4 ms·

> Essentially, what we have right now in the sexual marketplace echoes what we have in the economy... a lot of the sex is being had by a small fraction of the p

> Essentially, what we have right now in the sexual marketplace echoes what we have in the economy... a lot of the sex is being had by a small fraction of the people. (Emphasis mine) Possibly. DNA analysis shows that for every 17 human females that reproduced, one male reproduced. Meaning that quite high rates of polygamy, rape, or other unbalancing factors were the norm in human history. http://awakeningtimes.com/8000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man/ http://awakeningtimes.com/8000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced... http://econintersect.com/pages/analysis/analysis.php?post=202104170425 http://econintersect.com/pages/analysis/analysis.php?post=20... Figure 5

amznthrowaway5 6y ago
There was some mating skew no doubt. But that number is total nonsense and the study does not show that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
letonmorri 6y ago
It makes sense for how tough life was 8000 years ago, I wonder what it was prior to ww1, and if that would be a useful comparison as well.
- amznthrowaway5 6y ago
  No it doesn't https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash...
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Respectfully, after reading the original paper, I agree with the findings of the authors. The last bit in the abstract puts their findings the best: "In contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, we infer a second strong bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages dating to the last 10 ky. We hypothesize that this bottleneck is caused by cultural changes affecting variance of reproductive success among males." Saying that the average man reproduces less than the average woman seems to fit the facts as presented in the paper. I've not read other papers that may refute that one though. This is not my area of expertise.
    - amznthrowaway5 6y ago
      The extreme skew (1 male for every 17 females reproducing) is what's incorrect, not the average man having less reproductive success than the average woman.
decafninja 6y ago
Don't forget war. I imagine when two groups of humans whether it be two caveman tribes or two Napoleonic armies, massive numbers of young males were killed off.

amznthrowaway5 6y ago

There was some mating skew no doubt. But that number is total nonsense and the study does not show that.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

letonmorri 6y ago

It makes sense for how tough life was 8000 years ago, I wonder what it was prior to ww1, and if that would be a useful comparison as well.

amznthrowaway5 6y ago
No it doesn't https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash...
- Balgair 6y ago
  Respectfully, after reading the original paper, I agree with the findings of the authors. The last bit in the abstract puts their findings the best: "In contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, we infer a second strong bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages dating to the last 10 ky. We hypothesize that this bottleneck is caused by cultural changes affecting variance of reproductive success among males." Saying that the average man reproduces less than the average woman seems to fit the facts as presented in the paper. I've not read other papers that may refute that one though. This is not my area of expertise.
  - amznthrowaway5 6y ago
    The extreme skew (1 male for every 17 females reproducing) is what's incorrect, not the average man having less reproductive success than the average woman.

decafninja 6y ago

Don't forget war. I imagine when two groups of humans whether it be two caveman tribes or two Napoleonic armies, massive numbers of young males were killed off.