Post: #26

(12-15-2016 08:15 PM)TheMost Wrote:  ...
Read again what I wrote. After running the simulation a few years, there was no surplus of males. At any time. At age 35, every male got two 18 year old brides. That is just how things came out, I didn't force it.
...

You know what they say about predictive modelling. Garbage in, garbage out.

What did your simulation tell you happened to the other half of the men?

I'm incredibly interested to know.

Post: #27

(12-16-2016 01:09 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:15 PM)TheMost Wrote:  ...
Read again what I wrote. After running the simulation a few years, there was no surplus of males. At any time. At age 35, every male got two 18 year old brides. That is just how things came out, I didn't force it.
...

You know what they say about predictive modelling. Garbage in, garbage out.

What did your simulation tell you happened to the other half of the men?

I'm incredibly interested to know.

You aren't comprehending. There is no "other half of the men" for something different to happen to. Every single man at age 35, got 2 18 year old brides.

Post: #28

(12-15-2016 05:40 PM)roberto Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:37 AM)TheMost Wrote:  Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

None of the above makes any sense to me. If you have a simulator that allows you to 'watch dynamic interactions between male and female' then I think you've cracked artificial intelligence.

Got a link to the one on the web?

As promised, here is the link to the simulator. It is a source file, you run it with the newlisp interpreter. The knobs and settings are at the top, where you can easily find and modify them.

http://pastebin.com/GH1v3CDt

Here is some sample output from one run:

Quote:Year 240. population 1253812 (0.44) 59619 births (0.45) 1611 deaths (0.55) 14658 marriages (m: 27 f: 17)

Quote:Year 240 ;240th year in the simulated universe
population 1253812 ; all living males and females
(0.44) ; 44% of the population is male
59619 births ; people born in year 240
(0.45) ; 45% of births were male
1611 deaths ; people who died in year 240
(0.55) ; 55% of deaths were male
14658 marriages ; couples that married in year 240
(m: 27 f: 17) ; the male and female numbers mean slightly different things. In year 240, every man at age 27 and older is married. Average age of women at marriage, was 17.

You might think it is unrealistic for 45% of births to be male; but when a man gets past the age of 40, he sires twice as many girls as boys. (35% of births) The simulation takes into account age of the father.

Post: #29

(12-16-2016 02:40 AM)TheMost Wrote:  ...
You might think it is unrealistic for 45% of births to be male; but when a man gets past the age of 40, he sires twice as many girls as boys. (35% of births) The simulation takes into account age of the father.

Well it turns out you might be absolutely right about a lack of excess males, and if so I'll withdraw my ridicule of your claims in that regard, but the kind of society you would have to build to reliably pair two young women with each 35 year old man would be outside of anything we could possibly recognise.

You would have to build it from the ground up, and the first hurdle you would come to was trying to repress the natural appetites of every man from puberty to their mid 30's.

Not even traditional polygamy comes close to this kind of scenario, and it's worth noting that not a single polygamous nation has come anywhere close to matching the efficiency of those that endorse singular male/female marriages.

Post: #30

I wasn't advocating a society where every man has 2 wives. Only showing that it is possible. Once a man realizes that EVERY man could have 2 wives without too much hardship, it doesn't seem so bad when the occasional man takes more than 1 wife, as in normal polygamous societies, where most men have 1 or no wives. The point is that polygamy doesn't mean any man has to go without. That is the big road-block in the mind of many men. Once polygamy is accepted, the adulterous "courtly love" nonsense is easier to suppress, and we are 90% of the way to patriarchy. Allowing polygamy tilts the playing field toward men. All men, not just a lucky few. Hypergamy and SMV do have adaptive value; it just needs to be reined in. It has got out of hand.

The Victorians understood the concept of sexual sublimation. As to men waiting to 35 (or 27, as the most recent simulation gave), patriarchy is fairly effective at keeping a lid on young men's hormones. Look at China, where 90% of young men are sexless Gamma males. This is structural; once they hit a certain age, they become alpha assholes, and the society supports them in it. The patriarchy effect works across species, check out what happened when mature male elephants were added to a herd of young male elephants that were running around raping the females, etc. http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae...s-and-men/

Post: #31

(12-14-2016 09:03 PM)Roosh Wrote:  This is an old study that was thoroughly debunked by someone (don't have the link but I remember reading it). It keeps popping up because it's great clickbait.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/20...4.abstract

I wouldn't make any grand theories are random studies that pop up. Google "replication crisis" to see how most are bullshit.

hey rooshv how do we get reputation points in this forum? can you send the answer
to [email protected]

Post: #32

(12-15-2016 07:04 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Any man not getting play from his wife is not going to get play even if he has 50 wives, because women fight over winners and fight for the exit when faced with a loser. End of story.

It isn't that simple. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved, but supply/demand is one of them, and a man with two wives has options that a man with one wife does not have.

Post: #33

(12-16-2016 06:26 AM)TheMost Wrote:  The Victorians understood the concept of sexual sublimation. As to men waiting to 35 (or 27, as the most recent simulation gave), patriarchy is fairly effective at keeping a lid on young men's hormones. Look at China, where 90% of young men are sexless Gamma males. This is structural; once they hit a certain age, they become alpha assholes, and the society supports them in it. The patriarchy effect works across species, check out what happened when mature male elephants were added to a herd of young male elephants that were running around raping the females, etc. http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae...s-and-men/

It was once fairly normal to consider the young adulthood stage for men to be one where men "made their place in the world" ... getting a career/business/trade going and establishing themselves financially to the point where they could demonstrate ability to support a family. Not all succeeded. For some, there was a military career ... some would be successful, some wouldn't come back. It's a very different mindset than young men wearing flashy clothes and dancing at nightclubs to peacock themselves to young women and get laid. There are big frame differences at which the feminists have been chipping away very deliberately for decades. Of course young men still had sex drive in those situations, but they didn't get laid all the time and when they did it was with a different type of woman than the type they would consider marriage material.

Post: #34

(12-16-2016 10:04 AM)puamgtow Wrote:  hey rooshv how do we get reputation points in this forum? can you send the answer
to [email protected]

8/10 trolling.

Post: #35

The Visigoths smashed Rome while they were polygamous; once the Franks and Goths and Vandals were assimilated to the Roman system, and were forced into monogamy by the Church, then immediately after you start getting kings called "The Bastard". Meaning, even the kings were getting cuckolded, and doing nothing about it. Monogamy pushes the system too far. Every single stable monogamous society has a large contingent of prostitutes and unofficial mistresses. So the Beta males end up with the left overs in an even worse way than they do under polygamy; at least under polygamy you can get a virgin, or a widow who hasn't whored around. Having official wives is better for society; fewer fatherless men result. The Puritan lawyer "Martin Madan" documented this extensively in his book Thelyphthora.

Post: #36

(12-16-2016 03:02 PM)TheMost Wrote:  ...

I apologise for coming at you with the horns down, TheMost. We get influxes of new people here and I dare say the majority are full of crap. I have a kneejerk reaction to anything that sets off my BS meter when there are low posts and zero reps involved, though on instruction of Roosh we're supposed to take it easier on newcomers regardless.

Anyhow, while your theoretical views on polygamy might make sense on some level, it could never evolve from what we have now, as you've well indicated. Post collapse I could see it becoming something of a norm, if a serious societal collapse ever occurs, but that's what it would take. The complete tipping of the scales to masculine domination of the societal order.

Hope your future posts have the same thought and decorum. If so you'll do well here.

Post: #37

(12-16-2016 03:02 PM)TheMost Wrote:  The Visigoths smashed Rome while they were polygamous;

This is a ridiculous exercise in correlatives.

When the Visigoths rampaged across the Empire around the fourth century, the Roman Empire was in its period of late decline, and during its roughly thousand year run marriages had been exclusively monogamous. You are basically comparing a fight between a sixty-five year old and an eighteen year old: the teenager fucking multiple bitches while the guy in his sixties is still married to his wife has pretty much zero to do with the victory. Rome was going down in large degree for economic reasons: they'd overspent on funding shit like the Colosseum Games and allowed their legions to run down.

That's leaving aside that the influx of the Visigoths into the Roman Empire was not by force of conquest: quite the contrary, they were foederati initially, given leave to settle in Roman territory. The Visigoth rampage was in large part caused by Rome being asstastic on immigration, just as Europe is being right now. Had the Visigoths turned up a few centuries earlier it would have been a much, much different story.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #38

Can't add or detract much from the statistical discussion as it is not my Forte but I would chime in a very important factor in the study of sexual behavior in all living things (man included), that is, sexual dimorphism

Google search first definition Wrote:distinct difference in size or appearance between the sexes of an animal in addition to the sexual organs themselves.

More specifically, it also studies the subtleness and ramifications of sexual and gender related behaviors.
Jared Diamond dedicates an extensive chapter to this subject and its impact on human society in his book "The third chimpanzee" .

In my own personal experience which doesn't amount to much and having so far survived an ongoing LTR I have made an interesting observation in the western European countries:
More "northern"-as in traditionally of harsher and/or colder environments-genetic configurations/cultures tend to have less pronounced dimorphism whereas the more southern - as in of warmer and/or more abundant environments- ones have it more pronounced and are coincidentally regarded as more promiscuous historically.

Just to cite a very quick example out of the hip :it used to be very typical of upper middle class italian men to have a "mantenutta" (more or less a sugar baby) as Catholicism forbade divorce.

Post: #39

^ My wife observed the same in South America. A man was considered strange if he wasn't cheating on his wife with at least one other woman.

Maybe Northerners just couldn't be fucked coming up with some bizarre explanation for why they had to trek dozens of miles through the snow once a week.

Post: #40

At some point we'll need to reckon with the fact that socially-impost monogamy is largely a European phenomenon that only arose naturally in Europe.
Prior to contact with Europe, multiple marriage was common across the Americas (North, South, Central, Caribbean), Africa, and most of Asia. Only in East Asia did we get anything approaching the socially imposed monogamy of Europe, and even then distinctions arose because of the widespread acceptance of official concubinage.

Europeans remain the only people to have organically developed a system of socially imposed monogamy in which all men, no matter how powerful, could take only one wife and in which all relations outside of that were officially taboo (read: no open concubinage of harems as seen in the east - mistresses must be kept on the low). Many did not impose as strict a penalty on out of wedlock births as Europeans either.
Were it not for European influence (specifically, European laws and religious customs) spreading to these places, they would all still be without the socially imposed monogamy we see taken for granted today.

This is an important point because, in my view, it goes to the likelihood of monogamy being successfully propped up among different people in different parts of the world. We mustn't forget that monogamy is not something that was common to all peoples - it originated largely in one place and has been enforced and spread primarily by individuals/cultures from that place. We can't assume that everyone else is willing or able to prop up socially imposed monogamy in the way it's originators and primary propagators have done.