two concepts that people sometimes confuse:
> Sexual selection is not a subcategory of natural selection, as Darwin made very clear: it arises from differences in mating success, whereas natural selection is due to variance in all other fitness components.
in fact, they're so different from another that attracting mates often comes with a survival cost. if survival was the only pressure, male birds wouldn't have colourful feathers. it makes them easier prey. those are for sex appeal alone.
@thor better, it's a big part of the entire point, wasting energy and risking predation and still doing fine is a sign of superiority which is why that kind of sexual selection evolved in the first place. Peacocks are an extreme example of this, but also stag antlers. Fancy and incredibly impractical clothes like suits and cocktail dresses are the memetic version of this.
