I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.
At a deeper level, both morality and evolution are all about encouraging survival of genes.
In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women.
Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.
A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.
They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter.
>A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.
These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success.
>They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.
And then you hear 'there are no good men'
And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis?
Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man)
Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
> throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm
As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...
Historical reproduction ALSO isn't useful when contraception is now a prevalent thing the numbers would in no way match. Regarding the last I couldn't find the claim that 4 to 5 women reproduced for every man so I'm just going to assume you misread. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be so unless you meant within a narrow age range considering men can reproduce for most of their lives and women most do so within a narrow range.
Looking at the same graph at the head of the page in 1998ish there was about 20% of the most effected age range who hadn't had sex in a year. It's now 28 and in fact the graph goes up and down and it seems that other age ranges are less effected.
I think by recent history, the mean thousands of years, not the last ten years. So most of the time before contraception was available.
Men being able to reproduce for most of their lives doesn't help much if they have nobody to reproduce with. I guess it helps if you can afford young wives even as you get older.
Of course it doesn't seems as if he is taking on 50 women, so the women are stuck with Joe Average for the most part.
Just because women would prefer George Clooney, doesn't mean they can get him.
And sure, modern society (at least for a while) has made monogamy the norm. Doesn't mean it is best suited for women's preferences.
Assuming all of a woman’s needs are financial, sure. But unless he is hiring Joe Averages to provide personal attention and emotional support (and there are issues with the viability of that), not really in the universe of what appears to be real human needs.
Maybe their preference would by monogamy - with George Clooney. But since that is not an option, the bets are off. In general, there may not be enough rich men willing to take on multiple women for a significant number of women to choose that option.