Good, some logic here:
funny, the disregard for all the relationships where the men actually did meet all the womans "needs" in regards to being a good husband and provider, only to go svck and fvck their coworker at a motel after telling their husband they'll be working late that night. or the women who get bored and drag their husbands through hell before finally initiating a divorce. you know, all the relationships that got us (society) here in the first place?
A man is a good husband and provider.
Wife cheats on him with a coworker at a motel.
Thus, it's concluded that because the husband met the wife's needs and she still cheated, the Needs Theory is fallacious. However, the wife cheated for any of these reasons:
1) She no longer was attracted to the husband. Here a need was not met.
2) She had a bad sex life. Here a need was not met.
3) She no longer respected her husband. Here a need was not met.
4) Her needs cannot be met by only one man. Here is the exclusion of the Needs Theory, where there is a subset of women who need more than one man to satisfy their needs.
i'll repeat this one more time. the only time a woman "only has eyes for you" unequivocally, is during the pair bonding period. you know, after sex (evolutionarily, around the time shes pregnant) to foster the parental instincts for both in order to give the offspring the best chance to be born.
after that, hypergamy is still very much present
This fails as:
1) Woman sometimes branch-swing to men of "lower value";
2) Hypergamy defined deals with only "money" and "status." Women have other needs, and can disqualify a man of greater money and status if he cannot meet her other baseline needs (e.g. her physical type/chemistry, desire to feel loved, to feel safe, to feel seen, to be allowed to nurture, to feel sexually desired, to feel appreciated, to feel she can count on you, a good sex life,
inter alia).
Reconcile that.
If you can't, Hypergamy Theory is dead.
It's so hot when you say it like that.
