I like the example given by moorish, the one on cavemen. I do however find flaws in the way you put it.

There was no concept of money back then so you shouldn't even bring that into the equation. The strongest providers will get the chicks, just like in the wild where it's survival of the fittest. If a cavemen kept in shape so he could hunt more often, or bring home a bigger food source, he is a good provider. He could build a bigger cave and fend off the advances of any other caveman. If he sat around all day doing nothing, he would not be able to compete with his more able bodied counterparts.

It's the same these days, no. If a man worked hard at building a shelter for himself and his family, he is more appealing. If he is working towards a successful career, keeping himself in shape, he'd automatically fend off the advances of other men without having to resort to violent physical threats.

The similarity between both examples is security and not money as money didn't exist back then.

Oh ya sure. Just keep in low profile. The first criteria gals look for guys will still the same: self-motivated and ambitious guy.

Why should it be wiped out? See, the problem with society is that it tries very hard to keep things in order, and sometimes by trying so hard, it really creates chaos. Would it be so bad to have a society where men can father many children from different wives, and allows for women to seek the best provider?

Before you think its impossible, because love is sacred and all that... remember that your current thoughts and sentiments are influenced by the current culture. If you were brought up in a society like that, you probably wouldn't think its wrong. For example, in ancient Sparta men were known to share wives so that they can procreate. Such an act is immoral in today's culture, but in the Spartan society, it was the norm.