~ archived since 2018 ~

If hypergamy is the natural state of relationships, why was monogamy ever implemented?

January 18, 2023


Most research suggests that for 99% of human history, human relationships were hypergamous and polygamous. With the concept of monogamy and "marriage" between 1 man and 1 woman popping up only a few thousand years ago in Mesopotamia:


At some point during the rise of Roman Catholicism in Europe, and a subsequent rise in the human population, the concept of monogamy became very heavily enforced by the law. With some places in Europe having adultery laws punishable by death. And with divorce being strictly prohibited, or only allowed under extreme conditions. With some Germanic courts only allowing for "Divorce by Combat", where the husband and wife must fight to the death in a duel; taking the vow "till death do us apart" quite literally.


This is generally considered to be where monogamy as we know it entered the scene. But why? I can't find any historical evidence as to what exactly happened to prompt this change. If polyamorous relationships where 1 man with many women is the natural way humans reproduced for like 99% of our existence, why was monogamy so deliberately implemented?

Surely, there must have been some compelling reason or it never would have happened.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title If hypergamy is the natural state of relationships, why was monogamy ever implemented?
Author Antisocial_Nihilist
Upvotes 2
Comments 29
Date January 18, 2023 8:57 PM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/if-hypergamy-is-the-natural-state-of-relationships.1148649
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/10fii3r/if_hypergamy_is_the_natural_state_of/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]inkvallian432 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm assuming monogamy was enforced because you need alot of men to technologically and socially progress and build a society. And if only chads get to have all the women, then non chads are obviously not going to help build up a society in which they won't have a legacy.

Why would I help keep "Muh tribe" alive and thriving and technologically progressive, if I'm doomed to die alone without a legacy (children). All I would be doing is making the future lives of the children of chad and women easier. I don't benefit, and my children who won't get to exist won't benefit because... well they won't exist πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚.

I know you women would just love if all non attractive men could basically be turned into free labor and build up society for you, chad, and your children, so that you guys could benefit from the fruits of our labor, but unfortunately for you, I refuse to be exploited in such a way.

Why do you think so many men are just dropping out of society. Why do you think the population of NEETS are rising?

So basically enforced monogamy--> everyone gets a wife--> everyone gets to have children---> and then therefore everyone feels compelled to help build and progress society because it's their own children who will be living in it, in the future.

[–]PaliantBlackPill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Polygamy doesn’t just mean less investment from many of the regular men of your society. It bifurcated access to women making men more physically competitive and or violent in desperation to get women.

[–]MachiNarciBlatant Redpill Troll 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill[S] 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Oh wow, great post on this topic. Kudos πŸ‘

I do know at some points in our ancient history, hypergamy was so bad only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women.

Which even by today's standards is insane and I wonder how society even sustained itself.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It didn't sustain itself, it fucking collapsed, over and over again. Monogamy (not patriarchy) saved human civilization.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I do know at some points in our ancient history, hypergamy was so bad only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women

That never really happened and that particular study you guys are referring to doesn't particularly prove that. Just because you don't have descendants alive today doesn't mean that you didn't have any descendants. You could have had two kids, and 3 grandchildren. But if your grandchildren all died as children, then you'd have no living heirs.

1 king or tribal chief could have 20 concubines and 30 kids meanwhile the average male could've only had 1 wife and 3 kids. The few chiefs and kings are more likely to have 2 or 3 living children meanhwhile the average guy's 2 kids are more likely to have died due to diseases and war. Difference is that one king is more likely to have living heirs even amidst the diseases and war.

Am I making sense?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But more women had children that survived to today. Got an explanation for that mountainous disparity?

[–]too_lazy_to_register 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In the wars, the winners would kill all the men and children, but take women as their own. So two men had the kids with the same women, but only one of those men "reproduced". I understand that it doesn't explain such a difference, but can easily shift the difference to, say, 1 men to 10 women. And the tribal structure described in the comment above shifts it again.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If this is true, it explains solidly why monogamy is so terribly important. Fortunately there's only so far the "kill all the men/children and take the women as ours" can go anymore in the age of nuclear weapons. Which makes Putin pretty much a dinosaur.

[–]IHateFernales 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You are not making sense because you are not taking into the account the 16 men that didn’t reproduce

[–]TsugaC 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Because brutal warmongers like Genghis Khan massacred men and raped thousands. Not because the women had any fucking choice, hatespeechfanboy.

[–]IHateFernales 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Genghis Khan wasn’t alive 8000 years ago.

[–]TsugaC1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

And neither GK nor apes are alive today. What’s your point?

[–]IHateFernales 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The paper about 17 woman reproducing for one man was 8000 years ago. The whole world were hunter gatherers and were like this for hundreds of thousands of years prior. This practice has strongly been embedded and females still have the tendency to harem up like they did back then

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Even before "monogamy" became the norm, the laws of the jungle and failed civilizations weren't "polygamy" as we know it today. People tend to forget that women had even less rights and laws protecting them. There was a lot of force and brutality involved in mating. Civilizations are antithetical to the way of the nomads aka capturing and plundering

[–]IHateFernales 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As others said it is essentially because non-Chad men are the backbone of any economy or society and things won’t work if non-Chads are unhappy

[–]_Duriel_1000_ 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everything is a choice people make, women make, society accepted make, etc. Here is the core of the issue though. Women will soon realize that just because we fuck them doesn't mean we will commit to them. Right now, women think that hopping from cock to cock is cool; which it might be. But, eventually, she is going to lose a lot of her sex appeal; and the amount of guys she used to get on by, will decline. She will end up alone for the rest of her life. She wont have anyone there for her.

Many woman are short term thinkers.

The good thing for us men is that younger women tend to date older men.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

im supposing that monogamy led to better productivity and more importantly better wartime defense against less monogamous societies

[–]TsugaC 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

OP, I'd like for you to consider mate-guarding and vasopressin before believing the silly things you've read in an opinion piece.

Pair-bonding is typical behavior for homo-sapiens.

Hypergamy occurs in species where one male dominates and monopolizes all the females in a tribe, which causes a genetic bottleneck. This doesn't happen in humans, who don't live in social structures with only one dominant, violent breeding male.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

well to play devil's advocate dont we have similar yet different structures even if theyre not by far what most people prefer to live in?

such as gangs and failed states with civil wars where male intrasexual competition takes the form of "i bash your head in because your tribe did something bad to my tribe" or "i bash your head in because you didnt obey the big man and/or i want your wife"

[–]TsugaC 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

You aren't playing devil's advocate, you're comparing two entirely separate species with entirely separate social structures with entirely different stressors and motivators.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

okay that's new for me i would like to get what this means, i only have a basic idea of these ideas from pop evo psych and reading the selfish gene

[–]TsugaC 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Evolutionary psych isn't hard science, and isn't well respected or peer-reviewed. It's opinion, usually from men with obvious issues with fitting in. I won't name names.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

okay so far be it from this mstow to ask for free biology lessons but what is this other species' different stressors and motivators

[–]TsugaC1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Money, freedom, shelter, food, physical fitness of one partner... are you serious with this question? You can't figure out the difference between a male silverback and a male human?

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

i knew about these i just thought you were also referring to something less obvious

[–]TsugaC1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link


[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW / i like my pill the way i like my coffee 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

to be completely honest i dont have a clue i thought you were gonna say something about comparing humans to apes that lived with tournament mating or you were going to say something about how their hormones and neurotransmitters are different

[–]BoogersAndSugar 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The tribes that adopted the marriage custom were able to beat and dominate all the tribes that didn't, because their societies were far more stable and organized. Men cooperated with each other instead of competing for mates, and they had a STAKE IN SOCIETY, something worth defending, like children of their own, a family, social status, etc. All the other tribes soon realized they'd better adopt that custom themselves or be wiped out.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

Β© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter