I'm pretty sure you didn't read the post.

I'm sorry but choosing based on physical attributes has been a traditionally male role for thousands of years. Since the introduction of wife as property.
Empires kidnapped the women they found attractive and of child bearing age, men chose less hairy females with characteristics that indicated fertility.
You are forgetting rape is a BIG part of our evolution.
And women, have menses that they cannot control and don't posses signals like other species to indicate when they are ovulating.

In ancient Rome women of low intellect were preferred because the lower the intellect the the higher the number of children they would give birth to, for example.
And the women were owned by there fathers.
That is why women are considerably less hairy than men. If the women were the ones who chose we would have way bigger men in comparison to women.

Also, there is no indication that we ever had a matriarchal society.
So i would say the reversal you are talking about is women becoming choosier for the last 100 years or so.

This analysis isn't necessarily wrong, but it puts a little too much weight on choosing one strategy or the other in terms of optimization. The optimal answer is… both, simultaneously.

"Since when is it a traditionally "female" role to objectify men based on physical attributes?"

Objectification isn't the scientific term of course, but females use physical cues in female mate choice across species, humans in particular.

I've read it. I'm not sure that it has anything to add in reference this post per se.

I think I’m missing something. Since when is it a traditionally “female” role to objectify men based on physical attributes? It has been my understanding that both males and females use physical markers as indicators of the ability to produce healthy offspring. Moreover, these days we do see that men make mating judgments based on physical characteristics, but according to which data or hypothesis can we infer this is an increase compared to the past?

I have been saying for a very long time, that many problems would be solved if we:

-Perfected vasectomy reversal
-Mandated vasectomy at birth
-You would go to a clinic, post 18 (or earlier with parental consent), and at no cost to you, sign an acknowledgment that you are "loading the tubes" and get the reversal

Of course, this would likely cause a few problems as well, such as rampant promiscuity. That is, of course, until the great homeostasis was restored by the evolution of yet more sinister forms of STD.

When ever I think about the Victorian era I remember one of my favorite college profs (taught a Darwin class and a Darwinisms class, actually) who described that as the prudish era when women's sexuality decayed to 'Lie back and think of England'. I just looked it up, and it would be great (and terrible, really), if the source of the line 'lie back and think of England' is the following: I am happy now that George calls on my bedchamber less frequently than of old. As it is, I now endure but two calls a week, and when I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, close my eyes, open my legs, and think of England. (From Wikipedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_of_England )