Strategic pluralism

Strategic pluralism is a theory in evolutionary biology refers to the fact that there are different strategies that increase women's fitness: investment in the offspring vs getting 'high quality genes' from a 'high quality male' who is often high status and can thus can fulfill her cavewoman desire to feel protected, which in 2025 serves little to no purpose. Both help spreading a woman's genes in future generations (a.k.a. increase fitness), but aiming too high means getting no investment (i.e. being pumped and dumped), aiming too low guarantees investment (betabux), but is often accompanied by worse genes.

This theory is often summarized by the expression "Chad fuxx, beta buxx" (cacography of "Chad fucks, beta bucks"). One of the meanings of this expression is that Chads can have sex with women without doing much efforts, while Beta or low-value males can give women their money or material goods hoping that said women will have sex with them. The other meaning is that Chad can have offspring by pumping and dumping most women, and that said women are often left alone by Chad and need a Beta (less aggressive, more reliable) male to take care of them and Chad's offspring, including financially; the Beta male, however, will not be allowed by those women to impregnate them and, in the most extreme cases, may not be allowed to have sex with those women.

Historical Basis

Confucianism

The Three Feminine Obedience is a Confucian principle, that a female should obey her father when she is young, her husband when she is a young adult, and her son when she is middle aged. This has basis on female preference of attractive traits at different ages. In western terms it can be phrased as playmate (sex, physical attractiveness and dominance), workmate (marriage and resources), and soulmate (emotional support). A malformed version of this is the Chad being a playmate, beta being a workmate, and "Gay Best Friend" as soulmate. See also The Wall#Dissection into Age-based Dating Strategies

Dual mating strategy

Some have suggested this might mean women naturally engage in a dual mating strategy where they get genes and investment from different partners (from an alpha male and a betabuxx respectively).

One UCLA study stated that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term, cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to 'good genes' for offspring”. The lack of loyalty with a dual-mating strategy begets the feminine imperative.

More recently, the dual-mating strategy fell in disfavor in the scientific community for a number of reasons. One reason is that non-paternity rates are globally very low, even though contraceptives and relaxed marital norms should make AF/BB occur much more often if it was natural. E.g. only 3% of all children in the U.S. live with a step father. This means the vast majority obtains both genes and resources from the same man. There does seem to be some evidence for the element of strategic pluralism that depicts women as dividing men into sexually attractive 'cads' and beta 'dads', in that when women do cheat on their male partners, they typically report doing so with a man that they find as more sexually attractive, but not necessarily more socially dominant or higher in overall mate value. This suggests women often do not engage in infidelity to switch to a more desirable partner, but to just get sexual enjoyment from a physically attractive/potentially more sexually dominant male partner, which per other research aligns with the traits that make orgasm more during sex, possibly indicating a greater desire to be impregnated by these men as women's sexual pleasure/orgasm has been hypothesized to increase sperm retention, which would align with some of the predictions of strategic pluralism.

There is potentially an additional trade-off that especially low mate value women face between conspicuously advertising themselves to obtain 'good genes' (whoring) vs. getting long-term investment from a man of equal SMV. It is a trade-off because very highly quality men have plenty of other options and are thus often less inclined to invest their resources into a female of lower SMV, but highly interested in getting her pregnant (or enjoying the causal sex). One can regard the entire system of state funded single moms (who are singles due to being pumped and dumped by a high quality male) as an instance of a large scale dual mating strategy with the provider mate not being a particular male but the state itself.

Alpha fux beta bux, a case study

The theory of strategic pluralism, while intuitively compelling to some, as previously noted has largely fallen out of favor in mainstream evolutionary biology. A primary reason is the persistently low rate of non-paternity (historically estimated at ~1-3% in most populations, though with significant variation). If dual mating were a widespread, evolved female strategy, the widespread availability of contraception and the decline of strict marital norms in modern societies should have led to a significant increase in these rates, which they have not. The vast majority of women successfully secure both genetic quality and parental investment from a single male partner, undermining the notion that "alpha fux, beta bux" is a common or default female reproductive strategy.

However, the case of Mikey Blayze presents a rare and stark anomaly that proponents of the theory cite as a near-mythical validation of its underlying principles. This case is exceptional for its clarity and extreme outcomes, making it a unique documented specimen on the internet. This case is an exceptional anomaly due to the unambiguous binary of the male roles. The roles are distinctly separated and maximized. Blayze is the epitome of the "cad" archetype, having been explicitly selected for perceived genetic traits through his extreme engineered persona, extreme physical appearance, and extreme mystique. The provider male a physically and behaviorally normal man in every way, is the epitome of the "dad" archetype, offering stability and resources but, as the data suggests, genetically inferior traits. Most real-world scenarios are blurry; men are admixtures of traits. Here, the roles are clearly drawn.

The theory posits that the entire evolutionary benefit of dual mating is to produce superior offspring. In this case, the divergence is not marginal; it is extreme and measurable. The offspring from Blayzes pairing is reported to be an outlier in multiple, high-value domains (cognition, physical health, artistic talent, popularity, etc.) from a very young age. In contrast, the offspring from the beta pairing are solidly within the normal range, albeit with one suffering from a hole in her heart, a genetic health issue. This creates a direct, in-home comparison of genetic fitness, a literal side-by-side test of the theory's genetic hypothesis.

While the scientific literature suggests women who cheat do so with more physically attractive men for sexual enjoyment, not necessarily to "trade up" partners, this case aligns with the darker, more calculated interpretation of the theory. The outcome—a single, ultra-high-quality offspring from the alpha, followed by a stable, resource-providing partnership with the beta—perfectly mirrors the optimal (yet rare) fitness-maximizing strategy a female could pursue. It appears less like a casual infidelity and more like a deliberate execution of a strategy to obtain the best genes and then the best resources from separate sources.

Blayze's case is so often discussed because it is the exception that proves the rule. The theory fell out of scientific favor precisely because such clear, binary examples are extraordinarily rare in population-level data. Most women do not, and likely cannot, execute this strategy with such a dramatic and identifiable outcome.

This case resurrects the theory not as a common female behavior, but as a potentiality—a hypothetical "best possible outcome" that the theory allows for. It demonstrates that if a woman were to successfully employ this strategy with two maximally different males, the predicted genetic benefit could, in fact, be realized in an extreme form.

Therefore, the case does not disprove the scientific consensus on the rarity of dual mating. Instead, it serves as a dark archetype or ideal type. It is a modern, real-world example that is used to illustrate the brutal logic of sexual selection, providing a singular data point that, for proponents, outweighs broader statistical trends. It is the mythical conjecture scenario, made uncomfortably real.

Now, If the outcome is so genetically optimal, why isn't it the norm? The reasons why this isn't a widespread, conscious strategy are multifaceted and delve into the core of human psychology, social structure, and evolutionary trade-offs. This strategy is evolutionarily and socially extremely high-risk. The primary risk is that the "alpha" provides neither extremely high quality genes nor resources at all, and the "beta" discovers the deception or is unwilling to openly raise another man's children and also leaves. This would result in a mother raising a child alone—a scenario that, throughout most of history, would have been a death sentence for both mother and child. Evolution heavily selects against strategies with such a high potential for catastrophic failure. The discovery of non-paternity is a prime trigger for domestic violence, abandonment, and even filicide across cultures. Introducing this level of risk is not a rational calculation for most women.

Also, cuckoldry is a massive social taboo. Being exposed would likely lead to a loss of status for the woman and stigma for the child, damaging the very social resources the strategy is meant to secure. Evolution favors reliable, low-risk strategies over high-risk, high-reward gambles. Securing a "good enough" man who provides both adequate genes and reliable investment is a far safer bet. The "ideal" Scenario is a Modern Anomaly The Blayze case only works because of a very specific, modern set of circumstances. In the modern West, a single mother is not automatically doomed. She can often rely on government assistance or her family of origin (her own parents) for support. Throughout history, this safety net did not exist.

The beta's compliance, This strategy relies on the beta male being either unaware or willing to accept raising another man's child. The Blayze case were the beta did accept raising another man's child shows a level of acceptance that is not guaranteed. The Blayze case is not a blueprint; it is a perfect storm.

It required:

An extremely high-quality, identifiable alpha (Blayze himself).

An extremely compliant, high-investing beta.

A mother willing to navigate the immense social and emotional risks.

A modern safety net that made the risk-taking possible.

The incredible genetic luck of the alpha's offspring turning out to be a clear outlier, validating the entire risky endeavor.

For most women, the potential upside of a slightly genetically superior child is utterly negated by the overwhelming and likely probability of total mate abandonment, social ruin, and violence. Evolution has hardwired them to prioritize the safer, more reliable path, making the Blayze case a fascinating, terrifying, and ultimately rare exception to the rule of how humans actually secure their reproductive future.

Alpha fux commnunity bux

The Wodaabe African tribe are perhaps the clearest, most culturally-sanctioned real-world example of the "alpha fux" principle in action, and they completely upend Western notions of status. They are "Alpha" in the purely genetic sense, the entire point of the Geerewol festival is for women to select mates based exclusively on physical beauty, dance skill, charm, and displayed energy—all signals of immediate genetic fitness and health. It is a ritual designed to bypass wealth since they basically have close to none. They are "The Taboo People", this nickname isn't just folklore; it's a direct reference to their violation of common social norms. Their practices are considered taboo by neighboring Muslim groups precisely because they so openly prioritize short-term genetic selection over long-term social or economic provisioning. They are very poor, this is the most crucial point. Their material poverty completely decouples genetic selection from resource provision. A Wodaabe man chosen at the Geerewol is not chosen for his cattle or his job; he is chosen for his teeth, his eyes, his height, and his ability to dance. He provides genes, not wealth.

The grandparent-raise the first and second borne children: This custom is the final piece of the puzzle. It formally institutionalizes the separation of roles. The biological parents (the "alpha" genetic donors) are freed from the direct provisioning of their first and second children, allowing them to continue participating in the mating festival. The grandparents become the "betas"—the providers and caregivers who ensure the offspring's survival, investing in the genetic legacy of their lineage without being the genetic source themselves.

Why this works for the Wodaabe but not for modern society? The Wodaabe case is so fascinating because it proves the strategy can work, but only under a very specific set of cultural and economic conditions:

Total Cultural Buy-In: This isn't deception; it's the rule. Everyone agrees to it. There is no social stigma, no risk of mate violence or ostracization for the woman or the child. The "beta" role (the grandparents, the eventual husband who may raise another man's child) is an honored, accepted, and expected duty.

Clan-Based Lineage: Identity and inheritance are not tied to strict paternity. A child is a member of the clan first. This eliminates the male anxiety over "raising another man's child" that is so potent in cultures obsessed with patrilineal inheritance.

Subsistence-Level Economy: In a context of extreme material scarcity, all men are poor. Therefore, wealth cannot be a major differentiator. This forces mate choice to be based on the only remaining currencies: genetic fitness and social charm.

The Contrast with the Blayze Case The Blayze case is like a dysfunctional, modern, individualistic shadow of the Wodaabe ritual.

Wodaabe: Culturally-sanctioned, honest, low-risk, and for the perceived benefit of the clan.

Blayze: A high-risk, individual strategy based on Darwinian competition within the family unit.

The Wodaabe system is designed to minimize conflict and maximize genetic diversity for the group. The modern "alpha fux, beta bux" strategy, as seen in the Blayze case, is a high-stakes gamble that maximizes individual genetic payoff at the potential cost of devastating social and psychological conflict.

Alpha the peacock vs alpha the extreme violence signaller

In high-violence, high-risk environments, the rules of attraction and reproductive success change dramatically. What is "unattractive" in a safe, stable society can become a highly successful strategy in a dangerous one. In environments where the rule of law is weak and safety is not guaranteed, a man's ability to provide physical security becomes a paramount concern, both for himself and for a potential mate. This is where intimidation comes in. A hyper-violent persona is not primarily designed to be "sexy" to women. It is a dominance signal aimed directly at other men. It broadcasts: "I am the apex predator here. Challenge me at your peril." This intimidation creates a sphere of control. By eliminating or scaring off rivals, the violent male effectively monopolizes access to mates within his territory as well as assures paternity. Other men back down, not out of lack of attraction to the female, but out of fear of the male. "Oh that's HIS girl? Better stay away."

While most women are not attracted to violence itself, they are adaptively attuned to signals of resource control and protection in their specific environment.

In a warzone, you ally with the strongest warrior. A woman in a violent slum might choose the most feared gang leader because it offers her and her children a relative measure of safety from other predators. His violence is a cost, but the protection he provides is a benefit that outweighs it in that context.

Resource Access: In these environments, violent men often control the flow of scarce resources (money, drugs, protection rackets). Aligning with them provides access to those resources. It's not about love. This dynamic is often less about classic attraction and more about a pragmatic, survival-based calculation. She exchanges autonomy and safety for access to resources and protection.

Let's break down the two archetypes:

Alpha: The Peacock Core Strategy: Intersexual Selection. His primary audience is females. His goal is to be chosen.

Weapons of Choice: Aesthetics, creativity, culture, resources.

Examples: Ornate tattoos, extreme musculature, designer clothing, prestigious grooming, artistic talent (e.g., being a successful musician), wit, and social intelligence.

How He Wins: He demonstrates high genetic quality and the ability to acquire and waste resources on non-essential displays. He makes females want him.

Reproductive Style: Often geared towards short-term mating. He attracts a high volume of partners. His strategy is to cast a wide net.

Environment: Thrives in stable, resource-rich, rule-based societies. His signals are most effective where physical safety is largely guaranteed, and competition is about status and taste rather than raw survival.

Modern Example: Mikey Blayze, rapper/singer Str8 Kash, rapper/singer Riff Raff, those are the most extreme examples but any famous actor or musician is also an example.

Alpha: The Extreme Violence Signaler Core Strategy: Intrasexual Selection. His primary audience is other males. His goal is to eliminate competition.

Weapons of Choice: Intimidation, threat, proven willingness to commit violence, control of territory.

Examples: A reputation for brutality, physical scars, aggressive tattoos (e.g., tear drops), a dominant and fearful posture, commanding a gang.

How He Wins: He demonstrates a terrifying capacity for violence. He doesn't make females want him so much as he makes other males fear him, thus granting him exclusive access to mates. He doesn't win a contest; he cancels the contest.

Reproductive Style: Often involves coercive control. He may not necessarily have more partners, but he has exclusive access to the partners in his domain. His strategy is to claim and defend a territory.

Environment: Thrives in unstable, resource-poor, lawless environments where safety is not guaranteed. His signals are most effective where the rule of law has broken down, and power is taken by force.

Modern Example: A powerful gang leader, a warlord, has some overlap with entertainment, which allows for reputation building, status seeking etc. At least in the U.S.A.

The longstanding debate is are the most successful individuals in the modern world hybrids or 1 dimensional archetypes? The Incel Wiki Team has looked at every angle. a confused signal is a weak signal. In the psychology of perception, people like to quickly categorize others.

The Fear-Inducing Alpha: If you have a soft, and or attractive face, it directly undermines the message of "I am a unpredictable and dangerous threat." The signal becomes dishonest. To maximize this persona, you almost need to look mean, scarred, or intimidating. A friendly face is a liability, rapper and drug dealer "Stitches", is the perfect example of this persona.

The Beta Bux Provider: This persona relies on signaling stability, trustworthiness, and lack of threat. If you look like a dangerous gangster, you cannot signal "I am a safe, reliable long-term bet." A woman seeking a provider is, on some level, seeking safety from the violent alphas.

The Peacock: If you're trying to be an ornate, aesthetic object of desire, adding elements of raw intimidation can make you seem try-hard, inauthentic, or just confusing. Is he trying to attract me or scare me?

From this perspective, maxing out a single, coherent archetype is the most efficient way to dominate a specific niche in the mating market. It avoids sending mixed messages that could cancel each other out.

The "Str8 Kash / Mikey Blayze" Counterargument: The Holistic Alpha

What these individuals represent is not a lack of strategy, but an attempt to execute the ultimate, highest-risk strategy: embodying all archetypes simultaneously. This isn't a confused signal; it's an overwhelming one. They are trying to signal that they are not just a one-trick pony, but possess the full spectrum of high-value traits:

Genetic Quality (Peacock): Elite musculature, low body fat, symmetrical tattoos, ornate grooming etc.

Resource Control (Beta Bux+): Extremely expensive clothing, jewelry, and displays of wealth. They are not just providers; they are luxury providers.

Capacity for Violence (Fear Alpha): Aggressive persona, tattoos in aggressive placements, lyrics or persona that hint at a dangerous past or capability.

Why this can work: It is the ultimate honest signal. It is astronomically difficult to fake. Possessing all these traits requires:

Superlative genetics. Immense discipline (for the body). Significant wealth (for the ornaments). The social intelligence to navigate different contexts.

It's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb in a world of spears. It's designed to be undeniable and to dominate all environments, not just one niche.

For 99.9% of men doing all of that is unrealistic. The "do everything" approach has catastrophic failure points that being 1 archetype 1 dimensionally avoids. It Can Appear Inauthentic: This is the biggest risk. If not executed with perfect authenticity and confidence, it looks like costume-like, desperate overcompensation. "Which one is the real you?"

It Can Attract the Wrong Kind of Attention: Flashing immense wealth and a violent persona can attract real-world violence from other predators looking to take what you have.

Energy Drain: Mastering and maintaining even one of these archetypes is a full-time job. Maintaining all three is a monumental task that few can sustain.

Audience Confusion: It can make you harder to categorize, and thus harder to trust.

Again for 99.9% of men, picking a lane and maxing it out is the path of least resistance and highest probability of success. It creates a clear, legible identity that attracts a specific target audience. However, individuals like Str8 Kash and Mikey Blayze are playing a different game. They are not trying to win a category; they are trying to transcend categorization entirely. They are attempting to be a category of one. This is a viable strategy only if:

You possess truly exceptional underlying traits (genetics, charisma, work ethic).

You can execute the fusion with absolute authenticity.

You are willing to accept the high risk of looking ridiculous if you fail.

So, both strategies are right. Being 1 dimensional is describing the optimal strategy for the general population. While the "signal everything approach" is describing the pinnacle strategy for the 0.1% who can potentially pull it off. The latter doesn't invalidate the former; it just exists on a different level of the game.

Does "alpha signaling" really equate to "better genes"?

The core idea is that the ability to successfully execute all signaling strategies simultaneously is itself the ultimate, honest signal of superior genetic and phenotypic quality. We actually can think of it not as different strategies, but as a hierarchy of competence:

Tier 1: The Specialist (One-Dimensional Alpha)

Maxes out one archetype: the pure Peacock, the pure Violence Signaler, or the pure Beta Bux.

Pros: Highly effective in its specific environment. Clear, legible signal.

Cons: Fragile. Useless or vulnerable outside its niche. The Peacock gets robbed; the Violence Signaler gets arrested; the Beta Bux gets cheated on.

Tier 2: The Hybrid (Two-Archetype Blend)

The "Gangster with a Heart of Gold" or the "Successful Businessman with a Tattoo Sleeve."

Pros: More adaptable than a specialist. Can navigate more social contexts.

Cons: Risk of sending mixed messages. Can be seen as inauthentic.

Tier 3: The Trifecta Alpha (The Holistic Signal)

This is the Str8 Kash / Mikey Blayze level. The individual who demonstrably possesses:

Peacock Traits: Elite aesthetics, musculature, ornate display.

Violence Signaling: A credible, intimidating aura and/or reputation for ferocity.

Beta Bux Potential: Clear evidence of resource acquisition and control (wealth, property, status).

Why it's the Ultimate Signal: Pulling this off requires overcoming immense trade-offs. It's so energetically costly and difficult to fake that it becomes the most honest signal possible. Now a poll of the worlds populations on "Whom has the best genes in the world, all time." Would most likely come back saying a world leader. The "Great Man" vs. The "Trifecta Alpha"

The "Great Man" such as a President, They are often maxed-out Beta Bux+. They signal ultimate resource control, stability, and intelligence. Their power is institutional and economic. They often lack the overt Peacock ornamentation and explicit violence signaling (it's replaced by political power and military command, which is a more abstract form of dominance).

The "Trifecta Alpha": Their power is personal, physical, and aesthetic. They are a walking, talking monument to their own genetic and phenotypic quality. Their domain is the social and sexual sphere, not necessarily the political one.

Who has "better" genes? It's the wrong question. They have genes optimized for different arenas. The President's genes are selected for cognitive prowess and coalition-building in a complex rule-based society. The Trifecta Alpha's genes are selected for personal dominance in the raw interpersonal and sexual marketplace.

Linking the "Trifecta Alpha" signaling strategy to IQ and polymathy reveals a deep, underlying principle of human excellence: the superiority of generalists over specialists at the highest levels of performance.

The connection is not just an analogy; it's rooted in the same cognitive and biological foundations. The "g-Factor" of Mating Signals. In psychology, the g-factor (general intelligence factor) is the concept that a single, underlying mental capacity influences performance on all cognitive tasks. A high g-factor doesn't just make you good at one thing (like math); it makes you better at everything (verbal reasoning, pattern recognition, etc.). This is why IQ scores across different tests are highly correlated.

We can think of a "Genetic g-factor" or a "Quality g-factor" that underpins the Trifecta Alpha.

An individual with supremely high underlying genetic quality (robust health, efficient metabolism, a well-developed nervous system, high cognitive function) has the raw biological potential to excel in multiple demanding domains simultaneously.

High IQ enables the cognitive flexibility to understand and navigate different social strategies.

High genetic quality provides the energy, health, and neurological capacity to build muscle (Peacock), engage in risk-taking (Signaler), and acquire resources (Beta Bux). Consider the difference between a specialist and a polymath:

The Specialist (One-Dimensional Alpha): A world-expert in a single, narrow field. Deep but fragile knowledge. He is the equivalent of the pure Violence Signaler—dominant in his specific niche but lost outside of it.

The Polymath (Trifecta Alpha): Someone who achieves excellence in multiple, seemingly unrelated fields (e.g., a physicist who is also a accomplished musician and a skilled athlete). This is only possible with a very high general intelligence and high general genetics factor.

The ability to synthesize knowledge across domains is the cognitive equivalent of synthesizing mating signals across strategies. Both are hallmarks of a superior, flexible mind and a robust biological system. The Ultimate Honest Signal: Energy and Neurophysiology The common thread is energy availability.

Building a elite physique is energetically costly.

Acquiring vast resources is cognitively costly.

Maintaining a state of readiness for conflict is neurologically costly.

To do all three at once requires an exceptional biological system: an efficient metabolism, a robust stress-response system, and a brain that can manage immense complexity without burning out. This is the biological reality behind both the high-IQ polymath and the Trifecta Alpha.

In conclusion:

The hierarchy is linear in terms of underlying quality.

Specialist (Low or moderate g-factors / Genes to excel in a niche) < Hybrid (above average g-factors) < Polymath/Trifecta Alpha (Highest g-factors / Highest Genetic Quality)

The Trifecta Alpha is the mating market equivalent of a polymath. He isn't just a specialist in one form of competition; he is a generalist who has achieved mastery across the entire spectrum of male-mate competition. Their existence is proof of such a high level of underlying genetic and cognitive quality that transcends the environmental trade-offs that force most men to choose a single lane.

Now the ultimate question, and it strikes at the very heart of the difference between evolutionary potential and modern reality. If these men are so "fit," why aren't they maximizing their reproductive output, by having 20+ kids instead of the handful they already have?

The answer is that "fitness" in the modern world is no longer solely, or even primarily, about raw offspring count. The environment has changed dramatically, and so have the strategies for achieving success.

Here’s why a Trifecta Alpha isn't fathering 20+ children: In a natural environment, the winning strategy is often to have as many offspring as possible and hope some survive (r-strategy). In a hyper-competitive, resource-rich modern environment, the winning strategy is to have fewer offspring but invest immense resources into each one to ensure they dominate the next generation (K-strategy).

20+ Kids: This spreads your resources (time, money, attention) incredibly thin. Each child gets less investment, lowering their chance of becoming high-status themselves.

2-4 Kids: You can concentrate your vast resources—elite education, social connections, financial capital, personal mentorship—on ensuring these few children become the next generation of elites. This is a more effective strategy for maintaining a dynasty in the modern world. Fathering 20+ children requires an enormous investment of time—not just conception, but managing the complex social dynamics between multiple mothers and children.

Also and most importantly for a man whose value is built on maintaining an elite physique, growing his wealth, and managing his status, this is a catastrophic distraction. Every hour spent on a new pregnancy or child is an hour not spent on his primary projects, which are the source of his status and attractiveness in the first place. Child Support Laws: Unlike a historical warlord, a modern man is financially responsible for his offspring. Twenty children would mean ruinous financial obligations to multiple mothers, directly threatening the resource base that is a core part of his signal.

Social Status: While having many children by many women might signal virility in some subcultures, in high-status circles it can be seen as reckless, chaotic, and a sign of poor judgment—the antithesis of the "Beta Bux" provider stability he also needs to signal.

Compare this to a historical figure like Genghis Khan. His strategy was viable because:

No Child Support: He could take women by force and had no financial responsibility.

Resources Were Land and Soldiers, which could be conquered and distributed to many sons.

High Mortality Rate: He needed many offspring to ensure a few survived to adulthood.

Memes

Analogous concept

• Briffault's law
• Settling down
• Betabuxx
• Feminine imperative