This is a bit of a shower thought, but I'm wondering if all the polytard nonsense that's been pushed over the last few years is the even more degenerate dark side of female hypergamy. We know that the vast majority of women are only interested in a tiny portion of men (the top of the top of the top on the SMV pecking order). It's often referred to as the 80/20 rule (80% of women going for 20% of men), but there's evidence that it's more like the top 5% (source). Whatever the exact numbers, the point remains the same: This leaves a ton of leftover men, and a much smaller number of women who are disgustingly low value, even by current year's nasty standards. Those women might consider 7s, 6s, and possibly 5s to be on their level instead of 9s and 10s, but they still have a ridiculously overinflated perception of their SMV.
The main response society has to this problem is to sweep it under the rug and expect men to continue playing the sick game or rot in a ditch if they can't/won't. But a secondary response appears to be promoting polyamory. In a certain sense that's already happening organically with the women and top men (think a de facto form of polygyny). The setup isn't officially a relationship and frankly Chad Thundercock doesn't need to seek progressive validation of his lifestyle so they don't use that term, but that's what it is in practice. That's not what the degenerate media is promoting, however. A man with multiple women is a crime against feminism. They don't criticize women who participate in those setups because criticizing women's shitty taste in men is an even worse crime against feminism. Still, they don't approve of it and won't promote it. They're promoting nasty ass women with a cuck harem of low value males. I even once read an article promoting polyamory as a solution to the incel problem (I lost it and can't find it unfortunately). Now, polytards will tell you that there's a million different ways that polyamory can be structured. While that's true, the most common structure by far (outside the cock carousel that is) is the cuck harem. The media is eager to promote cuckoldry of course (example), and I sort of wonder if their goal is to get non-Chads to share bottom of the barrel women. Using the (optimistic) 80/20 numbers as an example, that's 4 non-Chads for every nasty woman who can't get Chad or Tyrone to bang her even in a dry spell. I think the cuckoldry aspect is enough for the elites to favor it, and it allows them to victim blame incels for being unwilling to share a disgusting woman with 3 other dudes. "Hey, polyamory is option for them. They obviously don't want sex as bad as they want to be misogynistic monogamists". I'm curious to know what people here think. It's kind of a half baked theory of mine that popped into my head a few days ago.
First off let's call it what it is: Full-time orbiter status. Never underestimate the lengths such men will go to to be guaranteed even a whiff of pussy; self-described male feminists and the like. I think hyper-feminized men adopt many the behaviors of women in this regard, and they will put up with it much like women "put up" with "chad". The only difference is that the male is miserable, since none of it rings true of a high quality woman. Castles and conquerors.
For the type of low self-esteem woman who engages this type of relationship, it's the perfect "have your cake and eat it too" situation, but this is rare enough a phenomena and restricted enough to cuckold culture so as not to not exactly be worried about it. Any man with a pair of testicles is a natural repellant to this juxtaposition of post-modernist horror.
As for the statistics, I think they're comically skewed due to most men being fucking gross on dating apps and sites (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4zbe7PKJgg) - and really who's going to get away with that cold call easier? "Chad" or the average joe?
And to be honest, I never had to date much. I am a fucking autist yet in a lot of my social experimentation throughout college and up before the point where I became a Christian and developed superior morals - "I'd let you crash on my couch anytime!" was synonymous with getting laid that night, which was pretty often. I don't consider myself "gigachad", nor does my wallet or distinct lack of 6 pack abs (yet good v-taper and general shapeliness) scream 5% - yet some broad always found her way to latch onto my arm. I have never had to even try, not even once.
But something was always off... these women always lost interest when I thought to build a life with them. I imagine it's the same with that 5%. I don't think they always fuck about this multiplicity of women just because they want to; I think that the kind of woman who is in it past the novelty of being with "chad" is just rare, like you have to be a piece of shit in order for them to actually want it or else it just it all just loses appeal. You almost have to be an emotionally manipulative freak and a virtuoso liar to truly gain a desired level of investment as someone who is seen as a novelty.
It's kind of like the homely wife and the bimbo of yesteryear as it applies to the high level man and how women perceive him, but of course with obvious differences and settling happens - but that woman who is willing to actually build a life with you is a gem. It feels like until the control panel of society is put right, I will never have my perfect Aryan "raise your 11 sons and bring lemonade to you while you build a cabin on our humble plot of land on the prairie" waifu and this is a deep dread.
More or less this.
When F>M it's generally a bunch of very low beta males who not only can't get any from normal relationships but likely aren't going to be getting much in a poly relationship either because the F gets to pick and mix what M does what.
Want a fuckbuddy? M1 can do that. Want a cuddle-buddy? M2 is desperate enough for human touch he will forego sex. Want some new shoes? M3 will buy m'lady her newest wants because it's the only way anyone ever pays M3 attention.
However when it's F<M then it's usually an actual stereotypical Chad who has enough looks/power/money that women are throwing themselves at him for the chance he settles for one of them. Because that's what F<M poly relationships always are, women who claim to be ok with being open but really are just wanting to be "the one" that a guy eventually ends up exclusive with. And
heif an M in that situation does start gravitating towards one particular F then you can bet your best pick up lines she will then push hard for either "exclusivity" or more freedom for her than she "permits" the guy to have, which just ends up turning into the F>M situation all over again.I've known people that "tried to be poly". It never worked. Ever.
Couples who decided to be "open" inevitably ended up spiraling into break ups because unsurprisingly to those with functioning brains when you start compartmentalising your relationship needs between multiple people the ones who aren't fulfilling certain roles end up feeling left out.
And going back again to the F>M and F<M things, if it's the F in a couple who wants to be open it's because she already had someone picked out, even if it's only ever intended as a one off fling which "suddenly" turns back to monogamous after
onceshe's had her fun. If it's the M who wants to be open then he too likely has someone in mindit'sbecause that someone has already approached him first, and may well be intending to break up the existing couple to take the guy for herself.Edit: I think I had several different thoughts on how to phrase some of them and rather than pick an option I combined things.