Sexual strategy is amoral
A forum argument that the strategies people use to find partners are amoral: neither good nor bad in themselves. Evolution only "counts" who reproduces.
The argument
- Morality as a social contract. The author argues there's no universal morality, only physics and agreements people make. Early humans agreed not to murder or steal from each other because cooperation helped everyone survive. Empathy evolved to support that contract.
- Context matters. Stealing bread is wrong, but what about a starving child? Killing is wrong, but what about defending your group? Moral rules are useful agreements, not absolutes.
- A contract should benefit everyone who signs it. Paying $40 a month for nothing in return makes no sense.
- Applied to dating: some social rules about attraction, the author argues, aren't mutually beneficial contracts. They're norms that suit one side's strategy, such as being highly selective, while asking the other side to hold back. He cites disapproval of using psychology to build attraction as an example.
- His conclusion: men should ask whether a given dating "rule" actually benefits them, and not follow it just because it's labelled moral.
Limits the author accepts
He explicitly supports the core contract of personal freedom: force and coercion are wrong and rape is off the table. His argument is aimed at social expectations about attraction, not at consent.
See also
- Fundamental Premise
- Powertalk and Other Language Categories
- Concrete Manipulation Techniques
- The Red Pill
Summary of a forum comment originally posted on Reddit's r/TheRedPill.
This section collects Red Pill writing for discussion; inclusion isn't endorsement.