inspired to wife up self-sufficient women; men DO feel inspired to provide for and protect vulnerable women. And in en environment of female dependence, men will be careful to choose the prettiest women they can get, because they will be investing a lot in her. In contrast, an environment of female independence encourages men to spread their seed indiscriminately, because the pressure to provide for careergirl yaass queen shrikes has diminished.
Executive summary: The West is currently selecting against the efflorescence of female Beauty and selecting FOR the effluvia of female Ugliness.
Literally feminism means more ugly women and fewer beautiful women. Feminism is the ideology of Ugliness.
PS I have to disagree with one point williamK makes about men being willing to fuck anything that moves. It isn’t true. Like I’ve said before, I wouldn’t get carried away with this glib smear of male looseness. Eurasian men do have standards, which they exercise even when the have effectively limitless options in mate choice. Fat, ugly, and older women really do suffer a romantic and even sexual penalty in the modern dating market. So I’d amend williamK’s comment to say that a sex skew favoring men CAN be sufficient to move sexual selection toward producing more beautiful women, but that for maximum effect the emergence of widespread female beauty requires all three preconditions — female sex skew, male paternal investment, and female dependence.