I was reading Rollo's takedown of the Mate Switching Hypothesis in favor of the Dual Mating Strategy and I want to raise an issue that is monumental, but doesn't receive the proper attention.

It has to do with the "good genes" part of the DMS. First thing, "good genes" means "good in the context of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)". That much is acknowledged.

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Evolution famously proceeds in random directions.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.