.png)
Growing up, many of us were taught that women were hard wired for monogamy but that men were hardwired to want many partners and as such, entitled and prone to infidelity.
Turns out, this conventional assumption was based on a faulty scientific study which is debunked in this article:
When Are Women Most Likely to Be Promiscuous?
Contrary to popular belief, it is unlikely that women are hardwired for Monogamy. In fact, in most primate species the females are opportunistic and will mate with many males to secure additional resources and purposefully confuse paternity.
Since the females are not naturally monogamous, the males must constantly physically mate guard the females to prohibit them from having sex with rival males. The females are as monogamous as the males can force them to be.
This is important to remember because:
All Males are Hardwired to Mate - Guard.
In a few primate species, such as Chimpanzees, the males have resorted to abusive tactics such as rape and assault to intimidate the females into remaining monogamous.
This is very similar to humans.
Pervasive Patriarchy & Misogyny lessens the burden of male mate competition. Why? Because it’s easier to bully a woman into submission and cripple her ability to be independent of men in society than it is to fight off competing males.
Enforcing Monogamy and dependence in females lessens infighting between males and increases infighting between females.
Instead of males competing for access to females, the females must compete to secure resources from a singular valuable male. In actuality, it would be more advantageous for women to secure many resources from the many available males. This role reversal allows Men to have the advantage and energy to pursue other females while still maintaining ownership of single female.
It is also why the concept of “gold diggers” and “hoes” is so demonized in society. It thwarts male control over the natural opportunistic female mating patterns.
Even so, hoes and goldiggers are often successful in securing their desired partners. This is because hoes and gold diggers are great at seizing opportunities and triggering the male mate guarding instinct.
How can women use this to their advantage in the dating?
You must, at all times, trigger the male mate-guarding instinct.
1. Keep your options open, always. Instead of women desperately pursuing a relationship with a single male, you maintain several which are beneficial to you in different ways. Although, at this stage, you shouldn’t allow sexual access.
2. Go on dates where you’re likely to encounter a lot of male mate competion. Sporting events are at the top of the list, but this can be any event or activity where men are likely to be “peacocking” for females and posturing for other men.
3. Sexual Access is reserved for the male or males who have demonstrated good character and significant investment. There is no need to abide by an artificial 90 day timeline. You withhold sexual access until you can safely assure the encounter will be to your tangible benefit.
4. Monogamy is for marriage. Unless a man expresses an explicit desire for marriage, with a timeline in mind, you should not be monogamous. Again, monogamy benefits men, not women.
You’ll know you’re successfully triggering the mate-guarding instinct if the man or men begin to demonstrate “sequestering” behavior. They will physically try to block out other males from talking to you, continuously try to pull you off to the side, or be constantly communicating to maintain your interest.
I want to be a gold digger. I'm serious.
This article is so interesting! Thanks for sharing. It reminds me of the book “Sex at Dawn,” (by Cecilda Jetha & Christopher Ryan) which basically asserts that women are naturally sexually promiscuous, but were forced into monogamy when the world became agricultural.
Before agriculture, the world was made up of hunter-gatherers, people lived in egalitarian groups, sharing was paramount to survival, and god was a woman. There was no possessiveness about food, pleasure, or even whose children belong to whom - everyone took care of everyone else. In this era, women had power, and were free to be sexual and take pleasure in sex. And they did, as evidenced by our closest primate relatives the Bonobos, and by matriarchal cultures such as the Mosuo in China. There was no shame in sexuality for women, women were the center of society and men were on the periphery, invited at the pleasure of women. Men were taught to be cooperative and gentle, and any antisocial or aggressive behavior was immediately stopped. The offending man was exiled if necessary, and the culture was peaceful and caring. Violence wastes resources, so it was eliminated. Rape was unknown. All children were part of the group & cared for equally. And oh by the way, women’s orgasms & sexual pleasure were paramount (not men’s).
Once agriculture gained prominence, food was cultivated, grown and stored, land became a precious resource to be owned and guarded, hierarchy and a warrior class were created to protect it all, and resources were passed down by inheritance to one‘s heirs. Therefore paternity became extremely importent in a way it had never been, and women’s sexuality had to be controlled so that men could ensure their children were actually THEIRS. Hence, controlling women’s reproduction became the core focus of religion, society, status and power. Women became property, and god became a man.
So, women today are the biggest losers of the patriarchy - the outcome of agriculture. Our freedoms are endlessly limited and our lives ruled by the fear of men’s violence and power; and shame keeps us from enjoying sexual pleasure anywhere and with whomever we want. Men (and women) believe that a woman’s value is in withholding sex. And that man’s value is in providing for her. Because god is now a dude, he frowns on women’s sexual pleasure but smiles on men’s promiscuity. What a raw deal!
I don‘t disagree with the FDS concept of withholding sex to find HVMs, because that’s the way our world works today. But I also believe that the more status & power women have, and the more resources we control, the more sexually free we can be.
"All Males are Hardwired to Mate - Guard."
Does this apply to asexuals?
This original post written by Astria was such an excellent post for those who are emotionally healthy, ready to date, and knowledgeable of interpersonal reactions and confident in themselves and abilities. Trolls not withstanding.
@erika. Please understand. I am NOT reading your reply. It’s very obvious you have joined this group just to troll it. Your attitude has been reprehensible. I see other members are ignoring you. Now I will be as well. You will have to go elsewhere to spread discontent.
Thank you for your answers! I'm not asking for a specific situation in my life. It's a generell question. Also I don't think it that easy to tell. Media paints all kinds of questionable male behaviour as desirable. Like it's a worthwhile goal for a woman to be a mans trophy wife or fleshlight ("he views you as fuckable, which is good"). Or marriage being the ultimate goal in a women life while, as stated above, monogamy for women mainly benefits the males. For me, mating behaviour between females and males seams like an arms race. I completely understand that he must want to mate-guard me. Otherwise I would end up chasing him, which isn't to my benefit at all. My question here is if we are talking about a range, where a woman benefits off the male mate-guarding up to what point does she allow it? It is for sure not benefital for her if she allows him to mate-guard her to the point where it cripples her options. The whole patriarchy drives on limiting women's choices and we'd rather not let them mate-guard us to the point where we have to depend on them. I hope my question is more understandable now. English is not my native language.
I think you answered your own question there. It should be easy to tell if he is just possessing you or actually stepping up his game. If you can't tell, it's time to bail.
One thing I'm not able to grasp is where do you draw the line between healthy mate guarding (for the woman's benefit, because it signals that he is invested) and abusive controlling behavior, which puts her in dangerous situations. Is there even such a thing like 'healthy mate guarding'? In you last sentence you wrote: 'They will physically try to block out other males from talking to you, continuously try to pull you off to the side, or be constantly communicating to maintain your interest.' IMO this sounds a bit ambiguous. Yes, want him to show me that he is the only one for me. But I don't want him to isolate me because he is insecure and rather limit my choices than to step up his game.