When I say I "disagree with it" I don't mean to imply that "oneitis" isn't a problem or that modern women are perfect.

What I mean is historically speaking, humans have had strong drives to be monogamous even well before civilizational eras. Polygamous species act far FAR different with mating practices and offspring rearing, while meanwhile human genetics studies point to about a 1:2 male:female reproduction rate. That is normal and well within the monogamy tier. Males have many factors against their successful IMMEDIATE/DIRECT lineage reproduction from unsuccessful intercourse, infanticide (when tribes fight and wives turned into concubine for the victor and kill the infants), being disposable (self sacrifice, tribal selection, being targeted by enemy males), etc.

The Hymen in women is one specific very visible recent evolution (within the past 100,000 years) of monogamy in women. It evolved INDEPENDENTLY in various hunter gatherer tribes as female sexual control was increasingly valued evolutionarily.

Another related feature, and one that appears to be unique to our speices, is the retention of the hymen or maidenhead in the female. In lower mammals it occurs as an embryonic stage in the development of the urogenital system, but as part of the naked ape's neoteny it is retained Its persistence means that the first copulation in the life of the female will meet with some difficulty. When evolution has gone to such lengths to render her as sexually responsive as possible, it is at first sight, strange she should also be equipped with what amounts to an anti-copulatory device. But the situation is not as contradictory as it may appear. By making the first copulation attempt difficult and even painful, the hymen ensures that it will not be indulged in lightly. Clearly during the adolescent phase, there is going to be a period of sexual experimentation, of delaying the field in search of a suitable partner. Young males at this time will have no good reason for stopping short of full copulation If a pair-bond does not form, they have not committed themselves in any way and can move on until they find a suitable mate. But if young females were to go so far without pair-formation, they might very well find themselves pregnant and heading straight towards a parental situation with no partner to accompany them. By putting a partial brake on this trend in the female, the hymen demands that she shall have already developed a deep emotional involvement before taking the final step, an involvement strong enough to take the initial physical discomfort in its stride.

Source for this claim is the book, pg. 82- Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal, 1st American ed. , 1967.

Additionally in nature as anyone can read about in general science/ecology works to fact check; the evolutionary significance of hymen retention varies per different species. It used to be assumed that animals who retained it did so purely for hygenic purposes, rather than sexual-behavioral. But it can in fact be linked to sexual behavior: in guinea pigs the hymen dissolves specifically when the female is fertile, which allows mating to occur, and the hymen then grows back to completely cover the vagina once the female is no longer fertile. This indicates a level of evolutionary sexual significance of the structure and in context of humans it would seem that mating evolved under a context of a long term relationship.

Prairie voles are monogamous. Male prairie voles pair bond with the vasopressin hormone. Human males do the same. Gorillas do not have vasopressin reactions in their brains with mates. The "humans aren't monogamous" shit is leftist deconstruction every bit as stupid as "gender is a social construct". The previous mention of this fact on Wikipedia was covertly removed by NGO's sometime in September 2017:

One study has suggested that genetic variation in male humans affects pair-bonding behavior. The brain of males uses vasopressin as a reward for forming lasting bonds with a mate, and men with one or two of the genetic alleles are more likely to experience marital discord. The partners of the men with two of the alleles affecting vasopressin reception state disappointing levels of satisfaction, affection, and cohesion.[19]

The fact that genetic variations in Vasopressin has a noteworthy link in marital relations, marital success, and chance for divorce is very significant with the context of science regarding human sexuality. There's been a long push for leftist pseudoscience to overtake studies on sexuality.

One of the older ones was an idea that female humans, like polyandrous animals, had a "period sync"](https://theconversation.com/do-womens-periods-really-synch-when-they-spend-time-together-61890)

There have been many evolutionary arguments for why females would synchronise the timing of sexual receptivity. These theories – reviewed here – assume that synchrony would serve to maximise the reproductive success of females (and also sometimes males). The most popular one is that it enables females to minimise the risk of being monopolised by a single dominant male, and thus make it easier to engage in polyandry.

However, there is now accumulating evidence that casts serious doubt on the existence of the phenomenon. First, the original 1971 study was criticised on methodological grounds. Second, a number of studies with both human groups and non-human species failed to replicate the initial findings, with at least as many studies reporting positive results as studies reporting negative ones.

Mathematical analyses have also revealed that some degree of synchrony is to be expected given the shifts in female reproductive condition over time, and that no adaptive process needs to be invoked to explain what is observed. In other words, synchrony or the overlap of cycles between females is best explained by chance.

Lastly, more science background, the book "Sex at Dusk" did an effective counter to the neomarxist "Sex at Dawn". "Sex at Dusk" kept a very detached, objective look at human sexuality rather than promoting some fairytale view of it.

Why do I mention this?

I've seen increasing attempts of neomarxists to takeover and subvert "redpilled" ideology to push their BS agenda. A big thread the other day I saw was:

"Rant: Eastern Europe is not the Red Pill Paradise you think it is"

This was one of the top posts on TRP. I engaged the OP there and attacked his BS, which was taken seriously, despite various claims just made up out of thin air. He responded:

"What you're saying is basically Russian and Ukrainian nationalist propaganda which has been gradually disproved since the early 00s."

And the whole shill-team turned into other deconstructions that I pretty much debunked with actual studies on genetics in the Eastern European nations.

Then there was another "TheRedPill Endorsed Contributor" pushing more neomarxist BS:

I am an Endorsed Contributor at TheRedPill, which is a forum that specializes specifically in men strategizing within a woman's short term mate preferences. Reddit as a whole, and likely many readers here, conflate TRP as a place where men "claim to understand women." It serves one purpose, to understand what arouses women, and to trade notes...

These are just two examples of such people, and two examples of people that I alone dealt with. I can't imagine how many others there are.

Look, I understand there are people who want to be single and "play the field". That's your call.

But do so while being educated based on facts, based on what your goals are, and purge out the neomarxist logic trying to subvert dissident groups.