Does Mating strategy define the political Divide?

So the political divide being divided by mating strategy comes down to feminists vs antifeminists on the women’s side and a compel vs persuade strategy on the men’s side. Men with a compel strategy align with antifeminists on the right, and persuading males align with feminists on the left.

The Right wing is a society based on manipulating men’s sexual entitlement. The women are compelled to participate in the system by being bought with security and luxuries, otherwise they are kicked out of society altogether as whores ( not because trading sex for profit is bad, but because they are deflating the market and under cutting the system). So both men and women are given “an offer they can’t refuse,” and they agree t go along cutting themselves the best deal possible.

Just think of all the sexual morality associated with Abrahamic faiths. The emphasis doesn’t have to be on sexual morality, it could be a love thy neighbor, or forgiveness, or giving to the poor. But sexual morality has dominated moreas the world has become more and more populated by “free men.” Slaves and lower classes were already controlled through other means and frankly they were free to fuck each other all they wanted in their time off. Their offspring would just be future generations of free labor. But in a society of fee men and upward mobility, conservatism (regulating sexual entitlement) become more and more of a means to organize society. And the increasing emphasis on sexual morality was to hold that system together. And as long as people act in their self interest the system should hold up. Men get guaranteed sex, women get security.


The Left wing rejects sexual entitlement in favor of free choice. The ideal is men and women freely choosing to consent together with no power differential to affect leverage, which would be hostile to choice and equality. But in order to maintain free choice they have to artificially regulate the sexual “market” to keep it open. So women can’t be dependent on men, men can’t be entitled to women. Heterosexual sex can’t be considered better than homosexual sex or the maket might crash. So government regulation of society becomes key.


In a world where everyone’s unique sexuality is valued and honored, everyone will find a partner somewhere. Competition and scarcity for sexual access are significantly reduced. This destroys the very foundation of right wing society.


On the left wing though the organizing principle is not surprisingly diversity equity and inclusion. But as in any other circumstance all options only remain possible while a choice is not yet made. Once you chose then you lose options. You can’t choose everything all the time. This quickly leads to competition and infighting amongst certain segments. And as we are talking about sex and sexual partners the concept of commitment can become threatening to the system. This leads to concepts like “it takes a village to raise a child,” and that leads to communal living concepts, which ultimately beget communistic concepts, and then you have governmental control of the populous you have to account for, and suddenly the idea of hierarchical structure seems useful to compel people to work together looks pretty good.
Of course on the right wing the idea of choice and option always holds novel appeal.


Neither system is inherently better than the other. They exist in kind of a yin /yang dynamic. Each has flaws the other appears uniquely equipped to solve. Both have been successfully deployed in small scale. Expecting either to win out over the entirety of a large society of millions is ridiculous.

So conservative ideology is about guaranteeing sexual access. Liberal ideology is all about having a chance to get the sex you really want.
Security vs Liberty; which sounds a lot like the founding fathers debate.

And people must like guns because having a gun seems to give you both security and liberty, but at the expense of the security and liberty of those that live in fear of gun violence. Likewise abortion gives women security and liberty at the expense of the security and life of a fetus.

What matters most to you?


I originally heard this argument and it was framed more in terms of liberals seek out education to better themselves and their lot and then decide to have fewer children later in life with more of a quality strategy, while conservatives marry earlier and have more children with kind of a quantity strategy. It was a mating strategy in evolutionary terms of propagation of genetic material. And that was interesting but didn’t quite land right with me.
In this explanation I am eschewing genetic propagation as a motive and just going with less purposeful but more basic “access to sex” motive. You could still see quantity vs quality trade offs, but it’s about how society should be structured to facilitate sex, not about how people choose to reproduce.

Somewhat ironically, the left wing doesn’t count on Libido to be the galvanizing force of society, the left wing does. So liberals with their polyamorous relationships and apparent rejection of “family values” are genuinely shocked and hurt to be accused of being home-wreckers and perverts