patrick.net

Go Cro Magnons!

Or was it evolutions way of increasing the probability of genus survival?

17 females for every one man. Talk about going to the bar and picking up chicks. Lucky bastards.

Progress in pick-up lines over time?

Hmmm, don't see how that could be. There would be way to many angry, disenfranchised males who would break the system if that was the case.

I would say the specimens alive today that they pulled DNA from came from were ancestors of multi-generation slaves.
Where a single owner family males did the boinking for centuries. In Palatial settings of rich merchants and powerful ruling families.
But that same scenario did not play out in the hillside where the hunter gatherers were. They depended on Monogamy or Polygamy to survive.
They weren't tapping Slaves then selling the babies back into slavery to be fucked by the same guy that produced them, or the family of the same person.

This is just Liberal normalizing Muslim polygamists, Next week they reverse the rolls and say that women had 17 partners to support their feminist narrative.

That's what happens when you use a selective sample of whoreish fame, money and power groupies.

The ag guys in the countryside were probably rooting around in all kinds of rural pussy in a much more democratic way.

Theory:

Large earth Dioxin load due to recent meteor events: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10866441

What a terrible life. Man reduced to a shriveled gnome with a perpetual hard on, being tapped by raging, hungry vaginas day in and day out.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Hmmm, don't see how that could be. There would be way to many angry, disenfranchised males who would break the system if that was the case.

Unless they had whorehouses to service the masses. A village with ~2000 fucking age inhabitants. 50 hoes for the 1000 peasants and 20-women harems for the 50 village chiefs.

It is also possible that many of the poor males were dying young, before having (many) children, and/or that few of their children were surviving to reproduce. And the opposite for the rich.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

There would be....

Actually, it seems normal in many successful species that most males don't reproduce. I don't know what percentage of males would even want to, but I'm sure it's less than 100%. Other threads on PatNet complain about how males can be tricked into parenthood, which implies that those males are not looking for every opportunity to reproduce.

In primate pods, you see an alpha male, several females, and often some beta males. Together, they form a large and strong pod, better able to survive adversity than a smaller pod would be. The alpha male is the breeding male. The others could challenge him or run off if they wanted to, but they choose not to.

In this regard, Islamic polygamy looks more like natural primate pods than monogamous Christianity does. It is politically fashionable to talk about misogyny in Islam, because of the heebie-jobbies. The misandry may be actually more important: the role of the male is to die fighting for Islam. The percentage of breeding males is far below 100%, and yet the religion spreads faster than any other. The same applies on a smaller scale to Catholicism, with the celibate priesthood, monasteries, and convents.

This is consistent with the observed data that, for every son a woman bears, the chance of the next son being gay increases by a third: the reproducing % adjusts to population levels, preventing Malthusian collapse. (It doesn't matter whether the siblings are raised together or separately.)

Perhaps 8,000 years ago there were wars or many males killed in hunting dangerous animals, or something else killing more of the males. Money wasn't even universal at that time, agriculture had just got started, a majority might have been hunter-gatherers. It is conceivable that the agricultural settlements might have had such a powerful advantage that the male hunter-gatherers were wiped out, but that seems unlikely because we have hunter-gatherers even today.

Insects include some of the most prolific species, and most individuals within a colony don't reproduce. For any "social animal", i.e. any species that benefits from cooperation, the optimum breeding % is almost certainly less than 100%.

curious2 says

Other threads on PatNet complain about how males can be tricked into parenthood, which implies that those males are not looking for every opportunity to reproduce.

That's a damned good point. But that doesn't explain why eunuchs got their junk hacked off.

Apparently there are gay bonobos:
http://www.livescience.com/44464-bonobo-homosexuality-natural.html

Which is interesting because if memory serves, bonobos have big orgies where the guy with the biggest balls generally wins.

Not one comment considering those beyond our Sol system?

Patrick says

8000 years ago, 17 women reproduced for every one man

I've thought about this a few times since you posted it, and I can't wrap my mind around it. It only makes sense if either there was some sort of infanticide of all male babies (there are stories of this in the bible). Or if women were separated in the community and only 5% of the men had access to them. And the rest of the men were serfs without access to women other than their mothers up to a certain age. And then even most of the the sons of the 5% would mostly become serfs without access, right ?

I wonder what the chance is that the genetic analysis behind this is flawed.

Perhaps there were laws as to who could father children, but others had sex but were careful not to conceive (i.e. pull out or whatever) ?

I'm imagining a bizarre community where the leader is so revered and is considered so superior that only he is allowed to impregnate women. Then when he gets old, they would need to bring in a great man from outside the community to be their new king and father. OR there would be inbreeding if a son took his place. .

Reproduction is a by product of sexual behavior, and there is lots of sexual behavior in humans as well as animals that does not result in reproduction. Certainly, human males are interested in getting a lot of sexual behavior by whatever means possible but are only partially vested in actual reproduction.

Animals are not generally aware that sexual reproduction results from sexual behavior. They engage in sexual behavior because, well, it's an ingrained instinctive behavior.

I think the OP ratio is non-representative. It might be easier to believe a one man to two or maybe three woman reproduction ratio, just on the basis of women selecting men for attributes and resource garnering.

The fact that statistically men and women are approximately produced in equal numbers shows that an extensive group of males must have inherent value to the survival of society outside of pure reproduction, since reproduction could be handled by very few males and very large numbers of females.

Human societies tend to resemble baboon societies, in which an alpha male general and a small group of sub alphas dominate the resources of the pack, including reproduction. However, in baboon societies, the females routinely have omega male "friends" with whom they spend time with and copulate with in secret. If a dominant male observes or sees them, he will of course "punish" the female and fight with the male, who usually runs off, but being an omega male is not an absolute bar to reproduction. The alphas spend so much of their time and energy being alphas, the females find their companions elsewhere while playing the subservience game with the alphas. However, harem protection seems to be a problem for baboons as much as it has traditionally been for humans. Pretty soap opera.

Slavery was invented around 8000 years ago, right after agriculture. You see, in the days of hunter gathering, enemy people were of no use to a society, so they were just killed. But farmers need lots of labor. In fact, their production is generally limited only by labor. Enter slavery and captive people suddenly have immense value. Warrior farmers then had incentive to conquer and enslave as many as possible to maximize the wealth of their civilization. It became a self-promoting system that quickly became the norm.
And why let all that slave pussy go to waste on male slaves? Let em eff each other, and breed your own population from the fruit of your very active loins!

curious2 says

Islamic gene pool is doubling at every generation, reproducing much faster than non-Muslims in the same places, even though many jihadis die without reproducing.

Agreed, the people who have 5+ kids more than make up for it.

Patrick says

for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today 

which is why women are still hard wired to be with dicks, jerks and assholes.

to keep a woman crazy about you, you need to be all those three things.