One of the major pitfalls of Red Pill thinking is that it uses the supposition that men and women are different, that these differences are based in evolutionary causes, and then tasks men (and men exclusively) to describe the manner in which men and women are different. One of the main things I see misinterpreted is the sexuality of men and women. What I will address is the idea that women are monogamous, while men are not, and men have more to lose from monogamy than women do.

To understand why, we have to go back to some RP 101 Assumptions:

  1. Men are polygamous, ideally they would like to have multiple sexual partners simultaneously
  • As a caveat, he would not be obliged to provision for these partners, or he would have enough resources to do so without effort

  • Ideally these partners would be devoted and exclusive to him

2)Women are hypergamous

  • They are exclusively attracted to the top 20% of males, approximately

  • This 20% is a relative number, it refers to men who outrank other males, not males who outrank her, as this number refers to the quantifiable behaviors of women when the social status of the man is not known, and there is no pressure for the woman to extract resources.

  • Ideally a woman would want exclusive access to this top male’s resources and devotion

  1. Genetic data indicates that most women to have ever existed have reproduced, while most men to have ever existed have not reproduced. For a number of reasons
  • Due to sexual selection, and females not being attracted to most males, females will not reproduce with most males. However all females who have working reproductive systems and survive through some of their reproductive years will not lose out due to sexual selection.

  • Due to natural selection and intrasexual competition, some males will die due to violence at the hands of other males before they encounter a sexual opportunity.

Here is this pivotal part of that line of reasoning that is pretty well-documented and conspicuously absent from most red pill posters, or used to fuel anger rather than rationality when it is addressed:

1)Female hypergamy is NOT a special brand monogamy for high value men. Hypergamy exists on another axis than monogamy, promiscuity, and polyandry.

  • Women are serial monogamists who can be promiscuous when the opportunity is available with little risk. She will not be monogamous to a male for life just because he is sufficiently alpha. She can cuckold a high value man with another high value man just as easily as a low value man. If anything, it would be easier to cuck a man surrounded by other women, than a beta engaged in mate guarding.

  • If hunter gatherer studies in tropical environments are any indication, most women will reproduce with multiple men during their reproductive lives in the EEA

  • According the book Women’s Infidelity, often cited in the manosphere, women’s biochemical response (dopamine or the love hormonal response) begins to dissipate around 4 years of coupling, on average.

  • There is a lull in the growth of human children around this period of time. This lull is absent in other mammals, including primates. This could represent a management of resources, (relative to the extremely high resources required for K-selected species like humans) in order to facilitate the recoupling of the child’s primary caregiver.

  1. The tenure of “alphaness” is limited. Hunter gatherer women would disproportionately pair with the top 20% of males at any juncture, but during the span of their reproductive lives, these were likely to be a fluctuating set of males.
  • The tenure of a dominant males is an important factor in the living arrangement of primates. In gorillas the tenure is statistically shorter than the period of time it takes a female to be born and reach menarche. Therefore, female gorillas will stay with their matriarchically troop. With chimps, it is the opposite, females will leave their group because it is likely they were sired by, or closely related to, the better prospects available.

  • While humans likely had a longer cycle of dominance like chimps, they also take a longer period of time to reach menarche. Also, keep in mind that it takes less time for a female to reach menarche (16 in the EEA for example) than it takes for her reach menopause from menarche. Humans also lived in larger groups, with multiple (although often related) dominant males.

  • Dominance is determined by a males ability to dominate other males; not females. In primates observed, there are more occurrences of aggressions from low value males towards females. Dominant males needn’t dominate females.

  • Dominance is a function of social savvy, but above all, it is a function of the differential in physicality (however implied) between males, in the EEA. Dominant males are in, or slightly past, their physical prime when social connections and kin selection can supersede age (to a point). No male will remain dominant into old age. He will be supplanted by younger, hotter, stronger.

  • In the EEA women provided most of the calories, and there was no obligations towards monogamy. A 40 year old woman, while not a good long term exclusive mating prospect, is a perfectly viable addition to a soft harem. A woman could realize her preference for high value men up to menopause. The grandmother hypothesis suggests that women at this point should redirect their reproductive efforts elsewhere, menopause would be an unnecessary adaption if all demand for females dried up due to their age before then.

This is probably rarely addressed for several reasons

  1. Men are still inclined to believe the mythology that women are “purer” and more monogamous than they. This is evidenced by the fact that they STILL react with impotent rage when seeing evidence to the contrary, even when they repeat the axiom AWALT over and over, it does not allow them to accept this reality comfortably.

  2. Men want to believe that if they are sufficiently “attractive” or (or "alpha" in the case of RP men) a woman will want them for life, and will not encounter any issues with the ongoing boredom or the simple natural, biologically-programmed drop in desire for them. The hypothetical success of “dread” is to Red Pill Men what “Wife Goggles” are to Red Pill Women. It is a rationalization that allows them to follow reason to its end, and then side-step the inevitable conclusion that represents an insurmountable challenge.

  3. Women don’t typically lust for men by default like men lust for women. This makes her feelings towards one man more immersive to her (while they last), as she is not confronted with 100s of other lust-inducing prospects a day. She feels she is monogamous, not just because she is told she is monogamous, but because she generally feels monogamous at any juncture in time.

  4. Women tend to externalize their drop in limerent feelings towards her partner as a failure on his part, rather than recognizing it is in part due to her desire for novelty. It is harder to recognize it as such, because western culture has only begun to re-acknowledge this as a facet of female sexuality.

When a woman is entering into a life-long monogamous relationship she is forgoing reproduction with 2-4 top 20% males. This is not a hypothetical and not her fantasy, for most women who lived an entire human life span for most of human history, this was her reality. For women who prefer exclusivity, she could still do better, as the demand for a 50th percentile man is still negligible while demand for a 50th percentile woman is effectively the same as a 99th percentile woman in the absence of enforced monogamy.

Under monogamy 60-80% of men are upgrading from a reproductive potential of zero, to the reproductive possibility of replication level or above, depending on the age and health of his partner and the amount of resources he can supply. Even alpha males are forgoing multiple partners only during the years he would reasonably expect to be in the top 20%, perhaps between 25-40ish, if he is lucky. The notion that males are sacrificing an unlimited number of reproductive opportunities is male solipsism: it conveniently ignores that sexual demand for his unlimited gametes is astoundingly limited. It also rationalizes away the reality of male disposability, even if he is, for a time, among the most desirable men.