We could have been born as Chad to be selected by foids. Or we could have been born as a foid and had the easy life.

Female sexual preferences used to not matter that much. Technological progress, socialism and egalitarianism have reduced the value of the male individual to his sex-appeal, which is fairly marginal for most men.

In certain eras of early civilization, but not in overall human history. No, over all of history, on average only 1 in 17 males ever got to procreate, assuming roughly 1:1 males to females. This is the norm and we have merely reverted to it.

What makes you think it was Chad instead of local warlords or something ? After all, prima noctis used to be a thing. Also maybe it was a time when women were better at cuckolding their husbands. I mean think about it : Chad can certainly impregnate 17 women, but he can't provide for all their kids.

Furthermore, getting cucked would have meant you're merely betabuxx, showing that female preference HAS NOT changed and the blackpill has always been in play.

I do not deny female sexual preferences, I just think it's quite unusual to see it being fully expressed as we see today. But anyway, you might be right. That 1/17 ratio is quite hard to explain unless you're willing to imagine that it was a time when women gained full sexual power, somehow. Still, you said it's the norm, and I disagree. Matriarchy is one possible mode of human social organization, but we know patriarchy is possible too. I once wrote that sexual dynamics are an instable equilibrium, because both men and women have natural advantages on the other. Those opposing forces make equality unsustainable, the balance necessarily needs to flip to one side, and stay there until a major change reorganizes society and culture.