Comment from Johnycomelately at Rollo’s blog
Kanazawa is the preeminent redpill researcher out there, he has been pilloried to kingdom come and kicked off every site he wrote for (most notably Psychology Today) because of his redpill research.
Here’s an exert from a response to a critic.
“When it comes to intersexual selection, the law states that the sex that invests less into the offspring is sexually more aggressive, and the sex that invests more is sexually more choosy and coy (Trivers 1972). This means that, among most mammalian species (including all primates), the female is more choosy than the male, and thus sex and mating become a female choice (Kirkpatrick 1987; Small 1993).
There is by now a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate that men lek (conspicuously display their genetic quality) and women choose from among the available men.
If sex and mating were a male choice, how is a regular copulation different from rape? Why is rape so traumatic and devastating to women if it is no different from a regular copulation (Thornhill & Thornhill 1983)? Rape is so traumatic and devastating to women precisely because that is the only time when a sexual copulation is not a female choice. All the other instances of sexual intercourse are treated and perceived differently because they are always a female choice. ”
Men lek (display) and females choose, all game is based on improving or imitating high value lekking.
Anything that violates fully informed female choice, whether by inducing self delusion, mimicking, omission, deception, contriving or guile is seen as rape by a low status male. Drunken sex is viewed as the removal of capacity to choose and therefore rape.
That is why being ‘tricked’ or ‘taken advantage of’ seems to be so prevalent in female discourse, I guess that is why game is so villified.
The hysteria isn’t about genuine rape but the innate fear of having sex with low value men, the prevalence of ‘game’ simply adds to the hysteria.
As Whisky used to say, “Women hate hate hate betas.” And sex with a low value man is akin to rape.
and boomerick wrote:
Feminist Rape Culture is the female ego defensive idea that, for every woman, no matter how unappealing they might be, all men on some level desire her, to the point of her fantasizing that all men could loose control and act violently against their natural male protective instinct, societal conditioning, and legal penalty threat to “have” her (she’s THAT important). The affected woman can enter into every situation/ transaction throughout her every day assuring herself of her own desirability even though most likely she’s not even noticed or wanted (she’s truly insignificant and unimportant). It’s over compensation for basic female insecurity. The amount of solipsism pushing this “culture” is staggering.
The rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.
Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).
For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.
Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course RAPE.
What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful inprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.
Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.
Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.
A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.
Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.
David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.
Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.
Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.
Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.