This review paper examines the evolution of mate choice and mating biases, focusing on four main models: direct benefits, indirect benefits, sensory drive, and sexually antagonistic coevolution ('chase-away'). The authors highlight the differences and commonalities among these models, emphasizing the importance of genetic correlations and evolutionary dynamics. They argue that current research is hindered by spurious distinctions and a tendency to treat models as mutually exclusive. The paper suggests that future research should explore the interplay between these models and their underlying genetic and evolutionary mechanisms. Key concepts include direct and indirect selection on mating preferences, where direct selection favors traits that increase female reproductive success, while indirect selection arises from genetic correlations between mating biases and fitness components. The 'Fisherian runaway' process, where attractive traits evolve due to indirect selection, is discussed, as well as the 'good genes' hypothesis, which posits that females prefer males with higher breeding values. The paper also addresses sensory drive, where mate choice evolves exaptively from pre-existing sensory biases, and sexually antagonistic coevolution, where traits benefit one sex but harm the other. The authors emphasize the importance of considering both direct and indirect benefits in mate choice evolution, noting that indirect selection can be as significant as direct selection. They also discuss the challenges of measuring the costs of mate choice, including the costs of being choosy and the costs of not being choosy enough. The paper concludes with a call for further theoretical and empirical research to better understand the evolution of mate choice and mating biases, highlighting the need for a more integrated approach that considers the complex interactions between sexual and natural selection.This review paper examines the evolution of mate choice and mating biases, focusing on four main models: direct benefits, indirect benefits, sensory drive, and sexually antagonistic coevolution ('chase-away'). The authors highlight the differences and commonalities among these models, emphasizing the importance of genetic correlations and evolutionary dynamics. They argue that current research is hindered by spurious distinctions and a tendency to treat models as mutually exclusive. The paper suggests that future research should explore the interplay between these models and their underlying genetic and evolutionary mechanisms. Key concepts include direct and indirect selection on mating preferences, where direct selection favors traits that increase female reproductive success, while indirect selection arises from genetic correlations between mating biases and fitness components. The 'Fisherian runaway' process, where attractive traits evolve due to indirect selection, is discussed, as well as the 'good genes' hypothesis, which posits that females prefer males with higher breeding values. The paper also addresses sensory drive, where mate choice evolves exaptively from pre-existing sensory biases, and sexually antagonistic coevolution, where traits benefit one sex but harm the other. The authors emphasize the importance of considering both direct and indirect benefits in mate choice evolution, noting that indirect selection can be as significant as direct selection. They also discuss the challenges of measuring the costs of mate choice, including the costs of being choosy and the costs of not being choosy enough. The paper concludes with a call for further theoretical and empirical research to better understand the evolution of mate choice and mating biases, highlighting the need for a more integrated approach that considers the complex interactions between sexual and natural selection.