Before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did

According to this, genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did:

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...

Now this is interesting. It means that some of the men must have had multiple women, right?

And the majority of men got nothing. What did the dudes with no gfs do before x-box? lol

If this is true its interesting...anyone want to take a stab at this? What's it all about? Why?

My guess is..they were in the priesthood..some because they felt they had a calling..and others because they were gay.

Back in the old days.. it wasn't as acceptable to be gay..so many gays did go into the priesthood.. so they would not arouse suspicion as to their sexual preference.

I also think many men died in combat back in the old days at a young age... you look at numbers of deaths in the first two world wars.. and they are much higher than todays stats..

Interesting article..but I don't buy into the "social" reasons.

Totally true. I personally have seventeen children by seventeen different women. Fourteen of them are married, and their husbands think the children are theirs. They just think they luckily got these super smart, super tall and strong children from their own weak genes. Luckily for me, their wives could see past the end of their noses.

Multiply this effect by millions of people and hundreds of thousands of years, and where do you end up?

If what you mean by "before the modern era" is prehistoric times, then I can see how this would happen.

It is still true that male babies are more likely to die than female babies. Older males have (and had) a higher death rate than women, usually from engaging in activities that are more dangerous.

So one can imagine that, while women lived a relatively long life, her original mate, long dead, was replaced by a few others.

Certainly there is the issue of polygamy as well.

It has been said humanity is "weakly polygynous." The word "polygyny" is distinct from but related to "polygamy:" The former means "multiple women for one man" while the latter means simply "multiple partners" and can be used for either gender.

Species classified by biologists as weakly polygynous include many different types of birds and mammals, with the most pronounced non-bird example being sea lions. The word "weakly" is used because they are not always polygynous...sometimes they pair off in "marriage-like" situations, depending on environmental conditions. For example, a certain species of bird (a type of tern) can be found in two distinct colonies: one in Maryland and one in Georgia. The former is quite obviously polygynous, while the latter tends to be monogamous, although they are the same species. The food they eat is more plentiful in Maryland, whereas it is scarcer in Georgia. It is suspected that by pairing off into male-female exclusive partnerships, the birds can more effectively gather food in Georgia. In Maryland, where the pickings are better, they can indulge in a more freewheeling love life, so to speak.

Polygynous species are defined by differences in male and female body sizes. The taller/bigger the males are than the females (as seen dramatically in sea lions), the more polygynous the species. This is because the males in these situations fight over the females. The generally slightly larger body size of the average human male compared with the average human female is evidence of this trait in humans.

It has also been proposed that at some point in our prehistory, we began marriage as a form of "sexual socialism" for greater social stability. Apparently, if too few men gather too many women into their harems, it creates unstable societies where the men are constantly fighting for the women. Stable marriage/partnerships create stable societies. When this system begins to break down, man reverts to his more natural polygynous instincts.

reply to post by Never Despise


No surprise there bro, being a dude is harder in general, then what the fairer sex go trough generally. And the rest is just biology and ecology at work.

Now this is interesting. It means that some of the men must have had multiple women, right?

Did you know that there are over 16 million descendants of Genghis Khan, look it up on the Google. They even did a genetic test on the people in Asia and Mongolia and it proved true...Now you have to ask yourself, how many ladies did old Genghis Khan get with?...I guess someone can do that math on that, and maybe even some charts and graph to add the numbers up...But lets just say it was a lot.

And the majority of men got nothing. What did the dudes with no gfs do before x-box?

If this is true its interesting...anyone want to take a stab at this? What's it all about? Why?

I have no idea, life must of sucked and been nothing but boring drudgery when they only had a choice of females and no x-box..

But here is a phrase from a song for you about a favorite pastime back then, and not so coincidentally a good way of getting rid of excess males in any populations.....War huh what is it a good for, absolutely *******. cannon fodder basically...

As to what's it all about? and Why? You don't want to know....But I will say that there are some truths and messages out there, even that one in the bible in that story about the snake, the apple, and the fall of adam and eve....And that message is! don't ever trust a woman bro, for the serpent has always used woman to control man, and man has always "fallen" for it.

According to this, genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did:

Its elementary, and simple math really. Forget what everybody says, and if you think logically you will get your answer to this...And that is... women get around way more then men do. It's like duh, if you don't believe me type in women and sex into any search engine and see what pops up.

Everything else is just illusions to confound and fog what is right before your eyes. In other words, illusions are grander. But I suppose it was survival of the fittest and such, and today it seems to be survival of he who has the most "bling"...Or wait no, it's all the same today as it was back then, the only thing that has changed is the ways and means of civilizations, and those not by much have they changed.

So all in all you can say that the more things changed.....The more they stayed the same.