Evolutionary psychology in the manosphere

Evolutionary psychology is ubiquitous in the manosphere. This has been mentioned by social scientists (Ging, Reference Ging2019; Van Valkenburgh, Reference Van Valkenburgh2018), but has not been the subject of much analysis by evolutionary scholars themselves. The first of this kind was an article reviewing Pickup-Artist seduction guides and concluding ‘that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological, and evolutionary psychology.’ (Oesch & Miklousic, Reference Oesch and Miklousic2012). A recent study also briefly commented on misuses of EP by incels (Baselice, Reference Baselice2023: 12–13).

Furthermore, a recent overview of manosphere research included EP as a dominant theme in manosphere discourse:

Indeed, the founding manifesto of the Red Pill community recognises its reliance on EP:

In the Pickup-Artist community as well, several seduction guides are grounded in Darwinian principles. For example, The Mystery Method opens with a gloomy Darwinian injunction, ‘Nature will unapologetically weed your genes out of existence if you don't take action and learn how to attract women now’ (Mistery, 2005: viii), while Nick Savoy's Magic Bullets includes ‘A quick primer on evolutionary biology’ (Reference Savoy2007: 25).

No manosphere community shares and discusses more EP research and concepts than the incel community, in particular those who adhere to the set of beliefs called ‘the blackpill’ (for a definition, see Table 1, and Radicalisation Awareness Network, 2021). On Incels.wiki, the online incel encyclopedia, the ties between the blackpill and EP are made clear:

The entry then goes on to cite and summarise more than 100 scientific studies, from mainstream journals in the evolutionary and behavioural sciences.

Countless similar examples could be provided. As a case study, this article will now be focusing on the depiction of female mating strategies in manosphere communities, but their use of EP is indeed a ubiquitous phenomenon.

The dual mating strategy hypothesis

In the manosphere, the most popular hypothesis to explain female extra-pair mating is the dual mating strategy hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, extra-pair mating could have been adaptive for ancestral women if they managed to secure investment from a regular partner, while mating with affair partners would provide ‘fitter’ genes for their offspring (Weisberg & Kim, Reference Weisberg, Kim, Shackelford and Weekes-Shackelford2021). Most of the empirical research derived from the hypothesis investigates the ovulatory cycle and whether female mate preference shifts around ovulation. For example, do women fantasise about, or pursue more attractive men at that time? (For an evidentiary summary, see Gildersleeve et al., Reference Gildersleeve, Haselton and Fales2014; Gangestad & Haselton, Reference Gangestad and Haselton2015.)

Like other research on female sexuality, the dual mating strategy hypothesis is hailed in the manosphere as proof that women's supposed fidelity and desire for monogamy is a myth:

In fact, this hypothesis is sometimes described as a revelation for men:

Manosphere renditions of the dual mating strategy hypothesis reveal how evolutionary hypotheses are understood and shared online.

There is no mark of hypothesis, in fact, the dual mating strategy hypothesis is not described as such in the manosphere. Here, it is just described as a scientific and ‘observed’ strategy that females engage in. This other post from Reddit is even more peremptory:

Not only does this poster profess the undoubted truth of the hypothesis, but he also assumes that everyone in the community will be familiar with it, a testimony to the popularity of EP within these groups. And yet the study cited by the poster had mixed results, and does not even mention the dual mating strategy hypothesis. A final example from Reddit illustrates this peremptoriness, with a monolithic view of female behaviour, which is held to be constant ‘in the wild’ and in contemporary societies:

In the example above, women seem to be consciously selecting mates whom ‘they believe carries good genetics’. This is obviously false, and is a classic case of mistaking the ultimate (mate with ‘good genetics’) for the proximate (attractive mate). However, this is a mistake that some in the manosphere try to avoid, for example Red Pill writer and pundit Rollo Tomassi,

This level of precaution is quite rare, and it is unclear how widespread it is among ordinary members of manosphere communities. In fact, taking the ‘gene's eye view’ – writing as if people consciously act to maximise their fitness – is also commonplace in EP literature, e.g.

When formulated this way, it looks as if women actively cheat ‘in order to obtain good genes’. Here, these ‘gene's eye view’ redactional shortcuts end up exactly mirroring common manosphere beliefs. Indeed, there is an adage in the manosphere called ‘Alpha Fux, Beta Bux’, abbreviated as AF/BB. This acronym designates the supposed tendency for women to stay in relationships with unattractive but stable and caring men who provide for them (‘betas’), while cheating on them with more attractive men (‘alphas’). Hence the reaction of this incel after discovering the dual mating strategy hypothesis,

People do not consciously act in their genes’ best interests. Yet, the use of the term ‘strategy’ in the evolutionary literature misleadingly reinforces that impression. Indeed, it can refer to two different levels of strategies. On the one hand, strategies employed by individuals to achieve some (proximate) goal, and on the other hand evolutionary strategies competing against others in the (ultimate) arena of natural and sexual selection. This conflation might not be problematic in most species; when behavioural ecologists discuss strategies in fish or insects, these are clearly evolutionary-level strategies. But in species with higher cognitive faculties, and the capacity of conscious strategising, this creates confusion. Thus, in the Red Pill community's founding manifesto, feminism is described as a way for women to enable their own sexual strategies,

This is inspired by EP terminology and concepts – ‘sexual strategy’, ‘switch mates’, ‘best dna’ – and confuses (proximate) politics with (ultimate) fitness, through the use of the ambiguous term ‘strategy’. In fact, in order to mirror feminism's supposed sexual agenda, the Red Pill community purports to provide ‘a sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men’ (The Red Pill, Reddit). Hence its reliance on EP, because ‘understanding the facets of this psychology are key to developing a good sexual strategy’ (The Red Pill, Reddit).

Certainly, Darwinian theory pits antagonistic evolutionary interests against each other, with sibling rivalry and parent–offspring conflict for example (Trivers, Reference Trivers1974). And the evolution of sex has also been shaped by the diverging interests of males and females (Arnqvist & Lowe, Reference Arnqvist and Rowe2005). Yet, these are conflicts between ultimate fitness interests – ‘strategies’ as conceived in game theory – not between conscious strategies. In the manosphere, this fact is often lost. There, through the use of EP terminology, an antagonistic Darwinian framework is mapped onto contemporary gender politics, depicting feminism and antifeminism as female and male reproductive ‘strategies’ pitted against each other.

Our analysis reveals the prevalence of EP hypotheses on female mating in the manosphere, often drawn from reputable scientific sources. However, their manosphere renditions mostly obscure the fact that female mating strategies are hypothetical, unconscious, and supposed to have evolved aggregately over time. Interestingly, hypotheses on the evolution of male sexuality are not discussed much in the manosphere: as if only women were strategising fitness-maximising animals. Moreover, hypotheses on female sexuality are received in an emotional, moralistic, and conservative framework, causing biased interpretations of the scientific literature.

Negative attitudes towards female sexuality

Although extra-pair mating is just a matter of scientific inquiry for evolutionary scholars, that is not the case in the manosphere, where emotions on the topic run high. As a space where men can share their dating, relationship, and marriage experience, the manosphere is home to a lot of pain, anger, and bitterness. Apart from conflictual divorces, one of the most frequent source of resentment is being cheated on by a female partner. In fact, in a MGTOW discussion entitled ‘What are the worst lies a woman ever told you?’, one finds dozens of testimonies of men who were cheated on by wives or girlfriends. To some men reading those testimonies, realising that their misfortunes were shared by others has a comforting effect:

For others, it just paints a truer picture of reality, showing that women are no better than men when it comes to honesty and fidelity:

Yet, for others, the fine line between anecdotes and generalisation is easily crossed:

The following excerpt from a Red Pill redditor perfectly illustrates that dynamic: I got cheated on, ergo, all women are cheaters:

Evolutionary thinking thus becomes an easy way to support generalisations about women. Men's Rights lawyer Roy Den Hollander married a Russian woman who turned out to be a sex worker, an experience that scarred him for life. He even created a website to share his 1500-page account of the story (https://web.archive.org/web/20230130132220/http://been-scammed.com/main/). There, one finds an evolutionary explanation for female extra-pair mating. In typical manosphere fashion, his narrative is not presented as speculative, nor is it substantiated by empirical data,

This exemplifies another key difference between the scientific literature and the manosphere: moral judgments rarely appear in the evolutionary literature. Nature being fundamentally amoral, there are no normative or condemnatory overtones in the study of extra-pair mating. This scientific neutrality is in stark contrast with Den Hollander's sexism. Here, as elsewhere in the manosphere, the author's use of evolutionary reasoning is suffused with personal grief and extreme misogyny.

More generally, attitudes towards female sexual agency in the manosphere tend to be very negative. The sexual liberation spurred by feminism is routinely bemoaned by the more traditionalist factions as the downfall of traditional (and chaste) femininity. When primatologists wrote about females’ being potentially as competitive or sexually assertive as males, this was seen as a much-needed correction of scientific bias, and as a feminist breakthrough. Yet, if one sees female sexual freedom as undesirable, then the interpretation is the complete opposite, as is often the case in the manosphere:

Thus, depending on values, the same evolutionary hypothesis can be interpreted in completely opposite ways. For example, incels regard themselves as unattractive genetic misfits, and as the victims of a contemporary society where female sexuality is unhinged, making for a specific interpretation of evolutionary hypotheses. Their example demonstrates further how emotions and ideology fuel sexist interpretations of evolutionary scholarship.

One discussion thread is particularly revealing. The originator of the thread is citing abundantly from the Wikipedia.org entry on concealed ovulation. For each section, he sums up the encyclopedia article for his fellow forum members. Thus, this Wikipedia passage:

… becomes,

Gone are all the marks of hypothesis (‘hypothesized’, ‘would’), while the tense of the sentence has also changed: speculations about the past become a generalisation in the present. As for another evolutionary hypothesis about meat being exchanged for sex after hunting (see Schröder, Reference Schröder1993: 383–384), he sums it up somewhat anachronistically,

The incel poster concludes by stating:

In his summation, he leaps from mere hypotheses to ‘absolute undeniability’ – no small leap. As elsewhere, the scientific clout of EP is invoked as a sign of undoubted truth. The reactions of the incels who read his post reveal how common forum users interpret evolutionary hypotheses.

This user is just acknowledging a basic fact of Darwinism: evolutionary processes can select for behaviour deemed immoral as well as moral. It is one of the rare occurrences of a non-sexist reaction.

The amorality of nature is not recognised by all though.

This comment is voicing a common fear among incels. Even if one manages to find a girlfriend someday, she will be unfaithful – after all, isn't this in her best genetic interest? Since incels perceive themselves as men of low genetic quality, they feel especially concerned by the dual mating strategy hypothesis, which posits that female extra-pair mating might have evolved through mating with ‘higher-quality’ mates. Yet, rather than reject a hypothesis which would look unpalatable to them, they embrace it. Indeed, incel or ‘blackpill’ ideology is based on the idea that incels’ destinies are out of their hands, determined instead by powerful social, genetic, and evolutionary forces (Brzuszkiewicz, Reference Brzuszkiewicz2020: 12–13). Chief among those forces is female mate selection, which to them is synonymous with female rejection.

Hence, their fascination for hypotheses on the evolution of female sexuality such as the dual-mating hypothesis, or for the ‘good genes’ and ‘sexy son’ hypotheses models of sexual selection (for meta-analysis on these two hypotheses, see Prokop et al., Reference Prokop, Michalczyk, Drobniak, Herdegen and Radwan2012). Evolutionary scholars might be surprised to learn that the erudite debate between Fisherian and ‘good genes’ models of sexual selection is also echoed in the ‘incelosphere’, on the Incel Wiki (‘Good genes hypotheses’, n.d.) By stressing the evolutionary importance for females of selecting healthy and attractive mates, these hypotheses vindicate incel worldview, and do so with the authority of peer-reviewed science. They are thus shared and commented with glee:

Yet, they are also received with despair. Indeed, as men whose sexual and romantic aspirations are unmet, incels have a very particular relationship towards sex research. They are avid consumers of it, and use it to explain their celibacy. But it also reinforces their fatalism, and their view that genetics and biology entirely determine dating and relationship success. They often refer to data and research about sex as ‘suicide fuel’ or ‘suifuel’ (suicide is not uncommon in the community, see Daly & Laskovtsov, Reference Daly and Laskovtsov2021). Thus, after reading a post about sperm competition and the dual mating strategy hypothesis, a user writes,

The line between despair and hatred is a thin one, as shown by this incel's reaction to the same post,

Incels resent the fact that other people have sex. This bitterness brings some of them towards the extremes of suicide and/or of harming others (for an overview of incel-related attacks, see Hoffman et al., Reference Hoffman, Ware and Shapiro2020). In that context, any type of sex research is bound to infuriate them. But that is even more true of research on the evolution of concealed ovulation, female orgasms or short-term and extra-pair mating. Since these insist on the prominent evolutionary role of females' agency and multiple mating, incels see them as cruel reminders of their rejection by women and of their own sexlessness. Thus, it is certainly among incels, who are the most avid consumers of EP in the manosphere, that reactions to such research are the most starkly misogynistic:

Before concluding the analysis, one bias must be pointed out here: there is no mention of male instincts and male behaviour. If women's propension for extra-pair mating makes them ‘brainless primates’, what about the well-established male propension? Are men ‘absolute scum’ as well for being equipped with mechanisms coming from an evolutionary legacy of short-term and extra-pair mating? This is, to our knowledge, not a line of reasoning ever found in the manosphere. Thus, the age-old sexual double standard is reproduced in these seemingly scientific discussions: regarding men, inclination towards short-term and extra-pair mating is so evident and unproblematic that it does not warrant any comments or explanation, while in women it is a major concern, warranting competing hypotheses, and prompting scathing condemnations. Evolutionary explanations are thus used to depict a monolithic and inflexible view of female ‘biological behaviour’, but are rarely applied to male behaviour.