There is a contradiction. In fact, several.

First: money which in your theory is considered attractive by women, has nothing to do with “gene quality”. You can have lots of money, but bad genetics. The usual example is monarchy. They did have money, mistresses and bad health due to endogamy.

Second: According to your theory, if a woman knows that the men won’t commit, they won’t have children with that men. And they did knew that unless they married them, that won’t happen (that was the societal norm). And usually it was the father who decided who their daughters married. With no input from the daughter. So at this point, once married, there would be no interest on having sex with what you call “high value men”. Since women were married of young, many of them as teenagers which people who like “evolutionary psychology” call “prime”. Being still virgins. And once married, they didn’t needed a “provider”, since they supposedly already had one. So no longer there was need or point of attraction. Can’t you see how illogical is your argument?

Many times bastards were the product of rapes. Others, because the father gave his daughter to a powerful men in exchange of favors. This was the case with many kings. There was a man who benefited from the transaction.

And then, you have the onew due cheating, that usually involved what you would call a beta in the position of the lover, not an alpha. I mean, that was what “valets” were sometimes for noble women. The young handsome men, who played music instead of going to war. But why look at history or anthropology evidence when you can repeat over and over the same while ignoring the actual facts? XD

I want to say that I have specially enjoyed the most irrational parts of your speech:

“the occasional hardcored sex that only a high-value man can provide”

hahahahahaha. Sorry, I know that you are supposed to be serious about it. But I’m afraid to tell you that no, many women aren’t into the “hardcore sex”. Porntube offers data about what men and women search and I give you a hint, it is not women who search for hardcore sex. XDDDD

“you assumed high-value men, because they have resources, are providers.”

No, dear. You are the one saying that what women look is for providers. If provider is not a quality of high value men, then that would mean that high value men won’t be successful getting women. Since then, women won’t be looking for “high value men” but for providers.

I pointed out your contradiction. Either women look for providers and “high value men” are providers and this is why they are getting sex. Or “high value men” aren’t providers and then, they won’t be getting women. Or women aren’t actually looking for providers and that is why “high value men” still get sex even if they are not providers. But the 3 are not compatible.

“women can destroy a man’s life very easily”

hahaha, how absurd. If that were true, rape won’t exist. At least not unpunished.

“while being able to be the few men that know as a matter of fact they have had more sexual partners than any women they could meet.”

Again, they aren’t providers, so according your theories, women would just ignore them. So no sex for those “smart men”.

“when women were being married off, the main deal that was being sealed is that the offspring would actually be from the husband and not a bastard.”

But just a few paragraph above you have said this:

“having a beta-male provider and getting the occasional hardcored sex that only a high-value man can provide.” → This would mean bastards in the marriage. Which is it?

“you are also going to experience soon what happens when all beta-male providers give up on working and become completely detached from society”

This is funny. XD You know, there are this stats about women going to college and working, and becoming single mothers using artificial insemination. And then, there are plenty of men who have no problem with this. And plenty of women perfectly happy with going to college, working and being the ones deciding if they want to have children or not, if they want to be single or with a partner. Then you have lesbians and polyamory. And of course, single mothers, that have existed since forever. It almost sound as if society have never cared about your “evolutionary model” and still works.

“due to women completely disregarding their evolutionary will to have legitimate offspring”

I don’t think you understand what the word evolution means. Evolution is about passing your genes. To pass your genes you don’t need that your offspring is legitimate. You only need that they live long enough to reproduce themselves. For evolution, a woman who has 4 different fathers for her children that gets welfare or is able to feed them until they can become independent, has already done her part. Children never knowing their father won’t affect passing genes. And I want to remind you that according you, women want “high value men who won’t provide”, so that would be plenty of bastards. So what is the evolutionary will, women fucking “high value men” who would give them bastards or having legitimate offspring? XDDDDD

“ill give you a hint: it involves going back in time.” I love science fiction, but I don’t miss the past. You are the one who miss the past. So not going back in time, better think of a better future. XDDDD

“it is what some would call: a periodical reset of civilization.” Why? We are happier than our grandmas. We are doing better. There is nothing to gain by going back to the past. Not even for all men, since the ones that you call “beta” would also be worse. Why we should cater to an annoying minority that has nothing to offer? And certainly, not to women.

“and it is being pushed full on even by women”

Which women? I mean, not the ones that men like you complain about all the time. Didn’t the men like you keep complaining about “modern women”? So I take those aren’t the ones that push for that. And then you have women from other countries that, when given the same options that we have, end divorcing their supposedly “high value” husbands too. If it was true that women wanted your “going back to the past”, you would only need to ignore us. But men like you keep trying to persuade women to change back to that, so I think it is clear that they don’t have the support of enough women.

“ when they change all rules to be emotionally-based rules too.”

It is nice that you admit that the women who push for “a periodical reset of civilization” are the ones “emotionally-based” and not the rational ones. Of course, that can also be applied to the men who push for going back to the past. They are quite emotional and I think you are such a good example of that. I mean, really, you full rant is an example on “emotionally-based”.

hahaha

No wonder why so many “evolutionary psychologist” are against women being educated. Lol