It has started to become clear to me that the main complain sexually unsuccessful men have is that they are indeed not very competitive on the sexual market place. Hence why they advocate forced monogamy as a way of making the SMP more equal and equitable. In others words, these men are advocating for sexual communism. A society where nobody would be getting more than their fair share of sex and all will be getting some.

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of economics and history knows that the political and economic version of communism was the biggest failure the world has ever seen.

This begs the question. If the only way a woman will have sex with you is because she is mandated by the government or worse, because she is stripped of all her rights and means of making a living so she is forced to marry to a man who will provide her with sustenance, well that doesn't bode very well for those men, now does it?

In the communist system, people were given jobs for the sheer purpose of feeding them and not because they produced anything y of value that anyone else wanted to buy. This led to product shortages, shoddy workmanship and overall terrible economy for everyone.

If we use the same system from a sexual perspective, we will have many men who are not sexually competitive potentially procreate and cause genetic and evolutionary problems for decades to come.

So would it make more sense for sexually unsuccessful men to do their best to become more competitive on the SMP as opposed to begging the government to step in and make it fair? And why should those of us who are successful and competitive suffer because Joe Shmoe refuses to become more competitive?