Howdy y'all, long time lurker here in these quarters, pretendin' to be an old-school cowboy for sake of m'privacy this fine winter's evening. In good faith y'all will understand.

I was mighty curious to find some explanation for this here red pill malarkey, and blow me! A flesh-n'-blood professor was running a Q+A on one of my go-to forums for all those deep questions about the stars 'n' all.

Anyway, I got my old friend to shoot 'em up with this question:

In the absence of social conditioning, are human males naturally polygamous? Are human females naturally polygamous?

Well I don't know what he did y'know, must have rustled her jimmies a little, but she would not answer him! Huh. Rather insulting I must say. Well he did get a few smart cookies give him a nice little heads-up instead, ain't they lil' sweethearts:

Polygamy means multiple marriage. Hypergamy means marrying someone of higher status. Marriage is a social construct. Devoid of social conditioning, there is no such thing as marriage, which means there is no polygamy or hypergamy.

What I think you're asking is devoid of social conditioning, do humans form exclusive pair-bonds that are sexually restrictive. And the answer from anthropology appears to be no.

Social conditioning does not "override" our "primitive" instincts. Human beings are social animals; it is in our nature to form complex societies with complex customs, mores, and rules. That is our instinct.

Now the dog garn red pillars keep saying' that Hypergamy is a very real biological thing, not just a matter of marriage choices! It's all over that famous Schedules of Matin' post! But here this here feller big on polyamory are tellin' us, nope it's just marriage, nothing biological about it! In fact the major authority, the brainbox in the lab just would not answer our honest-to-God question, and the poly man was saying' marriage is an un-natural state of affairs!

Curiouser than a cat o' nine tails, don't'cha think?

Hit me up with your thoughts, y'all. Squicky out fer now. tips fedora