While mulling over a few of the recent topics regarding male sexuality and how it may relate to perceptions about "nice guys" who allegedly expect sex after doing nice things for the object of their affections.

I've noticed how both red pillers and blue pillers are in agreement that these "nice guys" are doing things the wrong way. But where does this phenomenon originate?

In the past, a lot of men didn't really have to be attractive to women or do anything to impress them. All they had to do was impress a girl's father or his king/chieftain/warlord, who would then reward them for their loyalty and/or good deeds.

A good leader knows that, in order to maintain and expand his power, he needs to have a strong society with strong men to do the backbreaking work and help defend/expand his domain. So, he has to keep his men happy, above all else - or else he'll be a king without a kingdom. And it wasn't just the warriors or the strong men he had to keep happy, but also artisans, craftsmen, bureaucrats and others who might fall into the "beta" category. Even in a tyrannical, authoritarian society, most of the lower-level males could at least expect some semblance of a "reward" as long as they did their job well and stayed loyal.

Of course, there have been plenty of instances where men didn't feel adequately rewarded for their work, and history is filled with a lot of uprisings and revolts when that was ever the case. But apart from that, for centuries and centuries of human civilization, we've had generation after generation being born and raised with the idea of obedience, loyalty, honor, follow the rules, do good work, and you will be rewarded. This may be where the idea of a "nice guy" may originate.

Among men, regardless of whatever rank they might hold or whether they're alpha, beta, or bossa nova, I think there's a general understanding that favors and acts of good faith among men should be given due consideration and praise. And in many or most cases, a young man who wanted to get married and procreate, his whole mindset will be focused on proving his worth as a mate to a girl's father (or closest male relative), not necessarily to the girl herself.

It didn't matter if a man was "socially awkward" or "unattractive," since he was being judged more on his sense of honor, loyalty, work ethic, strength - the kinds of things that men value and believe should be given just consideration. Sure, I can see that some might believe it would be a shitty deal for the women who weren't given much of a choice, but it no doubt created the foundation for many fine families who formed the building blocks of villages and cities in great nations and empires. Our civilization grew, thrived, and flourished under this "patriarchal" order which resulted in whole generations of these "betas" and "nice guys" which women may have always been repulsed by, but it's only been recently that anyone really had to care.

-----------

But could all these "betas" and "nice guys" be a side effect of patriarchy? Are they more of a remnant or a residue of a previous era? Are they just anachronisms who will eventually disappear with time as the "patriarchy" itself vanishes?

The assumption seems to be that these men won't ever breed or procreate, so their bloodline ends with them. What will take their place?

Assuming that nature takes its course and all these "unattractive" qualities are bred out of existence, what sort of characteristics can we expect from men in future generations?

If there are more alphas who are breeding and betas are left more and more out of the gene pool, can we expect that there will be a higher percentage of alphas?

With fewer betas and not much reward for actually being a beta, could that lead to greater political instability, criminal aggression, and a general breakdown in civilization?