Dawkins seems to dismiss sexual jealousy as a total atavism. Even by his standard of evolutionary utility, it is obvious — OBVIOUS — that any wife whose husband is sleeping with others needs to worry that a potential ensuing transfer of affections (often accomplished in conjuction with a sexual relationship), will deprive her children of the financial resources that the husband/father brought to the table. If there is anything the divorce revolution illustrated beyond question it is that divorced fathers are prone to significant “disinvestment” in the children from prior marriages, when the new ones come along.
Personally I am far too unenlightened to transcend the age old notion that lack of sexual jealously when a mate strays is a sure sign of genuine indifference.