You are grasping at straws. My original comment was in response to this statement: "Just like the fact that women are wired to seek out a mate who they can have children with and provide the greatest security (i.e. physical, financial, etc.) for their family." To that, I responded with the fact that this is a rather recent phenomenon which only came about with the onset of patriarchy about 6-9 K years ago (something that I then further amply supported). You disagreed with that based on the assertion that other species display the same traits as purported by the guy I responded to. However, not even all primates display those exact same traits. Bonobo societies are ruled by the females and they copulate all day long with anyone who isn't their own son and macaque females mate with 10 or more males in rapid succession. I linked you stories to support those assertions.
So, besides the fact that we are quite different from non-human primates in many other ways (something that I quoted to you as being seen as central to human evolution), there are many, many current human cultures that don't operate that way today where there is only one mate/provider per female. Aside from the not strictly monogamous angle in a lot of cultures, in many current hunter-gatherer tribes, the women provide about 60% of the sustenance for the group, sometimes participating in hunting, which is then shared communally, and this is also how humans lived up until the advent of patriarchy, just a few thousand years ago. This "man the provider" thing is a really recent notion that doesn't even take place in cultures that don't have a history of plowed agriculture. Something else that I provided supports for.
So no, women haven't always sought out the best provider, and in humans, genetic competition takes place after coitus, not before (at least until patriarchy). "Contrary to what you’ve probably been told, that isn’t through mate competition prior to the act, it’s through sperm competition from a variety of inseminators. The coronal ridge on the human penis is designed to scoop out semen left there from other genetic competitors. It wouldn’t be necessary if that competition had already taken place prior to coitus. And because you don’t want to accidentally scoop out your own semen, it’s typical for men to become flaccid after ejaculation and to need that refractory period before they can go again." In addition, the human cervix is designed to sort semen from several men and to weed out that which is inferior, genetically incompatible, or otherwise undesirable. Why would any of that be necessary if we were exactly like gorillas?
And by the way, gorillas have tiny testes and a penis about the size of your pinky. That's because they fight for mates before mating takes place, the complete opposite of how humans evolved to mate.
"But among promiscuous species like chimps, bonobos, and—surprise!—humans, the battle takes place among sperm cells rather than individuals. (Ryan and Jethá hypothesize that humans became monogamous only when they started owning property and needed a way to determine inheritance.) Among species in which many males have historically copulated with many females, natural selection favors large genitals with ample reserves of hard-swimming sperm." (like humans have).
Your assertions (and his) are demonstrably wrong. Here’s some more to support that, just in case you haven’t had enough:
“This contribution to the survival of the group was integral and would have made ancient women a vital part of the band or tribe — not as has been depicted in our cultural imagination, largely passive homebodies tending to children and hearth while the men went out to provide. In fact, that isn’t an actual dynamic until the invention of the plow about 8 thousand years ago, an agricultural implement that needed superior upper body strength and could not be employed while caring for small children. This is when women were first relegated to the indoors and became more dependent on men to provide for them.”
