I just finished reading "I Claudius", an historical novel set around the time of the first emperors of Rome. Two particular passages struck me as being relevant to hypergamy/theredpill reality. Accuracy may be a concern, but the author translated histories from Latin to English so is likely to have been at least somewhat faithful to reality.

The first passage:

"I remember once hearing two of my mother's freedwomen discussing modern marriage from the viewpoint of a woman of family. What did she gain by it? Morals were so loose now that nobody took marriage seriously any longer.

Granted, a few old-fashioned me respected it sufficiently to have a prejudice against children being fathered on them by their friends or household servants, and a few old-fashioned women respected their husbands' feelings sufficiently to be very careful not to become pregnant to any but them.

But as a rule any good-looking woman nowadays could have any man to sleep with whom she chose."

So far so familiar to how we understand women. However, a bit further on there was this:

"Every sensible woman thought twice before committing herself to this contract, from which there was no escape but divorce; and after divorce it was difficult to recover the property she had brought him as a dowry"

Whilst hypergamy was ever present, as one would expect from a behaviour that is biologically driven, the customs & laws of the land presented a strict disincentive for women to enter or extricate themselves from marriage. The men on the other hand would at least gain financially from any such union.

Whilst it doesn't seem sensible to draw too many conclusions from the above, it does seem to suggest that hypergamy is resistant to social pressures (Ignoring potential examples such as Saudi Arabia for instance).

If so, then acting in a redpill manner may be the only solution for men to create loyalty (if not going soft harem).

Any thoughts?