Have you all read Sex at Dawn? If the book's thesis is true, human sexuality is promiscuous. Competition happens on the sperm level.

TRP philosophy says "women think this way _____" based on the assumptions of mating strategy for resources. A huge challenge to that in Sex at Dawn is that humans have lived in large tribes since we became homo sapien sapiens (~200,000 years). The Neo-Hobbsian view presupposes scarcity and competition for resources. But if we lived in tribes of 40-150 (Dunbar's number) then resources were shared and children were raised communally -- there wasn't constant scarcity. In fact, society is the proof of this: abundance existed so regularly that societies sprang up in different parts of the world due to surpluses (giving way to specialization, government, education, technology).

It wasn't until the 1950's forward that the meme of the nuclear family was actively promoted and reinforced by shows like Leave it to Beaver.

Primitive man didn't understand paternity. They must have known sex creates babies, but the wouldn't have known how DNA works. So if a woman was being fucked by a number of men, he'd have no way of knowing who her baby belonged to. Our understanding of DNA is brand new. Imagine a crime scene in 1920 -- there could be a pool of blood around the body and the CSI would go "mop that shit up! It's starting to stink!" That's how valuable blood, hair, and fingerprints are in 2016, but even 100 years ago they wouldn't have any significance! Primitive man was just as ignorant about what sperm did.

Getting back on track, what aspects of TRP thought seem ripe for being a very bad extrapolation based on a false assumption?

FYI, I'm one of you. I just want to be armed with the most accurate knowledge before I act based on my assumptions