Arseholery is often a dominance trait - only dominant people are able to get away with it. If you are not far up the hierarchy you can't do it and get away with it. Someone higher up will smack you down. But the better looking a man is the less likely his arseholery is liable to be labeled arseholery. If he's gorgeous he's not an arsehole, he's a bad boy, or a rebel, misunderstood.
For a female, hooking up with a dominant male is better for her offspring's genetics and better for acquiring resources to raise those offspring. If you compare us to other animals through the lens of biology and evolution we aren't really that mysterious. However, there is a strong philosophical resistance to seeing humans as animals in both sacred and secular religions.
I have heard the objection (not in these words but this is the gist of what I have heard in discussions) that if we look at human behaviour as just animal behaviour then we are excusing peoples' (usually mens', actually) bad behaviour. This is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. I think it's better to see what you are working with and see what you can do with it rather than trying to make rules based on what is best for the winners (who generally have very little understanding about what it is like for everyone else). The devine right of kings was an explanatory framework for ordering society that seemed to work for centuries. I prefer what we have now, however imperfect. Thermodynamics may be offensive and upsetting to the perpetual motion and free energy people, but we've been able to build practical heat engines and refrigeration systems and other practical novelties by embracing it's basic reality. We could do better by acknowledging basic biology and evolution. It's not just the fundy Xtians who seem to reject that science.
