LXR
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2025
- Posts
- 4,594
- Reputation
- 8,654
Often in Redpill, one encounters this argument that humanity's natural state is polygamy and that most women nowadays stay in harems. There is one problem with this train of thought
The harems that were in post Neolithic era were not based on looks, they were based on wealth and power which is inherently tied to masculinisation. Now a lot of people have some pretty cope ideas about masculinisation in that you only consider only physical dimorphism. That too the degree of dimorphism. Mascilinisation also occurs in behaviour and cognitive load that is a separate post. Simply put, men with enough masculinisation and luck would take more risks than a man not, hoard resources and thereby attract mates. Now obviously you need to guard resources and mates too so a good degree of physical and behavioural masculinisarion is needed.
Even if we look at Pre Neolithic times where few men managed to reproduced with more women, it might be due to the same resource extraction and hoarding capability. Again mental capacity is the bottleneck, while one need only pass physical standards, which in retrospect would be much higher than today's sedentary life.
So the men that were having harems were not the Chads that everyone jerks off to. These are guys that are willing to take risks, are overtly ambitious and have to social capacity to handle/lead larger groups. Insofar as physical aspect is concerned, being above average to exceptional would work fine. The main driver is behaviour and cognition.
Contrast that to the modern harem. In today's world women dont need to rely on a man for his resources as much as women did previously. That does not mean that women do not choose for wealth but that the emphasis is much less than before. In absence of pressure on resource scarcity, the bias towards the last remaining variable, that being physical capacity becomes much more dominant. Again note physical capacity, not attractiveness strictly.
Across times and societies, some ideals in a man are universal. Tall, broad and virile. Virility is subjective but it almost always includes adequate penis amd the ability to please a woman aka lasting long.
People forget that it is only this specific time from 1980s to 2010s that Anglo culture became so uniform across the world. That is why the emphasis on aesthetic quality is so emphasised throughout the world. Now obviously I dont mean to say that only Anglos like beautiful men but the standards are much higher than elsewhere. Even so to have sex a man needs the 3 qualities I stated above.
The more a man has these 3 traits, the more sexual success, compounding upto a point.
Thus the harems if they exist as a proxy to determine a man's sexual success in modern day are predicated on completely different qualities today than in yesteryears and that is what Redpill gets wrong
The harems that were in post Neolithic era were not based on looks, they were based on wealth and power which is inherently tied to masculinisation. Now a lot of people have some pretty cope ideas about masculinisation in that you only consider only physical dimorphism. That too the degree of dimorphism. Mascilinisation also occurs in behaviour and cognitive load that is a separate post. Simply put, men with enough masculinisation and luck would take more risks than a man not, hoard resources and thereby attract mates. Now obviously you need to guard resources and mates too so a good degree of physical and behavioural masculinisarion is needed.
Even if we look at Pre Neolithic times where few men managed to reproduced with more women, it might be due to the same resource extraction and hoarding capability. Again mental capacity is the bottleneck, while one need only pass physical standards, which in retrospect would be much higher than today's sedentary life.
So the men that were having harems were not the Chads that everyone jerks off to. These are guys that are willing to take risks, are overtly ambitious and have to social capacity to handle/lead larger groups. Insofar as physical aspect is concerned, being above average to exceptional would work fine. The main driver is behaviour and cognition.
Contrast that to the modern harem. In today's world women dont need to rely on a man for his resources as much as women did previously. That does not mean that women do not choose for wealth but that the emphasis is much less than before. In absence of pressure on resource scarcity, the bias towards the last remaining variable, that being physical capacity becomes much more dominant. Again note physical capacity, not attractiveness strictly.
Across times and societies, some ideals in a man are universal. Tall, broad and virile. Virility is subjective but it almost always includes adequate penis amd the ability to please a woman aka lasting long.
People forget that it is only this specific time from 1980s to 2010s that Anglo culture became so uniform across the world. That is why the emphasis on aesthetic quality is so emphasised throughout the world. Now obviously I dont mean to say that only Anglos like beautiful men but the standards are much higher than elsewhere. Even so to have sex a man needs the 3 qualities I stated above.
The more a man has these 3 traits, the more sexual success, compounding upto a point.
Thus the harems if they exist as a proxy to determine a man's sexual success in modern day are predicated on completely different qualities today than in yesteryears and that is what Redpill gets wrong
Last edited:
