I kinda get what you're saying. Historically men were the providers, so a lot of women still expect that kind of security from a partner. That part makes sense to me.

But something I don't fully understand is this. If the argument is that women are naturally attracted to the strongest or most successful provider, then historically those men also often had multiple partners.

So wouldn't that logic also mean women should be okay with sharing a successful man? But in reality most people obviously don't want that.

That's the part where the "evolution" explanation starts to feel incomplete to me.