I think one of the most brutal blackpills that's so underrated is the preselection/mate-poaching blackpill because it implies that women prefer polygamy to monogamy. So much of what we hear about in common culture is how women are the "romantic sex" that wants stability, long-term relationships, and other benefits of monogamy. So funny is it then that short-term sex, serial monogamy which is really just pseudopolygamy, and actual polygamy in the form of one fuckboy having multiple situationships, all of this only became a thing with the advent of feminism. We went from first wave feminism to women's liberation; then sexual liberation; then casual dating; then just straight up hookup culture, no-strings-attached sex; and finally our most recent and worst iteration, situationships, which combine the worst aspects of casual dating and hookup culture, not even having the pretense of any sort of relationship at all but is merely a word that is the product of female mental gymnastics in the face of Chads that continue to keep them at arm's length and only beguile them closer for a quick pump and dump.

It is shocking that the woman has taken no effort to curtail this aspect of her psychology. Historically, under "patriarchy", at least in Western Christian society, men did not openly allow rape or harems, even though the latter was not explicitly outlawed by Christianity, and even though these things would be expedient to a man's sexuality. It was frowned upon to have multiple wives because "God did not intend this" and men took that seriously, understanding on some level the civilizational value of distributing women and the degeneracy of not. However, the moment the woman gets rights, she takes no effort at all to subdue those things which are expedient to her sexuality but detrimental to the collective growth and stability of society. The woman loves polygamy insofar as it frees her from the burden of beta Bob and locks Chad away to another woman.

>>81622950 (OP)
monogamy benefits men not women

>>81622950 (OP)
It's not so deep. Women are only physically attracted to like 10% of men. They would rather share that guy than sleep with a guy they don't find attractive. They might use him for resources like free food, or occasionally some money.

>>81622983
>They would rather share that guy than sleep with a guy they don't find attractive.
They will also date no one until the guy they like is available.

>>81622981

Yes, this is true. People typically associate harems with men but it's more of a female thing when you really think about it.

>>81622983

It's as deep as you're willing to see it, anon. I think it's important we understand nuances of the blackpill like this. I don't disagree with your points either.

Water is wet... the sad state of PhDs these days.

This is not sustainable and soon a collapse will occur. Then they will all go back to the kitchen because they couldn't restrain or delay their gratification. Only this time there will be precedent for not letting them be liberated again. A grand experiment that failed. It's sad, I genuinely wanted them to be our equals

>>81623039
>I think it's important we understand nuances of the blackpill like this
But what can we gain from this understanding? It doesn't benefit me in any way.

>>81623070

Weird analogy but putting yourself in a position to build knowledge is ironically a lot like building a network of neurons in the brain. You connect a few neurons (nuances) here, a few neurons there, you have more surface area to connect even further to more surrounding neurons. If we understand the nuances of the blackpill, we can gain insight into avenues of knowledge we would not be able to otherwise, connect everything into one big and unified whole, and improve our holistic thinking because we have more subject matter to collectively refer to. For example, your three statements...

>Women are only physically attracted to like 10% of men.
>They would rather share that guy than sleep with a guy they don't find attractive.
>They might use him for resources like free food, or occasionally some money.

...can all be connected under a collective banner which is what we call the "blackpill". This seems obvious to us now, but in order to begin doing that though, someone had to consciously flesh out the connections on a deeper level that today we have all subconsciously assimilated and taken for granted. Guys like FACEandLMS, Wheat Waffles, and others have been revolutionary in this regard. Staying superficial vs going deep is kind of like the difference between the abstract and discussion section in academic papers. Only in the discussion section will you find the nuance that is so critical to real theory.

>>81623050

The funny thing is two women did that study. Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley. I wonder what would compel brainiac women to explore the unsavory parts of their psychology like that.

>>81623068

>I genuinely wanted them to be our equals

What would that even look like given their different biological and psychological makeup? If only there was a word for "equals" that was based on the term equity and not equality.

Equitables.

>>81623286
Not equality of outcome but equality in the eyes of the law and the expectations of society, but they are mostly unable to effectively participate in male society and handle male responsibilities, so they need discrimination in their favor, and that will eventually make the whole edifice crumble

>>81622981
Monogamy benefits society not women.