I'm not against people sleeping around and fulfilling their biological impulses by any means. Man whores be whores, sluts be sluts. You do you, I do me. But why is the lock and key analogy so hated by blue pillers and feminists when it's brought up? I don't understand it. It biologically makes perfect sense to me. And if you've ever read the "Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins (I suggest chapter 9: Battle of the sexes), then you see that it's actually not just a theory on TRP.

The lock is the woman, the key is the man. Women have a lot more to lose if they sleep with the wrong guy- thats why it makes sense to be at least a little picky when it comes to choosing mates. A woman risks 9 months of pregnancy off of one encounter. If she allows just anyone to mate with her, then she's doing a bad job at trying to procure the best genes for her offspring. Therefore, "a lock that is able to be opened by many keys is a bad lock."

Men on the other-hand are biologically driven to sleep with as many women as possible to ensure they keep spreading their genes. Sex is less risky for a man. They don't get pregnant, so they can move on to the next woman after impregnating one. Therefore, "A key that opens many locks is a good key."

Theres nothing wrong with the lock and key analogy that I can see. I support equal rights, but I feel like the feminist thinking/blue pill thinking that disregards the lock and key analogy is being dishonest about the biological differences between men and women. I guess it also depends on where you stand on the nature VS nurture argument too.

But something that I hope we can all agree on is that, yes, women have an easier time finding males to mate with than males do at finding females to mate with. So a female who allows just any male to mate with her is being lazy, while the male who finds a female to mate with may have had to jump through a bunch of hoops (shit-tests) in order to procure the mating session.

So, why is the lock and key analogy hated by blue pillers/feminists?