How do you organize a society where 92% of men don't get to reproduce? Did they all get stuffed in mudbrick cuck apartments? Did the kings keep nearly ALL the women in their shithole palaces?
>>18517921It's even worse.Apparently, the "redpills" were correct in stating that women only focus on the top 10% of men in society and therefore the most promiscuous.See pic This article is a mess and has retarded and totally liberal conclusions when it says the solution to this disparity and decline in fertility can be solved by further increasing the gynocentric world, giving even more resources to women... But The paper does contain some useful data. For example, it found that 58% of women's sexual relationships are with the most promiscuous 10% of men (US GSS 2014-2024).Note that although the methodology has a very high sample size, but it took into account what women say, and women are the reincarnated lie, so I suspect the number is higher. It's over. Cuckservatives lost, marriage lost, family lost, and feminism and female promiscuity won.
>>18517921It's probably due to scarce resources and the fact that one man can replace the reproductive contribution of many men, but one woman cannot replace the reproductive contribution of many women.
Before modern times, most men died in wars, plagues or famines, extinguishing entire bloodlines from the paternal side but not the maternal
>>18518357Would those 10% be the "chads"? At my college there was a guy who looked like the meme you guys post here, he was 6'4", attractive, rich, etc. No joke, when he was in the campus courtyard, tons of girls would go up to him and they didn't care that he'd slept with many of them.
>>18518357Most of you here have mothers who were promiscuous in their youth and will never know it. When she found your father, magically all the years of promiscuity were forgiven, lol.>>18518383That's a silly exaggeration. For most of history, we haven't had wars of such magnitude as the Second World War. In most wars, both sides lost few men
>>18518399What do you mean by "promiscuity"? Is it the number of times someone has sex?
>>18518406That's what the word means, right?
>>18518418No, it doesn't. A wife who has sex with her husband multiple times is not promiscuous.
We need to start arresting foids
>>18518399you're vastly underestimating the impact of plague and famine though, a fair chunk of that 92% never got to puberty to begin with (which accounts for most of the non-reproductive women, too)and while premodern war wasn't *that* risky for soldiers (barring a rout) it was absolutely devastating for civilians caught in their path
>>18518428It's not promiscuity within marriage, you retardpeople having multiple partners is promiscuity
>>18517921Prehistoric times were full of huge instances of violence. Presumably men killed each other a lot and then the surviving ones would rape/fuck harems of women
>>18518437you meant haplogroups? but it turns out that male haplogroups are extremely less diverse than female ones to begin with. Therefore, uniparentals weren't "extinct"; the same "bloodlines" of a 20-year-old American from World War II is the same as that of a Germanic or Celtic man from the Middle Ages or Iron Age. I'm not aware of any lineage that has become extinct in the contemporary world due to war.
>>18518441So, if a woman has sex with her husband, and that husband dies and she remarries, is she promiscuous for having sex with her new husband?
>>18518357Since we're making white knights and women here rage and trying to excuse the women, why didn't you include in your post that women of average height (5'3") exclude men of average height (5'9") and below from their dating app height preferences? Only men over 6' (top ~14.5%) exclude women of average height and below. Women have gone insane - a six-inch height.
>>18518455retarded, promiscuity is the number of partners you've had, or "body account". If you have a lot of sex with your partner, that's literally it, your partner. Not "partners". Why are you being retarded on purpose?
>>18518460There's an article with a sample size of n=219,000 that has similar results. Female height preferences are delusional, not to mention that they select the worst possible men, lol.
>>18518357They also hate men.
>>18518476Bingo
>>18517921It doesn't make sense if you think about it for longer than two seconds. How would you even calculate something like this? Cities were not filled with incel peasants while more farmers were being bred by some soldier or king to maintain replacement rates. Harems did exist sure, but in the suspiciously homosexual fantasy of some guy keeping all of the women in a cage while everyone else jerked off. In short, incel politics is retarded and comes from superimposing 21st century social views onto radically different societies.
>>18518476Muh incel narrative btfo
>>18517921For one, these numbers are definitely exaggerated bullshit. And to the extent that they are true, they more reflect male mortality. Even as recently as the early modern period you had boys with poor prospects hopping aboard ships to sail around the world, get shot at, and die of scurvy for a chance to improve their lot. In the ancient world small scale warfare and banditry were constant features of life, which overwhelmingly killed boys and young men, just as gang violence does today.
>>18517921These percentages don't mean that only 8% of men reproduced. It means that only 8% of these ancient men are our current ancestors. So a lot more than 8% of these men might have had a wife and children, but their descendants could have been enslaved or killed and thus removed from the gene pool. Also think about the disadvantage of a conquered male population. One way the Anglo-Saxons slowly took over England genetically, despite initially being a minority, was the fact that the sons of Anglo-Saxon men remained reproductively more successful than the sons of Celtic men for many Generations. Even just a difference of 10% would have slowly led to Anglo-Saxons taking over the region long-term. Think about basic mathematical tank warfare, where concentration of force trumps spreading tanks out. I have 1000 tanks. You have 500 tanks. In just pure mathematics and a 1:1 ratio, I can destroy all of your tanks and have 500 tanks left and have won the battle. If the same is roughly true for warfare, that would also explain the discrepancy. Lose half of your own male population to defeat an enemy tribe, but survive in the end, take over their female population and reproduce back to full force in the next generation.>Did the kings keep nearly ALL the women in their shithole palaces?If only KANGZ reproduced, we would have a reproduction rate of like 0.001% or something. It's more like "only the KANG and his loyal GANG reproduced".
>>18518507I m a woman btw
>>18517921>How do you organize a society where 92% of men don't get to reproduce?Honestly you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe this means nearly every man was sexless rather than men were a lot more likely to die in wars, job accidents and the like
>>18518520It's literally a requirement for their ideology to believe that 92% of men throughout history have never had sex like them.>>18518514What do you believe the stat is? lmao
>>18518465So the number of partners doesn't matter as long as she does it legally through marriage. A woman who has sex with one man she is unmarried to is promiscuous, while a woman who has sex daily with 7 husbands in succession is chaste.
Has anyone tried to take a step back and wonder if the data was even true or what it meant?
>>18518514>first time someone replies to one of my posts with one of these>it makes no senseWhat woman is going to acknowledge that boys and men are the primary victims of war and crime?
>>18518476Our answer?
>>18518476Have they always been like this, or is it something modern?
>>18517921This may be somewhat exaggerated by the fact that men who reproduce and whose kids die or fail to reproduce are biologically as if they never reproduced themselves. So within a single generation it does probably not look that extreme, this would be more like the de facto genetic outcome over time
>>18517921This isn’t due to breeding bias as much as it’s due to high morality rates among men.Men are happier because survival guaranteed reproduced and death guaranteed being venerated as a fallen warrior.The evil of modernity is both of these have been taken from men.
>>18518699>The evil of modernity is both of these have been taken from men.You can still go die in a war somewhere.
>>18518399That may not be true depending on age.Female virginity at marriage was much higher in the past.As high as 50% within living memory which is huge compared to today at 2%.They used to check hymens before marriage. That should be done again.
>>18518399You say “such wars” but that chart goes off of data from Hunter gatherers as well. They had cataclysmic wars much deadlier than the world wars.World wars did not kill even 10% of any major country involved.Tribal wars could very easily result in 35-45% of a “country” tribe being annihilated.
>>18518455Yes, if this occurred 50 times she would be considered highly promiscuous.You are trying to find a way to neutralize the term because it’s accurate and portrays female behavior negatively, you are a woman or a shitlib and you recognize if the myth of the virtuous woman falls, all of it falls, all their rights all suffrage, women are going back into the slut mines and niggers back into chains. We will have our 1090 Baghdad moment.
>>18518704Dying in war?I said venerated as a fallen warrior, not “die in some war”Can you read?
>>18518716ESL
>>18518736None of my syntax was ESL or ESL adjacent.
>>185179218k-4kyaAlmost like there was a massive civilizational collapse around that time it something.Could it possible that during a time of mass starvation and violence, a lot of families were wiped out, with adult women likely surviving as slaves kept by the minority of men who came out on top?No, it MUST be the women's fault, obviously.
>>18518827What do you mean by “women’s fault”?No one is blaming women for breeding patterns in the past.They are saying that men have always had it quite rough and some of the few advantages conferred upon men such as political and economic hegemony were a sort of reward for being the long suffering engine of a family and nation.Giving those benefits to women with suffrage is therefore a great injustice to men because women didn’t suffer in the same way. Women weren’t deprived of life at the same rate nor were they suffering at the same rate.Women were given preference in other ways.Now women have not only the benefits of being a woman such as social capital but also the benefits of being a man, such as economic and political capital.This stacks too many advantages on the side of women.It is unfair to men.When men complain about this unfairness, they’re attacked for it.This arrangement will not go on forever, it is however an unambiguous tragedy that many men will suffer until this arrangement is finally modified back to a more natural harmonious equilibrium.>but what about liberalism and equalityListen man we tried it and the people have only become less and less happy. It’s not progress, it’s merely redistribution of the pain and pleasure from being handed out equally to pain being handed out entirely to men and pleasure handed out entirely to women.That isn’t progress. This is Hell.
>>18517921No anon. It's much, much simpler than this.You are simply 5'10" tall.And they are 5'2".EXACTLY the same thing is happening RIGHT NOW to Asian men and Indian men.Their women are choosing taller White men over them. It doesn't even take all that many. about 3%, and in 5 generations virtually all Asian / Indian male lines will be wiped out.Take a look at this 7'5" Dutch giant in Asia.https://youtu.be/iwOJGBVYFjcLook at all the women creaming themselves wondering how they can impale themselves on his cock.
>>18518388>they didn't care that he'd slept with many of them.They don't give a shit about loyalty if you're attractive. They'll happily join your harem.
>>18518961Sad...
>>18517921Small differences reproductive success are cumulative over many generations.
DONT BLAME WOMENBONNIE BLUE IS !PRECIOUS!
>>18517921This bar graph shows that as female rights improve, a larger percentage of men reproduce.
>>18517921War
>>18518399>Most of you here have mothers who were promiscuous in their youth and will never know it. kek
Most men (and boys) died in hunts and raids. Women and girls were raped and enslaved by raiders, but men and boys couldn't be trusted by nomadic and semi-nomadic societies, so were butchered. Same thing happened in the Old Testament under the Jewish God's command in the Book of Numbers
>>18517921By simply either legalizing rape or radically redefining the concept of rape and consent in legal doctrines. Prior to second wave feminism, marital rape wasn't even a thing and prior to that, in the Bronze Age sacking cities and taking harems was just a fact of life but since the rise of concepts like "human rights" and whatnot, and the legal precedent of restricting marriage for men to only one woman and closing of brothels and even the raising of the age of consent men are simply left with few options.
>>18518704The bigger red pill is that if men are born to die in wars, my answer is that women are merely living wombs. They're only needed to prolong the species and nothing more.
>>18519295Sounds like a load of horseshit to me. Bogus End Of History paradigm nonsense.
Nobody talks about all the men and boys that perished in ancient mines and quarries, how they fell from heights and scaffolds building bridges and towers, and breathed their last digging channels and wells. Even injuries festered into fatal infections. Then there was illness and exhaustion. Death was everywhere. No wonder men begged the Gods for salvation and believed in cosmic justice and a superior afterlife
>WarLmao, as if the period 8-4k BP was more conflict-ridden than 10-8k BP or 4-2k BP. In reality it's the fact that pre-civilizational agricultrual societies are despotic matriarchies, and those were the most common form of social arrangement 8-4k BP, wheras before that hunter-gatherer societies were still quite common, and after that proper civilizations appeared, and with that patriarchy. When large empires appeared the rulers realized that giving their soldiers and subjects wives was nevessary to prevent revolts and maintain loyalty, added with the appaerance of fundamentalist religions which often enforced monogamy and you get the final graph.This of course also goes to show that matriachy isn't actually eugenic because the neolithic is the time period of the worst levels of hueman vigour.
>>18519295Imagine actually applying a progressive view of history to the world before the Enlightenment.
>>18521315>SoldiersNot really a thing in bronze age societies outside of a tiny fraction of the population. Armies were formed by simply levying everyone.
