Summary: I discuss how the Free Sex reproduction model compares with the (mainstream) Pair Bond model, and find that it trashes it, regarding men's sexual interests - and society's at large.

Marriage fantasies are die hard in The Red Pill. And I'm not talking about newcomers still searching for their unicorn. There is a widespread tendency to idealize Marriage 1.0 and the nuclear family.

The stumbling block in fully rejecting marriage (even 1.0) and family is, of course, the issue of paternity and reproduction. It's self-evident that every man needs to be sure that the children he raises are his own. Or is it?

What follows would be sacrilege to most, but try to read with a cool head. I will try to explain how free sex and paternity obscurity is a more powerful evolutionary model for humans than a nuclear family one. And that it is more beneficial for men.

Two models for reproduction

The Pair Bond model

Nowadays no serious evolutionary scientist believes that life-long family was something that existed in human's evolutionary period (think 100.000 to 2.800.000 years ago). That is, family didn't exist for pre-Homo Sapiens species, and didn't exist for the largest part of Homo Sapiens' existence.

However, there are some evolutionary scientists that believe that human's natural procreation model is the pair bond. This basically boils down to time-limited sexual exclusivity, i.e. serial monogamy, with a duration of about 4-5 years per pair bond, in order to raise your children to relative independence. Let us generously use this, more realistic, model, as our first hypothesis of human's reproduction model. This model is comprised by tenets that are taken for granted by most mainstream evolutionary psychologists, such as strict mate selection, especially from females, sexual jealousy and mate guarding, cuckolding with higher-value males, etc. It is a plausible model, I'll grant it that.

The Free Sex model

Now consider the contestant, the Free Sex model. Sex is free-for-all within the tribe. Paternity is unknown. Mothers are the primary caregivers for children, until the boys, at around 12, are taken out of the women's society to be mentored into manhood by elder men. (Girls never leave the woman-world).

What I want to discuss is each model's efficiency, i.e. how much it helps individuals in the tribe produce the best possible descendants, as well as how effective it is in assisting the tribe's survival. I'll be focusing on the Free Sex model, since the theories around the Pair Bond model are mainstream and more-or-less known to people in here.

The Free Sex model has some unique advantages:

  • Better quality mates

Both males and females get to copulate with better quality mates, increasing offspring quality. For females, since they are the choosers, this is self-evident. With free sex this availability of higher-quality mates extends to males.

  • Low level of frustration and aggression

The Number One reason for aggression, not only in humans but in every species, is male-to-male aggression over reproductive access to females. The Number Two reason is males attacking females over denial of sexual access. When sex is free, there is no reason for aggression. This, of course, favors the individuals directly, since there are no injuries and fatalities. But it also helps the individual indirectly, through the greater social cohesion. It forms a more stable environment in which their offspring can be raised.

  • Competition and cooperation

There is the idea that if sex is free there is no incentive for competition among males, and evolution (as well as society) stagnates. This is dead wrong. Free-for-all sex doesn't mean equal reproductive odds for all males. There are still hierarchies in a free-sex society. There is the best hunter, the best singer, the smartest weapon maker etc. Females, being receptive to indications of quality and aware of social hierarchies, can give a "bonus" to the better males, either copulating more frequently with them, or by preferring them during their fertile days.

Free sex gives better chances to "better" males, allowing plenty of space for evolution. But it also gives a chance to males that are currently at a lower level in the social hierarchy. The result is that these males stick around, contribute resources to the tribe, the women and the raising of the children. There is incentive for them to help instead of sabotage those that are at the top of the hierarchy by their true merit.

Essentially, in a free sex community, the issue for men is how to get better sex, not hot to get basic sex. This changes the whole character of the social interactions, and changes competition from dog-eat-dog to community-advancing.

Objections

Of course, there are many objections to the free sex model. Why would women copulate with lower-level men at all, if they could get protection from powerful men - and they could also cuckold their lower-level mates? Why would top men bear lower men taking away a portion of their reproductive potential, if they could secure it all for themselves? These are legitimate objections, and they did play out in the evolutionary period. In other species, like sea-lions, these considerations all mostly all of the picture in their sexual landscape. But then again, sea-lions didn't evolve to conquer the earth, like humans did.

There is a huge biological cost for the species in sexual competition. Males spend colossal energy in displaying and fighting in order to win in the flirting game.

The handicap principle suggests that prodigious waste is a necessary feature of sexual courtship. Peacocks as a species would be much better off if they didn't have to waste so much energy growing big tails. But as individual males and females, they have irresistible incentives to grow the biggest tails they can afford, or to choose sexual partners with the biggest tails they can attract. In nature, showy waste is the only guarantee of truth in advertising.

G. Miller, The Mating Mind

As a consequence, in the inter-species antagonism, species that manage to lower this cost have a huge advantage. Free sex corresponds to practically annulling that cost. And we have already explained how it is possible to both nullify the flirting cost and keep evolution going on, through the "bonus" to the best.

Now, there is a strong current of traditionalism in TRP. Guys consider "beta" trait raising another man's child. And it usually is, under the current sexual regime. But this should not blind us to the fact that the paternity certainty model pales as regards its efficiency against free sex, for almost all men: Top men have a chance with all women, not being limited by exclusivity, and lower-status men also have pretty good chances, and stakes in the tribe's evolutionary future. And all these with near-zero aggression within the tribe.

Man's sexual psychology has been optimally configured for the best evolutionary results - that is, it has been configured for a free-sex cultural environment. (This is mostly unconscious, of course: conscious knowledge of the reproductive mechanism came much later, probably in very recent Homo Sapiens, and had not had nearly enough time to have an evolutionary effect.)

Now, does this environment favor women, as well? Tangentially yes, through the advantages conferred by the tribe's well being. Would women perceive this fact, or resent their giving up of their right to sexual selection? This is a very long discussion. I will hopefully be writing on it in detail in a later post. Briefly, the original free-sex society is mainly a man-centered social and sexual arrangement: free sex represents the victory of the male sexual strategy over the female one. This does confer benefits to the female, as a side-effect. The opposite, i.e. regimes featuring the right to sexual veto by the female, entail violent societies, prone to collapse. This is true for the original polygamy, with women availing themselves only to the top men, monogamy, with women being compelled to extend their choice to a wider spectrum of men, and modern hypergamy.

Conclusion:

Free sex is the ultimate victory of the male sexual strategy over the female one.

-Adam Leonas

For the full discussion on this line of thought, check out my book, The Empress Is Naked.