Seduction is currently the most successful model, but in the long run it is disastrous
See, I don't buy this. There is no "short term" as far as evolution goes. For a heritable trait to propagate throughout a species takes an enormous number of generations. So, in order for seduction based traits to have taken root, they must have been successful for a long long time. Moreover, they must not have interfered with the global dominance of the human race (indeed, we are so evolutionarily successful that we have taken over the planet to the degree of significantly altering its surface features and climate), so it seems implausible that seduction would be correlated with evolutionary disadvantage.
In seduction based societies women hate men who work and produce but like petty criminals and thugs. This is good for thugs now but bad for society in the long run. Women hated when I asked for consent and had a job. I did much better when I took my own version of the Red Pill.
This also strikes me as false. Humans need to have access to food, shelter, and the other necessities of life. So, if they categorically preferred mates that hindered access to those things, that would be evolutionarily disadvantageous. Moreover, anecdotal evidence about you own (or even an entire online forum's) romantic success doesn't equate to a broad trend. Many, many people have driven hopelessly drunk, but survived; it would still be a mistake to claim that being drunk is unrelated to the likelihood of having an accident. In the same way, that you and SlutHate have been unlucky in love doesn't mean that, broadly speaking, the human race hasn't been extremely successful at reproducing and dominating the planet: In point of fact, we have. And, at the end of the day, that is all evolution cares about.
And, for the record, our dominance has only increased with the broadening of women's rights; our power over our environment has increased drastically since the advent of women's rights. Now, perhaps this isn't due to giving women rights (though I tend to think we'd be farther behind scientifically without Marie Curie), but at any rate it clearly hasn't slowed us down.
All in all, the evidence doesn't really seem to support your claims. And discounting the evidence doesn't seem possible without throwing out the theory of evolution, which would entail denying the validity of the scientific method on which it is based. Faced with choosing between the validity of your argument and the validity of science, I am going to choose science every single time.
