This is a direct rebuttal to the idea that feminism or sexual liberation only benefit women and the mythical Chad.

Previously women were pretty much forced to get married in order to benefit from a husband's financial support as well as social and legal protection. Unmarried women were pretty much despised in many cultures, meaning that women would often end up with men to whom they were not attracted. These marriages might be lucky arrangements, but they were also likely to trap two people who were not attracted to each other in a lifelong relationship. As many posters here have argued, these couples might have sex a handful of times to procreate and then end up with all the problems that dead bedrooms and beta bucks face today.

That situation is only beneficial to men if you believe that any sex at all is better than no sex.

The problems that beta bucks face today have always existed: They will only disappear if women no longer need, or think they need, a male partner for social and financial support, which would then prevent men from being chosen purely as providers.

With the loosening of these strictures women are more free to pursue partners whom they actually find attractive, and men are more likely to end up with someone who is genuinely attracted to them.