I didn't say that modern mating practices were pseudo-scientific - because those are cultural and have nothing to do with science. I said that evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience in that it rigorously studies bird mating, or mating in modern Western industrialized patriarchies and then globalizes those to the rest of the world and the rest of human history - which doesn't compute. Studying other animals tells us exactly zero about human mating - particularly when other human cultures that disprove your point are being ignored in favor of birds and beetle mating. 🙄 Oh, and btw, most birds pair-bond, but then many have a whole lot of extra-pair copulations, so there's that about bird mating as well.

The bottom line is that in many, many cultures and for most of human history, a woman having only one or a few mates didn't/doesn't signal anything that you are currently ascribing to it. I've given you dozens of examples of that. You've decided that's what those things mean and if you want to use them for mate selection, feel free - but pretending that is a universal or scientific is just a crock. It's not a global inference and only ever has been within patriarchies, which are widespread, but not universal. In egalitarian cultures, or matrilineal cultures, this stuff matters somewhere between a whole lot less and not at all.

Here's the thing, when patriarchy first arose about 6-9k years ago, it had to institute a whole bunch of new controls over women in order to ensure paternity. Prior to that time, most cultures were matrilineal - because it doesn't matter who the father is when you live in a small band of 50 people and taking care of each other and sharing food is your main survival strategy (the way we lived for 97% of history). Plus, how are you going to know when everyone is walking around in the forest all day who is copulating with whom? That's why you needed new controls with patriarchy - to better ensure paternity. But that only started in the last 3% of history. It's not evolutionary - it's cultural, and really recent culture at that.

Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially-hostile military incursions in which a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matrilinear, and matrifocal (but not matriarchal) cultures of “Old Europe” and replaced it with a patriarchal warrior society, a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains:

The process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups. Kurgan Hypothesis

Patriarchal dominance hierarchy systems spread because they were so disruptive (which is why this social system is so widely spread), but even if 85% of cultures now think it's important to know paternity that means for 15% it's not. That's not a statistically insignificant number - and pretty much shoots a giant hole in the "natural" or "evolutionary" assertions. It's cultural - plain and simple. If you wish to adhere to that culture, as I said, be my guest, but it's not the only real one or the only right one and women who don't wish to be constrained by it are not out of line somehow or going "against nature. "

And the fact that you can read about how common partible paternity is in South America, how polyandry has been and still is common in some parts of the world, and how some cultures could care less about extra-pair mating or children's paternity and still assert that needing to know paternity is evolutionary just makes me laugh. Clearly, you are more interested in what feels right to you than what actual real world dynamics indicate. OK, enjoy your little narrative. 👋