Right, but the idea that women want everything in one man as the ideal is one idea the manosphere and Blue Pill society at large have in common IRL that hasn't been my experience (both firsthand and observed) at all--at least not long-term. Some women are more monogamously inclined than others--and most girls will be monogamousish at some point and will want a wedding, but I think a lot of that is just social conditioning, social pressure, and the fact that until recently women haven't had access to as many high value men. In the past, it was a lot easier for her to optimize her hypergamy in one man; perceived value is always relative. I think most girls find it possible and often preferable to get better provisioning and better Alpha from multiple sources, whether that's split over different seasons of her life or concurrent. I think the idea that women aspire that optimized hypergamy in one man as a rule serves male reproductive goals (assured paternity and ego) more than it does women (as long as they have someone to take care of the child). No one on either side of the pill is entirely free of ego investments.You are describing alpha fux/beta bux - dualistic female mating strategy. The truth is that woman ideally wants these 2 needs met in 1 man, but that's very hard to find. The alpha is too abundant to commit, and the beta is too beta to provide alpha tingles. A woman's ideal fantasy is to secure an Alpha who commits to her, but this is nearly impossible - nature is cruel. So she'll take the alpha seed, and get a beta to raise the brat. It's not what she really wants to do, but it's how she manages the problem.
Women will have sex with Chad (stupid term btw--have yet to run into him infield in any stereotypical sense), just for sake of having sex with Chad. Attraction is not a choice. And many of these women don't want to be locked down (though they might give it the old college try from time to time)--granted I have limited experience with any girls over 22ish.She'll have lots of sex with Chads in the hope that she can secure one. Woman have more sex because they can, but the drive isn't for sex. She's hoping she'll find a high-value man to commit to her. It's in her biology.
Women may get more sex than 99% of men, but the 1% Chads get far more sex than 99% of women.
Again, I think you're confusing social pressure with nature. When that social pressure is removed, you get a very different picture. And you have to ask why that social pressure existed in the first place.The biggest insult you can through at a woman is "slvt" - if women just wanted sex for fun, then this wouldn't trigger her. Call a man a "slvt" and he'd just smirk and wink at you.
The Coolidge Effect is also a well-known phenomena--most of the chemical ****tail that results in monogamy lasts 2-5 years (used to know a more exact figure), just long enough for the child to walk... In the past, most people didn't live past their early thirties.It's pretty well-known fact that the more sexual partners a woman has, the more difficulty she has pair-bonding. It's like taking your first hit of heroin. The next hits just ain't the same. That's why virgins were highly prized in history - They bonded. Ever heard the term "You can't turn a wh0re into a housewife?" It happens to be true.
Once a woman starts upping her notches then her Hypergamy death spiral kicks in and she keeps chasing the bigger, better deal until she hits the wall.
That said, there are major evolutionary advantage to dual parental investment. I'd say overall humans walk the line between r/K selection--with evolutionary traits of both tournament and pair-bonded species--and that behavior often manifests itself in a single person over the course of the lifetime, though members of both sexes swing one way or the other.