>I'm assuming reproduction is not part of the equation, so that removes
>the classical "pickyness" of does he have a good job, good looks, etc.
>The thing that seems to remain is the unknown of "is this guy likely
>to be a good lover?".
But what I am saying is this doesn't make any sense. A guy is likely to be a good lover with a particular person if he and the other person respond to each others ideas and understand each other in general not because it's 'nicer' to have sex with your friends but because you can't possibly have good sex without good communication. The partners have to have their needs understood. If people on the panel were understood by a person that has nothing to do with whether the person would understand YOU. It is not just a matter of being smart or speaking the same language.