Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?


R-types = polyandric and K-types = monoandric

Terms by a Russian called Blonsky during the Soviet Era.

We’d nowadays call it the tendency to monogamy and polygamy (andry being replaced perhaps incorrectly).

I’d read the terms before but this feature struck me online (since I can’t link to out-of-print sexology books).

Male narcissists despise the monogamous woman, roughly two-thirds of women, and seek the inferior polyandric, which has narcissistic tendencies too. The narcissist may be understood as a feature of the polyandric mating strategy allowing them to decouple quickly. Presumably, both the misogynist and the misandrist must be polyandric/polygamous.


Repeat marriages were called “consecutive polygamy” by Ellis, an infamous sexologist, but nowadays we call them “serial monogamists” (an oxymoron of a term if ever there was one), as if that’s better. Case study: Trump.

Technically, polygamy refers not to sexual tendency (attraction) but ability. The distasteful fact a person can break their previous pair bond, agreed to be lifelong. It’s considered infidelity in many religions for good reason. Obviously this can’t be enforced in the deceased party, they filled their part, but the widower might be expected to show some fidelity unto death i.e. in celibacy and never remarrying. Divorce isn’t an excuse where death vows are sworn before God and it certainly has nothing to do with evolution of loyalty and innate nature. For example, it’s more likely a husband died in war but a woman died in childbirth. Those cannot be held similar with signing a piece of paper because they don’t put out as often or the neighbour looks better (I believe there’s a whole commandment about that).

In fact, what is perceived as a natural habit of humans to wander sexually makes more evolutionary sense if you think of the life-threatening need to move onto another partner after the death of the previous one. Species that are fully monogamous are genetic dead-ends if one party dies. This isn’t the same as wild, broad indulgence at the expense of provisioning and Trivers’ investment theory has proven men have an adaptive advantage with monogamy, not getting around.

Link: We don’t know how a man’s sexual history affects divorce risk

It’s bloody important, don’t you think? Where’s the other side of that coin?

I think they don’t want to offend men. The James Bond Casanova Lothario ideal is too engrained.

I have another addition: men choose to get married. If they weren’t sure, or less certain, they wouldn’t get married.

It would be better to do a demographic comparison and the longevity of all their forms of relationships divided by sex – from pets to friends to family connections to ONS to FWB all the way up to marriage. Include porn and you’ve got a good model for avoiding the narcissistic or damaged men who would be dissatisfied with the choice they made, the unfit husbands.

Another model would be divorces to avoid longitudinal hiccups – what percentage of affairs occurred to each sex? Which one was prone to extramarital bonds? Ashley Madison didn’t bode well for men on this scale. I’d also like to see the stats on the men who re-marry multiple times, how messed up must they be?