At the biological level, he is right. That is, like many animals, female humans are *compelled* to “display”, and males are *compelled* to pay attention to those displays.
You might even imagine David Attenborough nature show narration for it.
However, human have, or had, a very good means of overcoming this biological imperative. That is, socially enforced marriage. It gives advantages to women, men and definitely to their children.
Males are compelled to want to distribute their DNA to as many offspring, by as many females, as possible. Females are compelled to both get the best male DNA for their offspring, *as well as* the best “provider male” to help her raise them.
Socially enforced marriage advantages the male by helping to insure his children are his. It advantages his wife, by helping to insure that her husband remains to help her raise them. And the children benefit a lot.
But marriage *must* be socially enforced. That is, everyone must agree to keep their hands off married couples, to the point that even cheating is strongly discouraged.
It does create requirements. The first is that before marriage, females must be protected from rogue males, because this could interfere with her loyalty to her husband, and also her ability to bear children.
Yet socially enforced marriage has two weak points. The first is the dowry, in which a bride is sold to her husband. This means there is no mutual attraction, and often a poor age match between the two. Not good for producing children.
The second is when society refuses to enforce the marriage. It makes the couple a target to sexual interlopers, makes it easy to divorce, and otherwise fouls the system.
A very well demonstrated subject by certain groups to raise the ranks of 'welfare mommas' to 'rich beyoches' riding the single momma entitlement baby train.