Has anyone else noticed that no one ever calls women "cuck" or says that a woman "got cucked" if her partner cheats on her? This may seem like an obvious thing, and it is, but I only recently started to really ponder the deeper implications of that.

On the face of it, calling a woman a "cuck" sounds ridiculous. It just hits the ear wrong. Same as calling a woman other male-gendered insults like "dick" or "bastard". (This provokes an interesting digression: we often see "female" insults get applied to men to suggest womanliness/weakness, like "bitch", but never the other way around. That is a topic for another time, though, as I'd like to focus specifically on "cuck".)

Logically, this shouldn't be so. If cuckholdry simply means "your partner cheating on you", then it should be able to be applied to women, because women get cheated on too. But it isn't. And a large part of that, I think, is because of evopsych and the social conditioning that arise from and reinforce that.

In evopsych terms, the biological purpose of males is to be the strongest, most dominant, and mate with as many females as possible. This means that under evopsych, the natural state of ancient humanity consisted of small numbers of dominant males mating (at least most of the time) with the majority of females. This would mean that women would have to be evolutionarily adapted with a psychological resistance to getting cheated on. Or more accurately, the idea of women "being cheated on" doesn't really exist at all in those times because socialized monogamy doesn't exist yet. Either way, the point is that this psychological resistance would have to exist because if ancient women were averse to being cheated on, they would find this a detestable state of existence and society would collapse. Conversely, the psychological aversion to being cheated on DOES exist in ancient men because being cheated on goes against the idea of being a dominant male. Its designed to propel those with aggressive/dominant innate natures into action and crush opposition so their genes can rise to the top instead. Evolution doesn't really care about those who have the aversion but are unable or uninclined to crush opposition because their genes don't strictly matter anyway--evolution wants dominance and aggression.

Therefore, "cuck" exists as a male-only insult because it has a sense of unmanliness-shame attached to it. Humans see a need to shame the men who are getting cheated on as part of the normal traditional male gender role shaming process. But they do not see a need to shame women for the same thing because they intuitively understand, even if they won't admit it, that it is somewhat "natural" for women to get cheated on, and therefore not humiliating.

Now of course I am not saying that modern women don't feel psychological pain about getting cheated on, nor that it is actually ok for them to be cheated on. Certainly, most do feel pain about it. Suggesting otherwise would be misogynistic, which has some interesting implications about the kind of people who defend evopsych from a moral standpoint, like red-pillers.

What I am saying is that this is one area where people have a conscious understanding about what is egalitarian in society (cheating = bad) but subconsciously apply it unevenly (its shameful if it happens to a man, not shameful if it happens to a woman).

Logically, there should be nothing shameful about being cheated on. If you're cheated on, it reflects poorly on the person who did the cheating, not you. But that is not how some people seem to treat the problem when it comes to men. Like many things, society applies a double standard to men where gender roles can be used to unfairly shame us, even though it doesn't do so to women. Even those who use "cuck" as an ironic joke or only to attack people they don't like are playing into this system, whether they realize it or not.

And its interesting to me that today we seem to be getting closer to that system where 20% of the men get 80% of the women. That may be an oversimplification, but you get my point. Cultural monogamy has severely declined, which is what I attribute to the main reason why women have had the aversion the being harem members for the past few centuries. If current trends continue, could we see an even greater return to humanity's evopsych roots? We are already seeing that happen in many ways, so this would just be yet another example.

Sidenote: wasn't sure which flair to use. I went with "Sexuality" since it seemed to fit the best. Mods, please let me know if it needs to be changed.