This is admittedly more of a theoretical question but after reading a lot of Red Pill material this is the fact that still boggles my mind a little bit.

It seems well established that the greater number of male sexual partners a woman has the less suitable they are for long term relationships and the more likely they are to divorce. Many people on TRP have hypothesized that this is due to damage to the pair bonding mechanism as the female brain is not designed to pair bond with more than one person in her life, and the effect loses its potency with each partner.

However, the principles of AWALT seem to contradict the idea that women would evolve to pair bond with one male.

Women are NOT designed to be strictly monogamous, and it seems contradictory that any mechanism would penalize them for not being so.

The nature of hypergamy dictates that women will always pursue the highest value male that they perceive to be attainable, and that potentially means somewhat frequent abandonment of their sexual partner if their value decreases or a more promising target appears.

The pair bonding hypothesis seems to be even more frayed when one considers the AF/BB dynamic where women seek out two different kinds of male attention (sexual from the Alphas and provisional from the Betas) and thus would have some form connection with multiple partners simultaneously. Obviously there could be little to no investment in orbiters but often times the 'primary beta' who actually gets to shack up with the female will still get some form of unenthusiastic 'starfish sex' and thus still be a sexual partner.

The selective nature of the female orgasm( orgasming can pull sperm deeper into the womb and increase the likelihood of impregnation, thus the female body only orgasms or orgasms far more often with more desirable partners while decreasing the chances of an undesirable Beta impregnating her, allowing her to dole out just enough sex to keep the beta around with substantially lower odds of having his children.) also suggests that females evolved to have sex with more than one partner roughly simultaneously, and not to be totally monogamous.

Even men evolved with female hypergamy in mind. The shape of the male penis seems to have evolved to act as a plunger to scrape out the semen of rival males and increase the odds of impregnating an unfaithful or promiscuous nature. Male testicular and seminal volume in humans is much larger proportionally to Gorillas, (where one male has a harem and has little to worry about in terms of sexual competitors) although somewhat smaller than Chimpanzees, which are totally promiscuous and the females mostly non-selectively screw everyone. This suggests that throughout our evolutionary history women have been somewhat unfaithful and have had multiple competing partners.

I could go on with more nitty gritty examples, but for the sake of something resembling brevity I won't. Is there something I'm missing, because based on everything I've seen so far, the idea of a lifelong monogamous pair bonding mechanism in humans seems ludicrous.

TL;DR: Why does natural human behavior damage the female ability to pair bonding, and if we did not evolve from a sexually monogamous species why did such a fragile pair bonding mechanism evolve in the first place?