Questioning Science, The Red Pill Edition - The Parental Investment Theory

disposableboyfriend · 2015-01-03T13:53:24+00:00

In short, low parental investment does not mean zero parental investment. Human babies take a very long time to mature, and a lot of resources to raise, and a man can increase the likelihood of his offspring surviving to adulthood, and spreading his genes, by helping raise it.

The female dual mating strategy (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks) is very often discussed here. Men, however, also have a dual mating strategy. It is sometimes called the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, or more simply, there are girls you fuck, and girls you marry.

With the girl the man marries (or, simply commits to), he helps to raise the baby to increase the chances of it surviving, mating, and spreading his genes. However, since he will have to invest his time and energy into this, he does his best to make sure that the girl is young (and so has more fertile years to produce more offspring), healthy, chaste and faithful (so she is less likely to cheat on him, and fool him into raising children not his own).

With the girls the man simply fucks (but does not commit to), he cares a lot less about age and faithfulness. The first is an approach to spreading one's genes that focuses on quality. The second approach focuses on quantity.

Aside from sexual strategy, we all have a sense of self-preservation. We are all programmed to avoid injury and disease. Being fat is a signal of disease. Or, at least, it had been during our hunter-and-gatherer days, and likely even before that, before humans became human, when calories were rather hard to come by, and when these sexual and survival strategies formed. So, this accounts for some of the pickiness of men in chosing sexual partners to whom they do not intend to commit, which is much lower than the pickiness when chosing wifes or life partners.

dpa · 2015-01-03T13:46:04+00:00

id guess because through out human history, when actual breeding happens, it happens mainly in a monogamous relationships. these types of relationships tend to produce the most successful individuals. because of monogamy and the innate desire to produce successful offspring, men have some standards in women.

[deleted] · 2015-01-03T19:53:18+00:00

Some more bro science:

Because, when evolving, there weren't three plus billion women and night clubs didn't exist. People lived in small, likely somewhat nomadic, groups. He couldn't be assured a shot every night. He had to make sure when he had a shot that he took it with the most fertile women available, and fat, before the time of abundance, meant hormone changes due either to pregnancy or recent pregnancy, or age beyond fertile.

Even with a group of multiple fertile women, shots might be limited so the man who went with the healthiest, most fertile woman would have more surviving children than men who didn't. This could be in part due not only to her health and genes, but her later success at attracting a great beta bucks to help raise the kid. So, men with no preference, or a preference for anything less than the healthiest, were out procreated by men consistently choosing the healthiest procreating women.

Also, when settling down, a man is switching from mass opportunity to concentrated and invested opportunity. He's paying a price. He needs the greatest return on his investment. Again, we don't know what the original motivations would have been for settling with a woman, but men who entered a committed relationship with a women who was very healthy, had great genes and could attract another prosperous mate to help raise kids if the need/opportunity arose, would have out procreated men who did not and passed along those preferences.

raob11 · 2015-01-03T16:42:55+00:00

There's a lot of pseudo / bro-science floating around this topic area.

I'm about halfway through "Sex at Dawn" which makes a pretty strong case that from an evolutionary perspective, things are not quite so simple as the parental investment theory suggests.

For one, the book gives examples of indigenous tribes who live a lifestyle that's much closer to "everybody fucks everybody" than to the stereotypical TRP view of the world where only the alphas are getting laid with any frequency.

And that's just at the level of "non civilized" peoples... when you add in multiple complex layers of culture (e.g. modern sex, modern feminism, legacy patricarchal values) then things get much more complicated.

I personally think it's interesting, in the abstract theoretical sense, but not all that practical / useful for the average guy who's trying to get laid or maybe have an LTR with a decent woman.

For the average guys, the basics are still valid. Be attractive, be dominant, be interesting.

To answer OP's question: women can be more selective because they are the gatekeepers.

Imagine you have unlimited access to fuck any and every woman you see, any time you feel like it. Still though, your time and energy and enthusiasm have limits, so you wouldn't spend your precious energy banging any old skanky ho; nope, you'd focus on the hot young chicks. Right? Same for women.

Title	Questioning Science, The Red Pill Edition - The Parental Investment Theory
Author	skeptic00
Upvotes	0
Comments	12
Date	January 3, 2015 12:16 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2r7683/questioning_science_the_red_pill_edition_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/questioning-science-the-red-pill-edition-the.27384 https://theredarchive.com/post/27384

Comments