I love this topic, and this comment by @swamidass captures one aspect that is really important. I do understand why others resist the implication of “intelligent guidance” when discussing sexual selection, but I think it’s a reasonable way to think about most sexual selection. One big reason why (and yes this is a bit of a semantic point) is Joshua’s separation of ‘intelligence’ from consciousness.
Dan Dennett’s most recent writing is up for discussion elsewhere on the forum, and while I haven’t read it yet, I suspect it will address these kinds of concepts. A major theme of Dennett’s is his claim/observation that systems (not just biological) are typically made of subsystems that exhibit “competence without comprehension.” (Nice old piece by Dennett at the Atlantic on this.)
To me, it is reasonable to talk about “guidance” in contexts like sexual selection because agents and minds are involved, decisively. An animal might not “know why” it likes those kinds of flowers or that kind of mating call, but it “knows” that it likes those things and it makes decisions on that basis. Animals weigh costs and benefits, make bets, engage in displays and in deception, and they do these things using behavior generated by minds. The topic becomes more baffling when sexual displays and rituals resist (or defy) utility-based explanation.
I get why people don’t want to call it “guidance” much less “intelligent guidance” but the alternatives are uninspiring linguistic contortions. Sexual selection makes no sense without minds and decisions and preferences. At least that’s how I see it.