As I was polishing another essay, an idea stuck in my head. What is the consequence of men widely adopting red pill theory as a framework for their lives and especially in intersexual dynamics. A major argument from the “Trad-con” and “Purple-pill” contingents within the manosphere has been that if men adopt a red pill perspective, and start implementing this into their lives, is that it will send society into a negative spiral. The logic goes that game and the red pill works in terms of getting laid, the result of a majority of men implementing a male sexual strategy (unlimited access to unlimited sexuality) at the cost of the female sexual strategy (alpha fucks/beta bucks) will lead to and hasten the decline of our current social order.I agree with this argument, as our overt social order for the past 50 – 300 years is based on the model of reproductive Marxism.
Monogamous marriage, no sex outside of marriage, no divorce, children are raised in a nuclear family with their mother as primary caregiver, and supported by the father through labor. This is the old book of rules made explicit. The changes that have been made in the past since the sexual revolution is that contraception is now widely available thus decoupling sex from reproduction. Divorce is now very available and has an entire industry supporting it. The proportion of children born and raised out by a single parent is increasing. Women are steadily increasing in labor participation and men are steadily declining in labor participation. The entire structure around monogamous marriage has been eroded, the man’s authority is gone, and what is left is a woman holding all the cards in her hand.
Let me begin by stating explicitly, trad-con has a problem with the “Beta bucks” side of female sexual strategy, in fact most of them support it wholeheartedly and just want wives who nag less and fuck more. The problem comes with the “Alpha fucks” side, and the fact that these two strategies are influence each other, a woman’s successful execution of the former, defacto a poorer execution of the latter if a woman’s strategy cannot be optimized in the form of “Alpha bucks”. The goal of such men is primarily is to improve the Beta Bucks dynamic in a relationship, so that the Beta males are able to live happy, fulfilling relationships, and won’t end up with their wife divorcing them after 5 years of dead bedroom, not so much because it’s the best for the man, but because it’s the best trade-off for society. It keeps the man’s stomach full, balls empty and working hard, a woman’s wallet full, and the children’s lives stable.
In order to do this, the argument is that men have to sacrifice for their fellow men, by neglecting their own best reproductive interest and sexual strategy. It’s an argument in favor of why men should indulge female sexual strategy instead of following their own. Personally, I think the fear of “all men going alpha and the world turning into an orgy is unfounded due to natural regulatory mechanisms.
Regulatory Mechanisms and The Sexual Market Place
The old statement by Chris Rock “20% of the men do 80% of the fucking” is quite accurate, if we create a scenario where all men adopt the red pill, become the best men they can be, in short the extreme case of male competition, this does not change. This is similar to the Pareto distribution in that the top 20% of producers in academia produce 80% of the published material, remove those, the next top 20% produce 80% of the remainder and so on. In a World where all men are SMV 10, the 10.0 will be the new ones. This is a natural regulatory mechanism of hypergamy, it’s not a constant it’s relative. However, I do see the concern, in that if we take “the naturals” men who are naturally good with women and getting laid, add in an additional 10 – 20% of men who adopt the red pill, promiscuity, and thus notch counts will increase. This is simply a function of female hypergamy needing to adjust to a new environment, much like how a 7 in Miami or LA will need some time to re-adjust to being a 10 in a small Midwestern town, this is very similar to how a former overweight man or woman will take time to adjust their perception of their own value.
If one has spent some time on the married red pill, or other forums where men struggling in their marriages congregate, the mantra of such forums are often “Just tell me what to do to get her to stop nagging and start fucking“, these men are often willing to go to great lengths to maintain a relationship, despite the fact that it stopped working for them a long time ago, that speaks to their dedication. Quite frankly, many men are willing to do virtually anything to be more successful in the sexual market place and to have the relationships with women they desire, whether this be a stable marriage, filled with genuine desire after 30, 40 or 50 years, or be it a string of moments filled with the excitement of what is new to them. However, these are to some extent different approaches to the same market place, it’s the Big Stable Blue Chip vs. the Small Disruptor. From a game theory perspective, it’s quite obvious that the chosen strategies of each affects the strategy of the other. Thus, I can see why this leads to contention because if one accepts the premise that a woman’s youthful indiscretions affect her ability to pair bond and have a stable relationship with her future husband, the Casanova Strategy does have a negative effect on the viability of a Blue Chip Strategy. This is supported by research that shows that women with more than 10 pre-marital partners shows a higher rate of divorce . However, the the lowest divorce rate according to the same study was where women had between three and nine pre-marital partners.
I did some research on notch counts of women in an earlier essay and while there is some cause for concern, if the data is reliable, I to some extent, think the female notch count problem is exaggerated. One must always keep in mind that the graphs are based on self reporting with the problems associated with that particular method of data collection. All data for hte previous chart are either from the CDC  or NHS .
From the charts, there is a significant number of women who according to the earlier source  will be likely to lead to a higher divorce rate. As the graph shows, in the UK a full 30% of women ages 25 – 34 have had in excess of 10 sexual partners in their lifetime, I would be inclined to add 25% to that since women are quite prone to reducing their partner number when asked, thus, it is likely that at least part of 5 – 9 partner group have had in excess of 10 as well.
In the US, the numbers are lower, however since the US and UK have similar cultures, I find it very strange that the number of partners differ as much as they do, with only 20% of American women ages 20 – 29 having had more than 7 and less than 14 partners, while only 8% or so admit to having had in excess of 15. However, this can also come down to statistical brackets.
However, perhaps the most interesting thing to me about this graph is that it shows how partner count has changed over time. The 55 – 69 bracket, and the corresponding 50 – 59 bracket in the U.S data, shows that partner count among women is on the increase, with a much lower amount of women in the top brackets reaching the highest tiers of number of partners, despite having had more time to rack up partners.
One must keep in mind that as the age of marriage has slowly crept up from 20 – 21 in 1950 to 27 in 2010 for women, and from 24 in 1950 to 28 – 29 for men in 2010 , there is more time to have more partners. A woman who gets married at 20 – 21, is unlikely to have time to go much beyond 5, if that. Likewise, a woman who has had a string of relationships on average 2.5 years each (serial monogamy) starting at age 17  , will rack up a partner count of 5 by age 27 and 6 by age 30 assuming no one-night stands or vacation flings. However, age is not the only factor, the removal of regulatory factors is also a major part in these results.
Social factors used to limit a sexual market place run amok through ensuring that a woman would not be able to gain her beta bucks if she indulged her alpha fucks, shotgun weddings served as the de-facto method for limiting male behavior on the same scale. A lack of contraception combined with the former, ensured that the risk of promiscuity and the neglect of long-term security for the woman and children would be borne by the individuals involved and their families rather than society at large. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s book “The Scarlet Letter” tells one such story of a child born as a result of adultery and the subsequent shunning of the mother and child from the community of which they were part. From a spiritual perspective, the idea that one may be condemned to eternal suffering and give up one’s place in the afterlife for a moment of fleeting pleasure may also serve as a limiting factor of social origin.
Arranged marriages, or marriages for business purpose, also served as an economic limit to the female side of of promiscuity, it was in the best interest of the family to ensure that the woman was thought how to be a wife appropriate for a husband of the family’s social standing, and to ensure that she was chaste as to secure the maximum value out of the transaction. Economic incentives were in place to limit promiscuity, and more than anything else, a substantial risk of loss should a family have to care for an unwed daughter, due to her being unsuitable for marriage as a result of promiscuity or other negative traits.
Finally, from a political perspective, as mentioned in earlier works, a stable environment in which to raise children, thus ensuring a stable and (ideally) growing population to serve as workers was also considered highly beneficial. One must keep in mind that the best way to ensure that male sexual energy is directed in a pro-social manner is to keep men married and with children. Any society that has a surplus of young men, with no reproductive opportunities, will inevitably devolve into conflict as the men have no investment, nor upside in supporting the present social order.
I sat down to write this essay because I wanted to shed some light on the idea of natural regulating mechanisms. We see these in many places, the more readily apparent is in financial systems, where bankruptcy serves as a method for removing the weeds in a growing garden. We get bubbles in the financial markets as a result of companies that engage in unsustainable practices much longer than naturally possible because of artificial methods that prevent natural mechanisms from making themselves known early. One can refer to stimulus packages, cheap credit, poorly enforced regulations and many others as means by which a bubble can be sustained. Likewise, in the sexual market place, there are ways to drive notch counts higher such as permissible social policies and lack of political leadership as a means by which to project values.
I’m reminded of a graphic I posted as a response to a twitter discussion, where I compared two male sexual strategies by number of potential offspring (the ultimate evolutionary goal of reproduction):
A man pursuing a sexual strategy focused on the volume of children, can massively outproduce a man focused on monogamy. The examples in the graphs are extreme, and “Death by Child Support” is based on a man being able to sleep with a woman every day (365 events of intercourse per year) with a 10% impregnation rate. The probability of such a man is very low, but even at a more conservative number such as sleeping with 1 new woman per week (52 per year), with a 5% impregnation rate will yield around 2.5 children per annum, compared to around a max of 1 per year (not adjusted for twin and triplet births).
However, the “Death by child support” strategy is pretty new, very few men have had historical capabilities to gain access to this much female sexuality in such a short amount of time, the exception being men of extraordinarily high status such as nobility, which is unlikely to have composed more than 5 – 10% of the population in a given realm. One must also keep in mind that in pre-history in a tribal society composed of perhaps 70 individuals at most, there would not be enough women, nor enough shadow in which such actions could be hidden. It would also be unsustainable in terms of feeding, clothing and raising the children, thus monogamy was a necessary adaptation in order to enable civilization to prosper, but that is, what it is.
One of the major enablers of 2008 was the removal of Depression era regulations and laws that existed because of the lessons learned from the Great Depression, these served to prevent the exact situation that took place during that time. I view culture and social factors as analogous to this, as a method by which lessons learned at a given time are embedded within the Sociocultural framework, in order to avoid the negative consequences a given group suffered at a point in time. In short, they are put in place to limit human nature.
Once one removes the regulatory mechanisms put in place, one cannot be surprised that human nature rears its ugly head once more and takes control. Every single financial bubble in history was born from greed, just as any sexual market bubble is born from lust. One can view child support as a method by which one sought to limit male promiscuity by ensuring that men have to pay the consequences of their promiscuity but it was a double-edged sword. By putting the responsibility on men, under threat of jail, while at the same time enacting social programs to support single-mothers, one freed the limiting part of the equation from the perspective of sexual strategies. Men seek out unlimited access to unlimited sexuality, women seek a combination of high quality genetic material to ensure the genetic fitness of their offspring, and high quality protection and provisioning to ensure the long-term security of their offspring. With the state fulfilling the latter, women are free to focus on only the former.
Summary and Conclusions
I think nostalgia and past-faking is a common thing thing among certain men, they look back in history and think “That’s when men were men, women were women and marriages lasted a lifetime” to some extent, they are right in that the divorce rate was lower, people had fewer pre-marital partners, and society supported families to a higher degree. However, as alluded to in different essays across the past 3 years I’ve been writing, just because it’s become obvious now doesn’t mean it’s all that different. With the proliferation of Social media, dating apps like Tinder and Bumble, 24 hour news coverage and so on, we can all see what’s going on. The Lady of the Manor banging the stable boy in 1880, the wife banging the pool boy in 1970, the milk man in 1950, the mail man in 1960 and the traveling salesman in 1920, was simply less obvious. Human nature hasn’t changed in the past 70 years, but our awareness of what is going on has.
Some readers may be asking the question “Isn’t Carl the guy who just wrote a piece on Tinder, him writing this makes no sense” and I can understand where they are coming from in that this essay contains a lot of, let’s refer to them as “tradconny perspectives“, and I expect that I will catch some flack on Twitter following the publication of this essay because I’m quite open about the fact that I’m single, have a lack of faith in the sustainability of marriage and am quite active in the dating market. There is no denying that monogamous relationships, supported by social, political and economic factors are inherently beneficial to the long-term development of a civilization, however that such relationships are perhaps inherently unnatural based on statistics that demonstrate that in history  humanity has practiced something closer to polygyny something which is quite common in the world today as well, with men taking on more than one wife.
If one were to reduction ad absurdum this, the two outer points would be reproductive Marxism where men and women are assigned to one another on a 1:1 ratio, so that every single man has a wife, every single woman has a husband the extreme on the other end would be that 20% of the men are married to 100% of the women, and 80% of men have no reproductive opportunity at all. The former would keep society stable, ensure male investment in the civilization, remove much warfare over reproductive access and that children are raised by a mother and father. The latter would ensure that only those 20% of men who are best adapted to the context (meaning most successful) maximize their number of offspring, which ensures that humanity has strong genetic fitness. Any position between these two are based on making a trade-off between the positives and negatives of each, much like any modern western country has a financial system that represents a trade-off between capitalism and socialism. The prevalence of divorce in Western Nations for instance leads not to a state of monogamy, but rather a state of soft-polyamory where one man or woman engages in sequential rather than concurrent multi-partner lifestyles. One may also posit that as the sexual market place becomes more competitive, higher value males may find themselves having a second litter of children at an older age, for instance having one group of children with their first partner when they are in their 30s, then a second group of children with their second partner in their late 40s or 50s.
The major reason why I often refer to the idea that “If all men adopt and live a red pill lifestyle the world will turn into a party at Caligula’s place and Rome will BURN!” rather flippantly, is in part due to the fact that hypergamy sorts that out and secondly, because I view the idea that all men adopting game and living a red pill life as preposterous. It’s a lot like weight lifting in that regard, most Western men have touched a barbell, few have done so repeatedly over time. Like it or not most men who find game, PUA literature and The Red Pill do so to get an answer to “How do I get her to be my girlfriend”, they want to find one woman with whom they can have a relationship. Few men are willing to put in the time, effort and have the dedication to build and maintain an SMV above 6 or 7 for any length of time. Even fewer men are willing or able to put in the work required to maintain a “playboy” lifestyle for decades on end. Thus, I largely view the “All the playboys will make sure that women have notch counts well above 10 by the time they hit 22” as rooted in fear and lack of realism. Not to mention the fact that they base the solution on men acting contrary to their own instincts, and best interests. In part I understand it because the probability of a woman becoming an alpha widow increases with her number of partners, and a woman cannot become an alpha widow without the alpha. However, this strikes me as the classic “Hyperagency vs. Hypoagency” dichotomy mixed with a distaste on their part for female agency.
This is one of the major issues that face the proponents of this particular line of reasoning, the solution to women becoming alpha widows is to remove the alpha. This absolves women for their part in the game, in fact it renders them as objects to be acted upon, to summarize, women are slaves to their instincts, they cannot control themselves around an alpha, but a man must always be in control, it’s “Boys will be boys” by another name. If one is to achieve the world these men desire one needs to regulate both sides of the equation, not just one.