4 ms·

>because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single) Source?

by mxkopy 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. The last century is a relative abnormality with monogamy and chastity outside monogamy being pushed for the sake of social stability, along with not as much war killing off most young men.
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  When you speak of monogamy and chastity being a rarity in antiquity, you’re talking about men, right? Were the women involved in these polygamous relationships expected to engage with other men freely?
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Not just men, no. Chastity insists women don't put out easily and vet beyond initial expectations, which is what you see in more traditional "no sex before marriage" type of relationships. Our more savage ancestors couldn't care less about that when they were in heat, be it men or women. Monogamy isn't something you can attribute to just men either, when it requires women to be okay with sharing a guy (either active sharing or the guy monkey branching). Ever noted the stories of men in relationships/married tend to get more attention from women other than their partner than before? If you're going to actively flirt or seduce taken men, you're not just an idle player. On top, women have a fairly large window they could have sex with anyone and be at incredibly low risk of getting impregnated. Even if female ancestor count is double that of male, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be women giving out pity sex for desperate men in exchange for other favors. It takes two to tango chastity / monogamy, just like all (legal) things relationships.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  >People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that means "women bear multiple children with a small pool of highly desirable men..." or something. It's equally likely that the converse situation makes offspring less successful for some reason. For example, women with multiple partners could have access to more resources by proxy of those relationships, which in a patriarchal society would be greater than the resources a man with multiple partners could access.

>because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single) Source?

by mxkopy 4y ago

>because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single) Source?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. The last century is a relative abnormality with monogamy and chastity outside monogamy being pushed for the sake of social stability, along with not as much war killing off most young men.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago
When you speak of monogamy and chastity being a rarity in antiquity, you’re talking about men, right? Were the women involved in these polygamous relationships expected to engage with other men freely?
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Not just men, no. Chastity insists women don't put out easily and vet beyond initial expectations, which is what you see in more traditional "no sex before marriage" type of relationships. Our more savage ancestors couldn't care less about that when they were in heat, be it men or women. Monogamy isn't something you can attribute to just men either, when it requires women to be okay with sharing a guy (either active sharing or the guy monkey branching). Ever noted the stories of men in relationships/married tend to get more attention from women other than their partner than before? If you're going to actively flirt or seduce taken men, you're not just an idle player. On top, women have a fairly large window they could have sex with anyone and be at incredibly low risk of getting impregnated. Even if female ancestor count is double that of male, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be women giving out pity sex for desperate men in exchange for other favors. It takes two to tango chastity / monogamy, just like all (legal) things relationships.
mxkopy 4y ago
>People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that means "women bear multiple children with a small pool of highly desirable men..." or something. It's equally likely that the converse situation makes offspring less successful for some reason. For example, women with multiple partners could have access to more resources by proxy of those relationships, which in a patriarchal society would be greater than the resources a man with multiple partners could access.