Sexual Strategy is Amoral

Sexual Strategy is Amoral

Jul 9, 2013

Sexual strategy is amoral. You might stick to your values, but those who have sex .. have sex.

It’s best illustrated through our ancestors. The idea was that whether or not we like the methods used- whoever procreated made children, and those who didn’t.. didn’t.

Your understanding of how morality works is a bit flawed here. You see, there is no universal morality. There is nothing in the universe applying any law other than those of physics. The rest is abstraction.

Morality is not black and white.

Let’s look at stealing for instance. If I steal a loaf of bread, we would normally consider that wrong. But what if I were a starving child on the street and I have no other way of surviving? If I stole that bread and ate it to survive the night, was this right? Is it a grey area?

People make value judgements every day to determine what the best survival strategy is, (and to maximize happiness if basic needs are met).

Most people realized very early on that one good survival strategy was to not be murdered. Sounds pretty basic. So a social contract was developed. I won’t murder you if you don’t murder me!

But if somebody invades our group, we can kill them!

So we can see that even killing is not right or wrong in a black and white sense.

Murder, stealing, rape, these were all concepts that most people entering into the social contract said, I don’t want these things, my best strategy is to cooperate, therefore I should not do them. And the basic framework of morality was built.

Killing Nazis? Moral. Killing your neighbor? Immoral. A simple code to pass on the social contract that enables society and really helped us as a species!

I think you and I agree when I say that we’ve both signed on to this concept. I don’t want to be murdered, and I willingly take part in a social contract of not murdering. Most people have this concept built in evolutionarily- it’s called empathy! Empathy helped groups to survive. Empathy follows this model, as most felt righteous or indifferent towards the killing of enemies and food.

So, yes, there is a framework we’re calling morality, but understand what gave rise to it and how/why it works. Also understand that morality is not a constant nor objective, and some people have determined a different set of rules will best maximize their success or happiness. If they break our rules, we determine it to be detrimental to our own survival, because we depend on the social contract to exist ourselves!

So we punish murderers. It adds disincentive to breaking our moral code. And I’m fine with that.

Here’s where things get a bit hairy. If my mating strategy is to dismiss a maximum number of potential mates (hypergamy), and I tell people certain mating strategies are immoral, then I can get other people to agree to it.

But what happens if this framework isn’t based on a contract that benefits all who participate?

What if you signed a contract that said you will pay me $40/month, but I will provide nothing in return?

Eventually you realize that the contract makes no sense!

Sexual strategy is amoral. There are those who have sex, and there are those who do not. What contract will you sign up for? The one that results in you having sex? Or the ones that you’re told are moral to uphold but do not bring you sex?

Obviously understanding that we are operating within other frames we believe do benefit us. Obviously rape is a poor decision because it goes against the personal freedom social contract we currently live by. And I support that ideal.

But we’re also told that an older man courting a young impressionable 19 year old is immoral because of the age gap- he’s too influential, it would be coercion. Tell me, if we avoid doing this out of our sake for morality- where is our benefit in this social contract? It’s the feminine imperative you are seeing.

Do not exploit common psychology to build attraction because it is immoral.

This is a prime example of why sexual strategy is amoral. Because at the end of the day, their mating strategy is contingent on beta’s failures, and our strategy is based on theirs to fail! Therefore there is no common social contract that we can commit to that benefits both genders. Only men are so easily fooled into entering into these social contracts because they work well for society in general, that they forgot to look at the feminine imperative and ask, but how does that benefit me?

Sexual strategy is amoral.

Share Button


RedPillSchool is the head moderator of the forum and and a fantastic saxophone player.

More Posts


  1. Truth Man /

    This was a nice deconstruction of mating , I will be reading your blog from now on.

  2. Richard /

    great website, very thought provoking ideas you discuss…. definitely more adult and forward thinking that come of the other manosphere sites.

    a comment i would make about this article, is that men originally signed on to the “no sex” contract to ensure the females controlled their sexuality and that it was clear who the father was.

    a man would wait for sex, because he expected to marry a virgin who would bear him children and be faithful to him the rest of her life.

    this was a good deal for society because just like the no murder contract… it created the no unknown father contract… thus providing a solid social framework for raising children….

    it was also a good deal for both men and women. the world wasn’t awash with horny sluts banging every guy that moved, and at the same time, the men knew once inside a marriage they would have as much sex as they could handle… she basically had to submit… it was the man’s job to provide for her, keep her happy and tolerate her bad moods, but sex was never “off the table.”

    Now we have a situation where that contract is broken, so just as if you consider the Mad Max type scenario where the no murder contract is broken, we now live beyond the civilized frontier, in uncharted territory…

    Some groups of women are in danger of becoming like gay men, banging anything that moves, others are using marriage and babies as a career path and means to financial well being without reciprocating the social contract of a solid marriage. This is an extremely selfish and childish approach taken by females who are no longer held responsible for the men they marry or shack up with, or even have children with.

    Something is broken in society, the question is how to settle things back down again, and provide that solid family base.

    All fine and good for the 20 something male to be a player, but that will not further the human race.

    Are we to become like monkeys, just fucking randomly in the trees and who cares who the father is ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight × 3 =