Thread by @datepsych

This topic came up yesterday: what are male mating strategies, how does evolutionary psychology see them, and how is this different from the red pill. I will use this article as a reference for the red pill belief system.

First, from Buss & Schmitt: Sexual Strategies Theory (SST). The core of this is long and short term mating. Men and women do this.

Men are substantially more oriented towards short term mating. This is driven by biological differences in reproduction.

Research supporting this: men score higher in sociosexuality, are more promiscuous, more likely to cheat, are open to casual sex with attractive strangers (eg Clark & Hatfield), are aroused more easily, larger libidos, etc.

Important to understand in evolution: this is not "optimizing." A common misconception people have about evolution is that it is an optimizing force. Evolution is satisficing, not optimizing. Adaptations are "good enough" behaviors, not optimal ones. From the RP article:

That men are more promiscuous in SST is not contrary to men also having a strong long term relationship orientation.

Human beings, men and women both, are remarkably oriented towards long term relationships.

Important: serial monogamy is the dominant human mating pattern across the world (even in polygamous societies where men have access to multiple women). In actual behavior we see commitment as the norm.

And male promiscuity is not polygamy. Polygamy is a long term mating strategy where multiple mates are kept. Promiscuity reflects a short term strategy.

Promiscuity may also occur concurrently with a long term strategy. This is when we see infidelity, cheating.

So, "men are polygamous" describes one form of long term mating.

Polygamy isn't "the" male strategy (we don't see it that often). It doesn't describe the male drive for short term casual sex. A few mistakes in this:

Hypergamy also doesn't describe an imperative to get the "best." Again, evolution is not an optimizing force.

Hypergamy is simply a selection "up." Men and women both select "up" in different ways for different traits.

Long and short term mate selection can be hypergamous or hypogamous. Polygamy can be hypergamous or not. Polygamy and hypergamy are not opposite ends of a spectrum. They describe different mating behaviors that may overlap.

If men are hypergamous depends on what variable you look at. Status, income, resources? Typically no. Physical attractiveness? Yes, men select up.

If you define hypergamy as a selection or preference for more attractive mates, men are hypergamous.

Related to this, male mating is not indiscriminate. Men prioritize traits in long and short term selection of female partners.

Why don't men actually try to get "as many women as possible" indiscriminately as the RP post claims? This probably would have a cost to fitness.

For example, consider the male short term strategy of infidelity. Maybe it lets you breed. But it can also cost you a long term mate. This is costly to reproductive fitness. Why? Long term mating for men, male provisioning, evolved to ensure the survival of offspring.

If you want to see this in action, just look at how many RP gurus have wives and kids. They're not maximizing casual sex. Like most men, they have chosen the long term branch of the male sexual strategy.

Important to understand this: in male long term strategies, men invest heavily in offspring. They protect them. Keep them alive. We do this more than most animals. We're not baby-making maximizers. This is why we have low promiscuity rates relative to many animals.

Which also means this part is wrong. Men don't want to have sex with as many low value women as possible without committing or investing anything at all in them. At least not as a general rule. This doesn't describe most of male mating behavior.

We are heavy investors in long term relationships and in small numbers of offspring. This is an evolutionary trade-off to being low investors in large numbers of offspring (like a salmon). The evolution of feelings like love and jealousy reflect this.

Little in actual psychology is a simplistic rule of "men are X," like "men are polygamous." SST is context dependent. The environment and individual differences in personality shape who will be more or less oriented towards short and long term mating strategies.

Univariate descriptions of male sexuality like "men just want to maximize sex" is something you can find on a fridge magnet, but evolutionary psychology is more complex.

Men have a pluralistic strategy. We want different things, we want them both strongly, and they may conflict.

Is the opinion below "a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective?" Doesn't seem to be. Here again we have a univariate belief about male sexuality: it's defined by a desire towards unrestricted promiscuity.

SST is not so one-dimensional.

You could also say: evolution has shaped you to fall in love with a woman, be a little too obsessed with her, stay with her, and raise a baby together.

Terms like "oneitis" describe behaviors/feelings that evolved as part of the male sexual strategy.

You will never hear the red pill tell you: "love is your biological imperative."

Yet this raw drive for love is one of the oldest and most powerful mating adaptations we have.

Any discussion of male mating strategies without long term pair bonding is missing a big piece.

Men who could exercise "unlimited access to unlimited sexuality" (rich men) usually don't.

Easy to simply surround yourself with sex workers. This would fulfill the criteria of not caring about mate value and having sexual access.

Yet, very few Hugh Hefners among the elite.

What do we see instead?

Men who are high status, wealthy, or more physically attractive are more likely to be married.

Most cues of male desirability are associated with long term relationship formation (as evolutionary psychology predicts).

Male and female mating strategies are not a zero sum battle of the sexes.

We evolved a greater disposition towards promiscuity. But this does not mean it is the core "male strategy" while long term relationship formation is not.

That both exist is kind of the point of SST.