Moderation Questions

This highlights the greatest downside of the death penalty for rape.

It is if you forget how often in human history we had poligamy, or events like a single man having 100+ children.

You are also forgetting how often men reached their fertile age then died in warfare before having children.

Yoruba were selected for their cultural Polygamy and they were the 1.4/1 result

Europe has historically been a country at war and they were 1.3/1

Even the prevalent statistic that Genghis Khan has 15 million direct descendants is very likely to be complete and total nonsense

Ancient Rome had the death penalty for rape of a citizen (stuprum) and was possibly the most advanced society we ever had in history compared to neighbors at their times to the point many centuries later no one had yet equalled them, and to the point we still use some of their infrastructure and legal concepts 1700 years later.

Oh and to the point the founders of the USA shaped a lot of institutions around what Romans had.

/

I see opposition to the death penalty as a parasitic meme that accompanied recent technological changes that brought immense wealth about, so it's more like first world countries work despite they stupidly oppose the death penalty (mostly, not all of them) rather than opposing the death penalty being among the reasons of the success.

If you think about more recent analogous parasitic memes, think of the demonization of smoking.

Imagine someone claiming the stock market grew more in the last 30 years than in the preceding 30 years because Americans stopped smoking.

And 1-2 centuries from now someone attempting to say that demonizing smoking is particularly stupid, and others coming in with "well in the richest countries we banned all smoking so..."

Iran does rape women who are virgin who got the death penalty for other reasons so that they don't go to heaven (or whatever they call it in Islam).

Doesn't look like a society that actually wants to punish the rapists if it organizes state sponsored and supported rape

https://iranwire.com/en/society/60172/

Same as China did with uighur women who were forced to take Han "husbands" (rapists) after their men were genocided

0.5% of all men in the world are direct descendants of genghis khan

8% if we just focus on the areas he conquered

Despite being more fair in their ratings of women, men are far more likely to message women at the top of their attractiveness standards, and women are far more likely than men to message someone they find average or below.

https://web.archive.org/web/201011250200...

Also I don’t really like the sampling here because I’m finding it hard to figure out what they actually measured— an average of ratings on the individual profiles, or the rate each individual person rated someone at different attractiveness levels. If it’s the latter, this might tell you a lot less about which men truly are considered most attractive, because each woman might have a different, though likely overlapping, concept of that.

Just saying, maybe we shouldn’t be making inferences from garbage data. GI/GO.

Some extreme cases up to 17:1 have been found, like this

https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/

Pacific Standard

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

Not sure you understand what the "gengis khan has 15 million direct descendants" means, or why you think it's a nonsense. He had "some hundreds children" which i don't think you consider particularly weird? and over 800 years , most of which in cultures with de facto poligamy, with the traits that made gengis khan succesful with women being inheritable, the number grows exponentially , so why would 15M be "nonsense"?

This finds approx 2:1 ratio across various different cultures

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/...

And this is what they have to say about gengis khan

As an explanation for the observed differences in the genealogies of the human NRY and mtDNA, we favor a model in which the human effective population size is skewed toward an excess of females by sex-biased demographic processes. The human mating system has often been considered to be moderately polygynous, based on both surveys of world populations (Murdock 1981; Low 1988) and on characteristics of human reproductive physiology (Harcourt et al. 1981; Anderson and Dixson 2002; Dixson and Anderson 2002). The practice of polygyny, in both the traditional sense and via “effective polygyny” (whereby males tend to father children with more females than females do with males—a common practice in many contemporary western cultures [Low 2000]), would tend to increase the variance in reproductive success among males, thereby lowering their Ne relative to females. This effect will have an influence on the Ne of the NRY, even when practiced sporadically, but can have extraordinary consequences if male mating success is inherited patrilineally. An example of this phenomenon was recently described in central Asia, where Y chromosomes likely to be descendents of Genghis Khan and his male relatives can be found at exceptionally high frequencies (Zerjal et al. 2003), indicating a vastly disproportionate contribution of male members of this family to the contemporary gene pool.

From 2007 btw

The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

https://archive.nytimes.com/tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/

TierneyLab

Is There Anything Good About Men? And Other Tricky Questions

Btw it could be 68-34 or 90-45 but the idea is we have a lot of data for the rough 2:1 proportion (mytocondrial dna vs Y chromosome basically)

by Luciom m

Some extreme cases up to 17:1 have been found, like this

https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/

Pacific Standard

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

Not sure you understand what the "gengis khan has 15 million direct descendants" means, or why you think it's a nonsense. He had "some hundreds children" which i don't think you consider particularly weird? and over 800 years , most of which in cultures with de fac... See full post

I don't think that 17-1 study is very credible

Humans have largely been monogamous for a very long time

The science behind the Ghengis Khan study is incredibly dubious

Even if 90% of people have monogamous tendencies, if at any time you have bottlenecks with a few polygamous men having excess resources (basically being leaders), they will impregnate all the women in those moments.

Also think about slavery. With slavery, you have a complete asymmetry of genders: slave women will get impregnated a lot by slave owners, while no slave men will get the women owners impregnated. That alone , given how widespread slavery was at certain moments in time, will skew the gender balance a lot.

Or the basic alternative to slavery: genocide of all the men. Not warfare like in european middle ages. Actual tribes of 200 people conquering the tribe of 90 people and killing all the men, while keeping fertile age women.

We went on like that for many thousands of years.

So you can both have fairly regular monogamy when "things are settled" in a specific moment in time, with ratios of say 1.2:1 , and then bouts of 3:1, 5:1, 10:1 or more for brief periods of times for the aforementioned reasons.

Also think of the asymmetry between gender wrt homosexuality. Truly gay men can't impregnate women because they don't have erections with women. Truly lesbian women can still be impregnated.

Imagine a society where it's almost "forced marriage" for everyone for cultural reasons, like the european middle ages. The hetero man will impregnate his (unwilling) lesbian wife. The gay man won't. Ofc this is a small effect but contributes to the skew.

Then even in "stable, monogamous" societies, you still have ius prime noctis, adn the "succesful man of the village" ****ing a bit outside marriage unlike others. And nothing equivalent on the woman side.

So even in a society that appears as perfectly monogamous perhaps 1 in 5-6-7 children has a different father than they think. Studies have been done on that as well.

I also notice how you are simply dismissing peer reviewed science covered in mainstream media with "i don't believe it" simply because you don't like the findings, and especially the corollaries of the findings.

Also imagine if actual polygamous tendencies were rare BUT correlated with the traits that make you a leader as a man in human societies...

Like being stronger , taller, more extrovert, "charismatic" (however you want to define that), ambitious and risk propense could correlate with having polygamous tendencies.

That would make it so that even if few people are polygamous, they end up where it matters and can make a difference disproportionately.

And in some sense we do have a common sense knowledge that widely succesful men are more often people who "**** around a lot", don't we?

clicked the link - other than a few good lols over the examples of men the author finds attractive but is confused why women aren't into

the main flaw there is they look at aggregate outflow only

it's not that 5x more guys are messaging the hotties compared to the normies

it's that the same amount of guys are putting in 5x more effort in reaching for the stars as they are for the normies

a guy who's a 7 who could comfortably gain the attention and dates of another 7 will first shot take at the higher stakes before settling for his natural sweet spot if he doesn't hit a good flop

the other critical flaw in the analysis is that if we flattened out the curve to represent a genuine bell curve distribution of male attractiveness, the women will appear just as shallow - it only doesn't appear that way because they are pretending that really attractive male is just mid

I'm not "dismissing peer reviewed science", you just don't even understand what the 17-1 study is hypothesizing.

Its not saying that 17 females mated for every 1 guy, its saying that the genetic diversity at the Y chromosome level bottlenecked, which is probably caused by men staying within tribes and women being shipped off to marry outside the tribe then some tribes getting wiped out. Not in the "we took their women" sense, but more probably the ultimate sense.

as for the Ghengis study:

You’re short and ugly on the inside. That’s even worse!

I will accept phtographic submissions that prove otherwise. Until then, case dismissed.

We’re not pretending… Men aren’t that aesthetically pleasing…

I have a life time of empirical evidence showing that being short doesn't stop one from getting laid. Ugly is debatable

I have ****ed men shorter than me, so can confirm. Shorter in stature, not in vibes.

I realise that as a capitalist liberal you hate socialism but one of the cornerstones of socialism is valuing all human life which makes it incompatible with the death penalty.

Europe is not a ****ing country.

It doesn't, but it must reduce the frequency.

More stupidity.

Europe's a continent consisting of many different countries.

I was able to google this and confirm that it is true. Thanks guys!