Post: #1

17 women reproduced for every one man 8,000 years ago.

So in reference to the Why women believe men have it easy thread, here's a good basis for the counter argument. As if the 80/20 rule wasn't bad enough, back then it was the 94/6 rule.

Post: #2

I've read that in the pre-Columbian Inca civilization, the ruler had 1000's of women, his direct underlings had 100's and even leaders of 100 men would have something like 20 women. With so many of the women concentrated to around the top 1% of men, a huge percentage of men were permanently left without female companionship. I don't know about the Incas, but it's easy to imagine a society with high levels of slavery, with the same result.

At a certain level, it seems almost inevitable that the very first hierarchical civilizations to be formed after the development of agriculture would lead to a concentration of all the best women for a very small number of elite men. In time, the lower class men would find a way to balance things out somewhat, but the first true rulers with military forces would naturally draw all the best resources to themselves and their right hand men.

Post: #3

There's a reason why civilizations like these never conquer anywhere and always get destroyed in the end- the men have no motivation to fight if there is no reward (women).

This is in a time before the nation-state as well, so there was no patriotism in fighting for your leader. It is often glossed over by historians that after winning battles, the victors would usually rape the loser's women and either keep them as sex slaves or kill them. Then when they returned home they would be rewarded with a wife in a monogamous marriage.

Post: #4

I wonder what the most balanced percenage of reproduction between men and women was. What was the high water mark? Lets say in the heyday of the beta provider, maybe early 20th century....70/30? 60/40? I doubt it's even been even money.

So as we slip further into sexual chaos, that number will drift ever closer back to 94/6.

...feel like slipping that rock on her finger now, romeo?

Post: #5

(12-07-2016 03:18 AM)britchard Wrote:  There's a reason why civilizations like these never conquer anywhere and always get destroyed in the end- the men have no motivation to fight if there is no reward (women).

This is in a time before the nation-state as well, so there was no patriotism in fighting for your leader. It is often glossed over by historians that after winning battles, the victors would usually rape the loser's women and either keep them as sex slaves or kill them. Then when they returned home they would be rewarded with a wife in a monogamous marriage.

Any historian which glosses over the spoils of war is not one to begin with.

Post: #6

It will never get as low as 94/6. Most blue pill guys would actually get annoyed if they knew 80/20 or whatever was the truth, it's just that they either deny that it happens or aren't aware about it. Society would have to meet the demands of the average man.

The other option is that a more stable family culture (such as Islam) takes over as the men in the West simply have no motivation to fight.

Post: #7

(12-07-2016 03:35 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  I wonder what the most balanced percenage of reproduction between men and women was. What was the high water mark? Lets say in the heyday of the beta provider, maybe early 20th century....70/30? 60/40? I doubt it's even been even money.

So as we slip further into sexual chaos, that number will drift ever closer back to 94/6.

...feel like slipping that rock on her finger now, romeo?

I believe it's probably now or relatively recently.

It may seem like the options are terrible but in the past, all of the past, many men died in wars or at work before they had a chance to reproduce. What you're talking about is how many men pass on their genes and we're probably doing "well" in that regard. Now you have to actually try not to get someone pregnant.

Post: #8

(12-06-2016 10:18 PM)nek Wrote:  17 women reproduced for every one man 8,000 years ago.

So in reference to the Why women believe men have it easy thread, here's a good basis for the counter argument. As if the 80/20 rule wasn't bad enough, back then it was the 94/6 rule.

This is not surprising. For most of human history the average man had little to no chance of passing on his genes. IMO 30% of the men will always end up getting 70% of the women.

In hunter gather times if you were not a Chief, warrior / hunter or Shaman your chances of getting a woman were nil. Even if you were a warrior/hunter you had to survive that lifestyle long enough to reproduce. God help you if you became to injured to go off to fight or hunt. Yeah the group my still care for you. But I am sure your chances of getting a woman went out the window.

At times Ancient Greece and Rome had slaves that comprised up to 70% of the population. What do you suppose the chances of those males slaves passing on their genes were? For most probably not good. In comparison the female slaves were being banged by every male of the household and this undoubtedly led to offspring. Even if you weren't a slave the average lowly man was limited in choices of women.

Then the middle ages came and things got a little better but still your chances were still not that good. The King his family and close friends always had their pick of the best looking and highest quality women. That is where words like Harem and Seraglio come from. Hell even in the Bible it was noted that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines!

Through knowledge and application of Game, plus the development of lifestyle and social circle. Any man can have an abundance of quality women that would rival that of past Kings. In a way becoming a sort of King in his own right.