B
Seems like we have a number of different mating behaviors affecting us:
- Promiscuous, polygamous: party, prom, nightlife, dating apps like Tinder
- Monogamous: traditional marriage, betabux
- Forced: women as property, marriages arranged by parents/families/tribes, men allowed or expected to subdue wives. Optionally polygamous.
"Polygamous" usually means one man has several women. Polyandry (multiple men per woman) is very exceptional. Polygamy can occur voluntarily, by women selecting the most attractive men, or forced.
I checked some mating behaviors on a Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system
There was also an interesting reference to a study by Frank W. Marlowe, Harvard 2003, "The Mating System of Foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample". This one examines the connections between monogamy and polygyny, male providing, pathogen stress and coercive/violent societies towards women.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140302125838/http://raptor1.bizlab.mtsu.edu/s-drive/TEFF/662/papers2010/men_dominance/The Mating System of Foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.pdf
As already noticed, dating apps like Tinder favor only a small percentage of men, leaving roughly 80% of them with only 20% of female likes. Probably, the same applies to proms, parties and dance clubs, where short term impressions and rapid pick-up are decisive factors. It's "the winner takes it all", if you don't belong to the upper 20%, don't even bother trying! Furthermore, the more polygyny there is, the more it favors only a small percentage of men.
Stable monogamous relationships allow a wider distribution between women and men, increasing chances for non-alpha men. There is still serious problem for incels, who tend to be omega, rather than beta. Alpha male gene shopping, besides living with a male provider, seems to be a common female mating strategy in any kind of officially monogamous relationships, thus no difference between present time betabux, and cucked husbands in previous centuries - AFBB even applied back then.
The interesting thing is the study on foraging tribes, which come closest to prehistoric, pre-civilization humans: Most had some level of polygyny, only a few were all monogamous, and few were mostly polygamous, with most women married to few men with multiple women, and high rates of single men:
- High male contribution to subsistence reduced, low increased frequency of polygamy. Fisher and hunter tribes, with high male contribution, were mostly more monogamous.
- High pathogen loads slightly increased the frequency of polygamy.
- Male coercion, arranged marriages, high risk of assault or warfare greatly increased the likeliness of polygyny; these oppressive and violent societies tend to give the women available only to few men in power.
The last is an indication, that a society with arranged marriages, and women as property, something like in many Arab countries, especially backward rural regions, and sanctioned by Islam, is strongly correlated to hard polygyny: Many women being married to few men. While Incels will less likely fail there, due to women's choice, there are even tighter social restrictions, likely preventing them from getting together with women. Polygyny usually creates a scarcity of women available, and reduction of sex to a lifelong marriage makes even a temporary success less likely. Calling for such a violent and oppressive society, out of despair of not getting a woman, will likely backfire badly. And beyond this topic, such a society will be hell for everyone, except those at the top.
Modern promiscuity and polygamy, based on women's choice and alpha gene shopping, works very much like polygamy in ancient, or even present time societies: only few men get all the women.
From this rather short overview, either a mainstream of traditional, monogamous lifestyle, or several long-term common-law spouses could be the best to be with women on a provider base. Gene-shopping/alpha mating will be permanently inaccessible for incels. Or maybe one can find ways to fix sexual liberty, in order to distribute chances more equally, and remove the "winner takes it all" problem, that excludes so many.
- Promiscuous, polygamous: party, prom, nightlife, dating apps like Tinder
- Monogamous: traditional marriage, betabux
- Forced: women as property, marriages arranged by parents/families/tribes, men allowed or expected to subdue wives. Optionally polygamous.
"Polygamous" usually means one man has several women. Polyandry (multiple men per woman) is very exceptional. Polygamy can occur voluntarily, by women selecting the most attractive men, or forced.
I checked some mating behaviors on a Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system
There was also an interesting reference to a study by Frank W. Marlowe, Harvard 2003, "The Mating System of Foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample". This one examines the connections between monogamy and polygyny, male providing, pathogen stress and coercive/violent societies towards women.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140302125838/http://raptor1.bizlab.mtsu.edu/s-drive/TEFF/662/papers2010/men_dominance/The Mating System of Foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.pdf
As already noticed, dating apps like Tinder favor only a small percentage of men, leaving roughly 80% of them with only 20% of female likes. Probably, the same applies to proms, parties and dance clubs, where short term impressions and rapid pick-up are decisive factors. It's "the winner takes it all", if you don't belong to the upper 20%, don't even bother trying! Furthermore, the more polygyny there is, the more it favors only a small percentage of men.
Stable monogamous relationships allow a wider distribution between women and men, increasing chances for non-alpha men. There is still serious problem for incels, who tend to be omega, rather than beta. Alpha male gene shopping, besides living with a male provider, seems to be a common female mating strategy in any kind of officially monogamous relationships, thus no difference between present time betabux, and cucked husbands in previous centuries - AFBB even applied back then.
The interesting thing is the study on foraging tribes, which come closest to prehistoric, pre-civilization humans: Most had some level of polygyny, only a few were all monogamous, and few were mostly polygamous, with most women married to few men with multiple women, and high rates of single men:
- High male contribution to subsistence reduced, low increased frequency of polygamy. Fisher and hunter tribes, with high male contribution, were mostly more monogamous.
- High pathogen loads slightly increased the frequency of polygamy.
- Male coercion, arranged marriages, high risk of assault or warfare greatly increased the likeliness of polygyny; these oppressive and violent societies tend to give the women available only to few men in power.
The last is an indication, that a society with arranged marriages, and women as property, something like in many Arab countries, especially backward rural regions, and sanctioned by Islam, is strongly correlated to hard polygyny: Many women being married to few men. While Incels will less likely fail there, due to women's choice, there are even tighter social restrictions, likely preventing them from getting together with women. Polygyny usually creates a scarcity of women available, and reduction of sex to a lifelong marriage makes even a temporary success less likely. Calling for such a violent and oppressive society, out of despair of not getting a woman, will likely backfire badly. And beyond this topic, such a society will be hell for everyone, except those at the top.
Modern promiscuity and polygamy, based on women's choice and alpha gene shopping, works very much like polygamy in ancient, or even present time societies: only few men get all the women.
From this rather short overview, either a mainstream of traditional, monogamous lifestyle, or several long-term common-law spouses could be the best to be with women on a provider base. Gene-shopping/alpha mating will be permanently inaccessible for incels. Or maybe one can find ways to fix sexual liberty, in order to distribute chances more equally, and remove the "winner takes it all" problem, that excludes so many.
Last edited:
