Available on Amazon (links at end)

Below is an excerpt from Chapter Two: 

Alpha Seed, Beta Need, Hypergamy, and the Jargon of Red Pill

Women seek alpha men when they're young and at their most fertile and betas when they've hit the wall and need provisioning.

Red Pill is insistent upon the concept of women having set life phases they go through where they prefer one side of their hypergamy over the other. According to Red Pill, young women from puberty through their "party years" of 20-27 favor short-term sexual relationships with alpha men. This corresponds with women's peak fertility years and her highest sexual marketplace value (when she is most desired by the highest number of men), allowing her to procreate with the highest-quality males she will ever be able to secure. After that, women go through a transitional phase from 27 to 30 before hitting "the wall," or a point where her age and reduced sexual market value become evident and she is no longer able to compete with younger, sexier women coming onto the sexual marketplace. At this point, Red Pill asserts, women enter their "security phase" where they will seek to marry and lock down a beta-someone to offer them and their illegitimate alpha spawn safety and provisioning. Less talked about are later phases where women supposedly have a resurge in interest in pursuing alphas before once again preferring betas.

First off, no-way-no-how does an 18-year-old hunter-gatherer woman not already have a baby on her hip and possibly another on the way. The Ache in Paraguay are one of the few remaining nomadic hunter-gatherer societies still living and their women's average age of first birth is 17.5 years of age. A study of modern Gambian women, who live in an environment where it is often difficult for children to get sufficient quality nutrition, found that the optimal age of first-births for women to optimize their lifetime reproductive success was at eighteen years of age. This was the point in a food resource-limited environment that balanced delaying reproduction to allow the woman time to gain more weight, height, and nutrient reserves with the diminishing returns of producing fewer healthy children over the course of her lifespan (Allal, N).

The spread of agriculture from 10,000-12,000 years ago and the presence of more abundant food in childhood drastically decreased the average age of first births for humans. Ancient Jewish law describes twelve years and one day as the youngest age a woman can marry, and most Jewish scholars of past centuries recommended women be married as soon as they reached puberty, or as soon as their menses began, in order to prevent sexual immorality and illegitimate children (Jewish Virtual Library). This law comes from the Talmud, the basis of rabbinic law, which has been practiced since the 4th century. This practice corresponds with marriage laws and first-birth ages in ancient Egypt, medieval Europe, imperial China, and a swath of other ancient societies who practiced agriculture in years that are and are not followed by "B.C." (Herlihy, David; Lee, Jen-Der). Before we cast negative judgement-men were eligible for marriage at age 13 or 14. This was considered adulthood in those times.

Women simply could not have evolved to have these "party years" where they shun betas and prefer short-term sexual escapades with alphas because women spent their early twenties already saddled with children. The need for provisioning is not an afterthought-it is a need that becomes critical during the pregnancy itself. Our ancestral women would already need a beta provider long before she reached her peak sexual market value, which isn't until approximately age 21-23, according to Red Pill. If Red Pill is correct with their women's life phase theory, then that transition period should be much earlier-probably closer to age 13-18, at which point it would make more sense for a woman to transition into her "beta" phase. It's highly unlikely a hunter-gatherer woman and her children could survive the long party years without significant provisioning from a dedicated mate. To put it frankly: it doesn't matter how good the alpha's genes are if the kid doesn't survive.

Sexual selection pressures in modern times post-birth control pill have altered women's sexual preferences.

The idea that our western population has had an evolutionary shift since the availability of reliable birth control in the 1960s is an unfortunately common belief amongst individual Red Pill advocates within the community. To Red Pill's credit, I have not seen this error in any of Red Pill's more commonly cited literature. However, because I've encountered it so often in my research and interactions with Red Pill advocates, and because it seems to be such a widely held belief within the community, I will address it here.

Evolution is a process that occurs to a population, not to an individual, and it is a process that occurs very, very slowly.

An interesting example is the common fruit fly, Drosophila. The female fly is promiscuous, and the male has developed a counter-strategy of lacing his ejaculate with a chemical that acts as an anti-aphrodisiac along with other chemicals that work to incapacitate the sperm of other males. It's important to note that these adaptations have evolved for the male's reproductive benefit and not for the species' benefit-these same chemicals are similar to spider venom, are toxic, and drastically reduce the female's lifespan. However, the male's interest in the female extends only so long as it takes for her to lay the eggs fertilized by him. The likelihood of these two individual Drosophila having a future joint reproductive venture is minute, so even if the male harms the female by reducing her future reproductive output, that has no bearing on the pressures shaping his gene's survival and reproduction (Birkhead).

When researchers decided to dramatically change the fly's sexual environment, as meddling researchers are wont to do, an interesting phenomenon occurred. With enforced monogamy the pressures on the male fly were all of the sudden directly linked to the female's reproductive longevity, and over time the male Drosophila produced less and less of the toxic chemicals with their semen and became less and less aggressive towards their mates. Although production of the chemicals had not stopped at the conclusion of the experiment, they had been reduced to the point where the female fruit flies were enjoying a roughly 10-20% longer lifespan. It took 47 generations (Holland, B).

Wikipedia describes a human generation to be approximately 20-30 years. Even if women are having their first children in their early teens, they are also having children into their thirties, so there is an average. If we use the lower end of this definition, with the earliest reliable modern birth control becoming publically available in the 1960s, then our modern genome has had all of three generations to contend with a new and unnatural sexual environment. That's nothing. That's a drop in the bucket.

To put this into context, the Drosophila experiment represented a complete, strictly enforced, and totally alien sexual environment than the flies had evolved with. Birth control does give humans a similar alien sexual environment, but it doesn't come with the totality or strict enforcement of a laboratory experiment. For modern humans to have the same conditions that led to such a quick change in genome, we would have to have zero mixing between the descendants of women who use birth control to delay pregnancy until their late twenties (or whenever) along with the men chosen by these women to eventually reproduce with, and the descendants of women who never used birth control and the men they had children with. Mothers who gave birth at sixteen or who waited until marriage to reproduce would not be able to advise their daughters to be on birth control, and their sons would not be allowed to date any woman who has ever taken birth control or used a condom (which were not legal in the USA until the late 1940s). In modern-day America, half of all births are unplanned with women who do use contraceptives not always using them 100% of the time when they are not trying to get pregnant, so there is some significant mixing of reproductive strategies going on (Hanson, S.J.). We can't expect our evolution to be as quick as this experiment was because of this inevitable mixing. In a mixed-strategy alien environment, significant genome changes would take much, much longer than the 47 generations it took in a strictly controlled environment.

But let's say it would be just as quick for humans to get the drastic changes in genome and corresponding behaviors and life cycles as it was for Drosophila. 47 generations puts us in the year 1082: Europe had finally crawled out of the Dark Ages, Italy was starting to experiment with a new-fangled concept called capitalism, the Song Dynasty in China was working up to its peak which it would achieve in another thirty years, and William the Conqueror, the first Norman monarch of England, sat on the English throne. Had reliable birth control been invented and widely available then, then we might reasonably expect to see some genetically based consequences of it today.

Anyone who states that birth control has had any significant effect on the genetics of humans, their inborn sexual selection preferences, or their behavioral wiring is giving prima facie proof that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Women want Alphas to breed with because women's mate preferences change with their ovulation cycle.

In Red Pill's defense, there was a time when the ovulatory-shift and dual-mating hypothesis seemed to be backed up by the available evidence. Today, this is no longer the case.

Some studies in the late 1990s and early 2000s suggested that ovulating women showed greater preference for more masculine "alpha" men while maintaining a preference for less masculine "beta" men when they were not ovulating (Gangestad, Thornhill; Penton-Voak, et al.). This was such a sexy idea and captivated so much popular attention that researchers threw themselves on the grant-money bandwagon. Speculation ran wild on the internet proclaiming this was proof that women were biologically driven to cheat on their partners when fertile. However, with larger budgets and more data, researchers were unable to reproduce the original results (Harris, Christine; Peters, Marianne; Jones, Benedict C., et al).

One of the larger studies involving 26,000 women showed that, yes, women got hornier when ovulating, but it had no correlation with mate-retention behavior, narcissism, or clothing choices (Arslan, Ruban). Thiers was not the only study unable to find evidence corroborating the theory that women are more inclined to cheat when fertile (Jones, Benedict C. and Amanda Hahn). Testing the hypothesis that maybe ovulating women were just more inclined towards casual sex rather than outright infidelity than were non-ovulating women also turned out to be false (Thomas, Andrew).

One thing that is important to keep in mind when dealing with scientific data is the concept of reproducibility, or the ability to produce consistent results across multiple studies by multiple researchers all using the same methods as the original study. One small study can result in some very surprising and intriguing results, but if you know how to Science then you know to keep asking questions due to the large number of uncontrollable and largely unknowable 'X-factors' involved when you're dealing with real-world conditions. This is why large studies are considered more reliable than small studies: larger samples mean the chance of random X-factors skewing the data is minimized.

That being said, if an earlier study's conclusions are later unreproducible or proven incorrect, that doesn't mean the original study isn't valuable. Science is about asking questions, and about finding answers. Sometimes the answers researcher get just aren't the answers to the questions they were asking.

For instance, in one of the original studies that kicked off the ovulatory-shift, dual-mating hypothesis, 52 women were asked to smell T-shirts worn by 42 different men. The researchers found that ovulating women preferred the scent of T-shirts worn by men with more symmetrical faces, while non-ovulating women preferred men with less symmetrical faces. The researchers hypothesized that women who are ovulating are more driven to seek out the superior genetics that symmetrical faces represent (Gangestad, Thornhill).

A Swiss zoologist was intrigued by this and decided to do his own smelly T-shirt study using his knowledge of how animals select their mates. Instead of using ovulating vs non-ovulating women, his study used women both on and off hormonal birth control and found a correlation between the women's scent preference and the similarity of their and the men's major histocompatibility locus (MHC, or HLA in humans). MHC is an immune function gene that affects body odor and zoologists have known for some time that some animals use scent pheromones to identify potential mates who have different MHCs from their own. Having parents with different immune system genes means any offspring are likely to have a stronger and more diverse immune systems than their parents. The zoologists study concluded that, unlike previously believed, humans do respond to scent pheromones. Women on hormonal birth control favored men with MHCs similar to their own, while women not on birth control favored men with MHCs different than their own (Wedekind, Claus, et al.). However, there is no correlation between any measurable alpha-ness and what kind of immune genes a man has. If anything, this discovery is literally saying, "there is someone for everyone." Subsequent and larger studies have successfully reproduced similar results (Roberts, Craig, et al.; Kromer, J. et al.)

It's entirely possible that the small, original smelly T-shirt study got skewed results from the unknown X-factor of MHC. Sometimes-infuriatingly often-doing Science is a journey about figuring out what the question you're actually asking is.

Similarly, a study in 2013 found that ovulating women were more likely to wear red, and this was hypothesized to be a type of fertility-signaling (Beall, Alec). However, when those same researchers attempted to duplicate their findings during a different time of year, they found that women's choice to wear red has a lot more to do with the fact that red is a more fashionable choice for women to wear in the fall and winter than it has to do with signaling fertility (Tracy, Jessica).

The other study destined to ignite the internet was about women's preferences for men's facial features while ovulating and while not ovulating (Penton-Voak, et al.). Men with higher testosterone levels have more pronounced secondary sexual characteristics, including squarer jaws and hollower cheekbones, and this (presumably) would separate the alphas from the betas. This study has been repeated many, many times. Many results have concluded that ovulating women prefer men with more pronounced jawbones and non-ovulating women prefer men with more feminine facial features. Many other studies have said there is no link. The fact that we can't get consistent results is likely telling us that there is one or more currently unknown X-factors mucking up our questions.

However, for the sake of argument, let's throw all that out and work on the assumption that Red Pill is correct and women are more attracted to beta men when less horny and fertile, and more attracted to alpha men when more horny and fertile. Let's also assume that ovulating women are biologically driven to cheat on their beta partners with alpha men. Red Pill's prescription is for men to become more alpha in order to capitalize on the maximum horniness and potential towards promiscuity that ovulating women are capable of.

The way hormonal birth control works is by preventing ovulation and keeping women in a hormonal state which mimics pregnancy. Ninety-eight percent of American women have used birth control at some point in their lives, with the most common form being the hormonal pill (Hanson, S.J.) Among currently sexually active women not seeking pregnancy, contraceptive use is 84-91%, depending on cultural and economic background (Collins, Emily). For Red Pill's target demographic of peak sexual marketplace value women (women in their twenties), sixty-two percent of all of them use birth control, including those seeking pregnancy, already pregnant, or not sexually active (Daniels, K).

If Red Pill is correct about women being more attracted to alpha men when ovulating and beta men when not ovulating, and the majority of high-value-women are taking hormonal birth control to not ovulate, then the logical course of action to be more attractive to these women would be... to become more beta?

Let's really think about this idea of women being motivated to cheat on their beta men with alpha men. The whole reason women supposedly do this is because alpha men have better genetics than beta men. But is securing superior genetics actually an evolutionary pressure that women have experienced? Or is this simply a male-centric motivation that Red Pill has projected upon women?

Red Pill has this odd pair of blinders on when it comes to sex and can't seem to get its head wrapped around the concept of sex in ancestral peoples being used for anything other than procreation. Red Pill sees modern women fawning over muscular hunka-hunks of man-meat alphas and can't understand what they get out of it besides the reproduction potential, so Red Pill assumes that women have evolved to crave those "good genes" that, apparently, Red Pill thinks alphas have. They take it as proof. It's a good theory, and it makes sense, but it breaks down under scrutiny.

If women's sexual behavior was actually driven primarily by reproduction, then we'd be one of the many, many species who just goes into heat once a year. Or once a month when ovulating. Yet, women are sexually receptive throughout their cycles. That's an evolutionary adaptation that you won't find in lions or tigers and it's an adaptation that is not explained by Red Pill theory.

What is the true bottleneck of reproduction? We know it's women-but is the limitation truly just the difference in energy production to make a billion sperm versus a few eggs? No-the most limiting factor to produce healthy offspring that will go on to create their own healthy offspring is what creates the bottleneck. The most limiting factor is always the costliest, and that factor is parental investment in species who parentally invest. In most species, females are almost always guaranteed a shot at reproduction-they represent the limiting factor, while males have to compete for the lady's favor and, despite their efforts, may still not get chosen by a mate. This puts immense evolutionary pressure on males to reproduce, but considerably less so on females.

This is called Bateman's principle: the biological principle where an asymmetry in male and female reproductive pressures will lead to sexual dimorphism in the sex with a greater pressure. Specifically, female reproduction is limited by access to resources and male reproduction is limited by access to females. A successful male can sire many offspring from many females, thus disproportionately taking away mating opportunities from other males. However, a reproductively successful female cannot take reproductive opportunities away from other females. This leads to competition amongst the males for females and also leads to choosier females who don't bother to expend energy competing with one another. Since there is greater pressure on the male (competition both for the limited resource and against other males), we can expect to see sexual dimorphism play out more in the male than the female. This is why so many males of species are showier-male lions have big manes, male peacocks have bright feathers. The level at which this behavior and physical manifestation is seen is proportional to how much asymmetry there is. In monogamous species, there is very little if any asymmetry, but in non-monogamous species it is more and more apparent the further from monogamy they get. Some species even have these rolls reversed: in seahorses, it's the male who provides all the parenting and post-fertilization care. Female seahorses compete for males, and it's the males that are the choosy, and thus bottleneck, sex. Male seahorses prefer larger females, and so we see a sexual dimorphism where the females are larger than the males (Mattle, Beat).

What we're seeing here is that males and females have different evolutionary pressures shaping their behavior and mating strategies. It's not just a flat evolutionary pressure to reproduce-it's a pressure to obtain the thing that's the most difficult to obtain that is keeping them from reproducing. For males that limiting factor is females, but for females that limiting factor is resources. Men are primarily driven to have sex-that's the thing their mating strategy is limited by (available females), but women have not experienced that particular evolutionary pressure. Women almost always have the opportunity to have sex. Women are driven to secure provisioning.

Considering the very real risk of losing the provisioning she has from her beta male if she's caught, how on earth could a set strategy of infidelity in favor of non-contributing alphas develop in women when the cost of parental investment is so high? Remember-her evolutionary pressure isn't to secure the best genetics from her mate, it's to ensure her genetics get passed on and survive. The woman isn't playing to win for a man's genetics, she's playing to win for her own. A woman who secures provisioning wins, even if the male offers inferior genetics, because her genetics are getting passed on and are surviving to adulthood. A woman who risks that provisioning by hooking up with an alpha isn't just putting the alpha's high-quality DNA at risk, she's putting her own previous children and her own life at risk. Until the modern age of cars and internet, a woman's social world was typically a lot smaller than it is now and being caught cheating on her man didn't just risk her relationship with that man, but also with his extended family and friends, not to mention the future costs of securing a new beta now that her wandering tendencies have been exposed. For the vast majority of history there was not a whole lot of immigration going on and so a cheating woman could not count on a steady influx of new betas who did not know her problematic history to dupe, so she would be severely reducing her own, her current dependent children, and all her future children's prospects of survival. That's a hell of a gamble to make when the payoff is a slightly-higher-quality offspring than the faithful woman who can confidently keep herself and her slightly-lower-quality kids alive. It seems highly unlikely that this strategy would win out, consistently, throughout the many, many generations needed to make this sort of strategy a permanent part of women's biological wiring.

But if she can pull it off and get the superior genetics from the alpha and dupe the beta into raising the alpha's kid, then she's really winning.

Okay, fair enough. Maybe, somehow, this strategy managed to be overall beneficial to the women who practiced it and so their alpha-seed-beta-need genes got passed on more than other women's genes. How could we test this theory? Well, if the reason for alpha-seed infidelity is hypergamy as Red Pill defines it-that is, hypergamy exists for women to be able to secure the best genetics for their offspring-and women incur a potentially high risk for being caught banging an alpha behind her beta's back, then it makes sense that, as Red Pill claims, women are most likely to cheat with alphas when they are ovulating. Why risk losing provisioning if there is no chance of even securing the superior genetics?

According to Red Pill, women are certainly able to perceive when they are ovulating and most fertile (if only unconsciously or subconsciously), and on that point I do not disagree. The studies Red Pill continually points to, which I have cited here, also spell this out pretty explicitly. Therefore, observing women on modern birth control would be an excellent way to see if this Red Pill theory holds true. After all, birth control eliminates ovulation, eliminates the chance for pregnancy, and should thus eliminate hypergamy in women-or at least the "continual" hypergamy Red Pill has expanded the traditional definition of "hypergamy" to include.

I don't need to quote a study to tell you that birth control does not eliminate women being drawn to attractive, masculine men, nor does it keep women from cheating on their partners. There is something else going on, and Red Pill's alpha-seed beta-need theory doesn't explain it. We will come back to this mating strategy later.

Why do women mate at all points in their fertility cycle? Because women who were able to leverage sex for resources, for comradery, for strengthening social bonds, and for other reasons, did better and successfully passed on their genes more than women who were only open to sex when fertile. Reproduction is actually pretty far down the priority list of things that humans use sex for, but women who were able to utilize sexuality to improve their overall fitness ultimately did better in the game of procreation.

There are other considerations as well that Red Pill doesn't account for. While men typically have few risks and many benefits when it comes to sex, women must grapple with a far more complex cost/benefit analysis. It's not just the cost of pregnancy and provisioning a child that must be weighed, but also the possible risks of saying no. Find any adult woman and give her the following scenario: She is alone--perhaps at a park, a car wash, or out jogging. A man she has never seen before approaches her and says, "Hi, I've been watching you and I think you are very beautiful. Would you like to go with me to get a cup of coffee?" She politely declines. He smiles and says, "Okay, sorry to bother you. Have a good day," and walks away.

Nine times out of ten, what our hypothetical woman feels is relief. Being on the receiving end of sexual and romantic advances brings with it very real risks and dangers that must be taken into account when pondering evolutionary theory. I'd wager that roughly 100% of women over the age of sixteen or so has had some initially charming suitor turn into an asshole the moment she turned him down. One minute he's smiling and flirting, the next he's calling her a bitch and telling her to go to hell. Having something other people-particularly people who are larger and stronger than you-want is a very good place to be socially and economically, but it can be a very dangerous place to be physically.

This is in no way meant to be interpreted as "all men who approach women are aggressive assholes." In fact, the vast majority of men are very polite and respectful towards women, as our hypothetical suitor demonstrates. The point I am attempting to make here is that it does not benefit women, evolutionarily speaking, to assume that any suitor approaching her isn't going to be an aggressive asshole. She loses nothing from respectful men-but has a great deal to lose from assholes, and so over time women must have evolved to always be on guard when dealing with any new man taking a sexual interest in her and to, by default, assume malicious intent until proven otherwise. Had she not developed psychological counter-strategies and defense mechanisms against aggressive, asshole men, then she would have paid a higher price than other women who did, and our hypothetical trusting woman would not have been as successful in raising her children to adulthood.

Red Pill has a strong undercurrent of resentment towards women because women have the abundance of sexual opportunities that men wish they enjoyed. What Red Pill often fails to understand, ironically enough, is that women do not value sex in the same way that men do-how could they? Women live in a different world, a world where they're not nearly as driven to have sex and a world where sex is constantly available. When Red Pill asserts that women have more sexual partners than men (higher "bodycounts") or that they cheat more often than men, it's because these Red Pill men are projecting their fantasies of what they would like to be able to do if given the same sexual opportunities as women. The reality, however, is far from a carefree sexual playground and that reality was no different 200,000 years ago than it is today. The overwhelming majority of suitors a woman has is only interested in making sex happen with her and they are exceptionally motivated to get what they want, some even to the point of coercion and force. In one study of middle and high-school aged girls, researchers found that sexual assault and harassment were so commonplace that the girls accepted it as a fact of life, with one 13-year-old being quoted as saying "They grab you, touch your butt, and try to, like, touch you in the front, and run away, but it's okay, I mean... I never think it's a big thing because they do it to everyone" (Hlavka, Heather).

Sometimes, the risk of pissing the guy off takes a higher priority in her sexual choice than the risks of potential pregnancy. Sometimes, saying yes is the smart thing to do because it avoids the consequences of saying no, be those consequences injury, denial of basic physical needs, or reputational tarnish: "He does, like, touch us, you know? Like, he rubs my leg, the thigh, but none of us told him, told him to stop, you know? But I... I always moved away when he did it. He'd just rub my leg and touch my boobs. And one time when I was over at his house, I asked him for something to eat and he goes, 'Not unless I can touch your boobs.' He does it to everyone, you know. It happens sometimes" (14-year-old girl speaking of her and her friends with a 30-year-old occasional caregiver) (Hlavka, Heather).

Back to our hypothetical woman alone in the park for a moment. One of the more common let-downs a woman in this scenario will reach for is "Oh, you're so sweet! But I have a boyfriend/husband, sorry," even when no such boyfriend or husband exists. Red Pill often considers this a "shit test," or something women do to test the alpha-ness of potential mates (presumably, a true alpha wouldn't care about her other man and would just assume he's attractive enough to pull her away from him anyway and would continue with his courtship), but the truth is that it's a defense mechanism. Even a hypothetical boyfriend offers protection from unwanted sexual advances and the inherent risks they bring. A man inclined towards forcing or coercing an unwilling woman into a sexual encounter suddenly has his own cost/benefit analysis to ponder; namely, that he may have to deal with an angry man who will seek to beat him up or even try to kill him later. Women on their own ultimately present little physical risk to men, but other men present a significant risk. Does the benefit of a brief sexual encounter with this potentially unfertile woman outweigh the risk presented by her potentially real protector? Or is there a potentially more profitable venture to be gained with a woman who he knows to not be in a relationship with another man? Or with a woman who cannot identify him to any potential protectors? Women, even today's modern women, learn very early that aggressive, asshole men don't respect women's opinions or consent, but occasionally they do respect another man's property. If an actual man had been with her in the park, it's highly unlikely her suitor, respectful or otherwise, would have approached her at all.

When women are in an environment where they are the target of regular sexual advances from men, and where occasionally saying yes is the smart thing to do in order to avoid the consequences of saying no, then the even smarter thing to do is to say yes long-term to a man who will ward off other men. This is the evolutionary benefit of male mate-guarding, which Red Pill seems to primarily consider a beta male strategy to ensure paternity despite female hypergamy. In truth, male mate-guarding benefits women more than men because of the risks that being the gender in demand brings. This could be considered a type of reciprocal altruism: men offer women protection from the sexual advances of other men and in return enjoy exclusive sexual access to that woman, and in return the woman provides more sexual opportunities to the man than he would be able to achieve otherwise while enjoying more social and physical freedom than she would be able to secure on her own. Her overall fitness is increased because the amount of potentially risky encounters she has is greatly reduced. Meanwhile, his chance of passing on his genes has gone up considerably because he is enjoying regular sexual access that, presumably, he wouldn't have been able to get without offering the mate-guarding. Mate guarding doesn't cock-block the women-it cock-blocks other men.

The take-away here is that sexual behavior, human or otherwise, is a constant push-and-pull negotiation between the sexes and nothing exists in a vacuum devoid of the other sex's behavior. Everything is in a state of constant negotiation, seeking an equilibrium between competing agendas.

The majority of men out there are not hooking up much, if at all. Only 20% of men really have options when it comes to sex, the rest of men are shit out of luck.

Part of Red Pill's claim about women's unchecked hypergamy is that only a small percentage of men are actually having most of the sex available, and that percentage is dominated by the alpha males that women are driven to mate with because of hypergamy. This is an essential logical prediction of the alpha-seed beta-need theory. If Red Pill is correct and women are driven to have sex with alphas and not betas, and birth control has upended the social rules so that women's hypergamy is now free to run wild and unchecked in a free sexual marketplace, then we should see a majority of women choosing to have sex with a minority of men.

This is called the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule. It was originally used to explain how in Italy, 80% of the nation's wealth is owned by 20% of the nation's citizens, but has been used commonly as a rule of thumb to explain disproportional cause and consequence scenarios. For instance, among law enforcement it would be considered more or less accurate to say that 20% of the criminals commit 80% of the crimes, while the remaining 80% of criminals only occasionally dabble in crime. The Pareto Principle is more an overall concept than an actual hard-and-fast number rule, and it is common amongst Red Pill advocates to hear that women are only attracted to the top 20%, 10%, or 5% of men and the rest are betas that women don't see as fuckable. The actual percentages don't really matter, only that the data shows that only a minority of men are reporting a majority of sexual pairings. If it were true, then this would be some pretty solid evidence that alpha-seed beta-need is a thing and that female hypergamy as Red Pill defines it is the truth of human nature. Within Red Pill, it is gospel.

First, I am going to explain how this claim by Red Pill cannot possibly be accurate given how science works, and then I am going to explain why it's so incredibly accurate that it's actually totally wrong. Red Pill's 80/20 concept is based entirely on facts, but their interpretation is based on inductive reasoning and is flawed.

If women consistently, over time, have cucked betas in order to breed with alphas, then why the heck do we have any betas left? Remember the rules of the game: what you see is what you get. If Red Pill is correct and the human population is made up of roughly 80% betas and 20% alphas, then by default we must assume that the beta mating strategy is the vastly more effective one. Species do not evolve for the betterment of the species-species evolve for the success of the genes. Genes don't care about what is good for the species or good for the individual, genes only care about what gets them into more bodies. Beta males did not evolve on a species-wide-level in order to give alpha babies a better chance at survival and so improve humankind through supposedly superior alpha genetics-that is ridiculous, and simply not how evolution works. Such gullibility in beta males would be severely punished in natural selection. If there is any basic genetic difference between betas and alphas-which Red Pill claims there is if they're claiming that alphas have superior genetics that women want-and if we have far more betas than alphas, then science demands that we come up with a theory as to why betas are so superior to alphas in their reproductive strategy. If alpha-seed beta-need were the correct model, then we should have something closer to 80% alphas and 20% betas.

Furthermore, for as much as Red Pill obsesses over pair bonding, it seems to fail to understand that alpha-seed beta-need and the 80/20 rule are incompatible with human pair bonding even existing in the first place (Gavrilets, Sergey).

Human pair bonding is not unique in the primate world, as monogamous primate species who pair bond exist. However, none of human's closest primate relatives (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans) pair bond like humans do. The closest thing any of them have to a pair bond on human levels is the bonobo, and that is a mother/son relationship. This means that the way humans pair bond with their mates is a recent evolutionary adaptation. It came about after our split from the human/chimp/bonobo common ancestor we all shared because proto-humans who pair-bonded did a much better job of passing their genes onto the next generation than did non-pair-bonding proto-humans. If alpha-seed beta-need is truly women's biologically ingrained mating strategy, if women have consistently chosen temporary mating liaisons with sexy alphas over their doting betas, then how the heck did humans evolve to pair bond in the first place?

If the most successful mating strategy for human men was to be an alpha and spend their time and resources having sex with lots of women while committing to none, then how did genes hard-wired to pair bond and commit end up in humans? If Red Pill is correct, then what we should have is what we see in lions or gorillas: a whole bunch of males not at all interested in doting on females or committing to one female and only interested in fighting with all the other males to become the next alpha. Lions and gorillas are not hard wired by their biology to pair bond in the way humans are because pair bonding is not a trait being selected for in the lion and gorilla sexual marketplace. They're wired for one, not the other, and that is a result of hundreds and thousands of generations of mate selection.

If women are driven to have sex with alphas in order to get their sperm and have stronger, genetically superior children-then where are all the alphas?

If only the top 20% of men are fuckable and desired by women, then why are the other 80% of the genes the ones who are most represented in the human species? Any theory about how human sexual strategies came to evolve must account for the consequences of its own theories, and Red Pill's alpha-seed beta-need theory does not match the evidence we see today. Any theory must also account for how pair-bonding evolved so recently in our species' lineage, and nothing in Red Pill's theories offers an explanation for how humans came to be a pair bonding species. If alpha-seed beta-need were the correct model, if women were truly driven to go out and bang alphas they hadn't pair-bonded with when ovulating and the most successful males were the ones who never bothered to pair-bond, then Mr. Alpha-I-Don't-Do-Commitment-Seed would, literally, win, and his strategy would become the dominant one for the human species. It didn't. We're a pair-bonded species. If alpha-seed beta-need were the correct model, then pair-bonding would represent a huge disincentive for males to develop, as it would inhibit them from executing the more successful alpha mating strategy. In humans, most men are highly driven to pair-bond with the women they intend to reproduce with. Thus, women simply have not demonstrated a historically significant mating preference for alpha man-whores who are not inclined to pair bond. The most successful mating strategies are the ones that become dominant, and pair-bonding is what we see when we look at human mates. The 80/20 Pareto Principle and Red Pill's alpha-seed beta-need theory is invalid.        

Available in paperback and e-book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Ideology-Wrapping-Manosphere-ebook/dp/B0B2VC7671

Goodreads Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60603909