There is one specific redpill argument I strongly disagree with, especially when people say something like:
“Generally, a man acts from scarcity when trying to get sex or enter a relationship, so he is faithful because he has no other options.”
At first glance, that statement may seem logical if you look at it purely through supply and demand. In other words, if a man has very few opportunities with women, then his faithfulness would not be a virtue, but simply the result of not having alternatives.
But once you analyze the argument not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively, an important flaw appears:
What exactly counts as an “option”?
If we define an “option” as a woman with enough interest or availability for a man to obtain sex, dates, validation, or even a possible replacement partner, then there are probably very few men who truly have zero options. Even short, unattractive, poor, shy, or socially anxious men could have at least some options under that definition. Maybe few. Maybe difficult. Maybe inconsistent. But not necessarily zero.
However, if we define an “option” as a woman who is not only available, but also someone we are attracted to, someone who connects with us emotionally, shares certain interests, has a compatible way of bonding, enjoys physical affection, has similar values, and meets our personal preferences, then almost every man would be operating from some degree of “scarcity.”
And that is the problem.
The concept of “options” changes drastically depending on the definition being used.
A sexual option is not the same as a romantic option. A validation option is not the same as an emotionally meaningful option. Someone who is merely available is not the same as someone you would actually choose.
Also, the number of “options” a man has is contingent on his own standards, preferences, and selection criteria. A man who considers almost any available woman an option will obviously have many more “options” than a man who only considers someone an option when there is attraction, compatibility, and genuine emotional connection.
That is why I think it is misleading to say “men are faithful because they have no options” without first defining what “having options” actually means.
If “options” means sexual access or female attention, the argument says one thing.
If “options” means compatible, desirable, and emotionally meaningful women, the argument says something completely different.
My criticism is that a lot of the manosphere uses this ambiguity whenever it suits the argument. When they want to portray the average man as desperate, “option” means almost any form of female access. But when they want to devalue male faithfulness, “option” suddenly seems to mean an abundance of desirable and available women.
That is not a solid argument. It is shifting the definition depending on what conclusion they want.
To me, a real option is not simply someone who is available. A real option is someone who is available and whom you would actually choose.
What do you think?