Um. if the "heterosexual male romance" angle is essential to this story, then it's heterosexual dating advice, and LessWrong is not a dating advice site. So lukeprog should stop posting about it.

How does this follow? Why is it okay for lukeprog to post dating advice which are independent of gender-orientation-independent, but it's not okay to post advice which are dependent on gender-orientation? You may argue that the former interests more people, but that's just a difference in the number of people that may be interested, not a qualitative difference.

I doubt you believe that all rationalists must be by necessity bisexuals.

Rationality (y'know, core focus of this site?) does not, to my knowledge, care whether I am a heterosexual male

First of all, is this sentence supposed to actually mean something? What would it mean for "Rationality" to "care" about your orientation, as opposed to "rationality" not caring about it?

Secondly, if anything, rationality means that you care about the elements that are relevant, and you don't care about the elements that aren't relevant. You've still not argued that sexual-orientation wasn't actually relevant to Lukeprog's story. Don't you think it would affect, for starters, whether he would seriously break up with someone and argue it's because they lacked evolution-promoted fitness markers?

I will also point out that Alicorn managed a relatively gender-free story, by focusing on the rationality and internal aspects, rather than on dating advice and "how to get a girl".

And I will point out that Alicorn is bisexual, so gender would be less relevant to her criteria than to lukeprog's. But hopefully not everyone needs be bisexual, for their existence and experiences to matter.

Um, [...] y'know, core focus of this site?)

I can recognize verbal signals of implicit condescension, so do be a bit careful over those.