Male dating isn’t getting worse. It's returning to its historic past

FrequentPangolin · 2020-09-11T19:11:58+00:00

Getting worse and going back to normal (whatever that means) aren't mutually exclusive.

Popularsauce · 2020-09-11T19:36:46+00:00

Appealing to nature is a very very slippery slope. Don't do it, you won't like the answer

Mimoxs · 2020-09-11T20:00:41+00:00

You're going wayyyy too far back. Societies progressed to become more monogamous. Society became better when men had one wife. It's always been the best structure. Plenty of societies had monogamy, and still controlled women. Those were "historic" past societies... The better ones.

Speaking of harems of seals tho

Sigma1979 · 2020-09-11T20:04:37+00:00

There's a difference:

1) The prehistoric past was dominated by violence. Weaker men died to stronger men who got all the women by force

2) What we're seeing now is different: unrestricted hypergamy coupled with basically a free market sexual marketplace.

The end result is somewhat similar but the process is very different.

bf_Lucius · 2020-09-11T21:04:16+00:00

Just going to drop some red pills(heh) on that study of 17 women reproduced for every one man,

What seems more likely to me is that the Y chromosome is less likely to survive over time than the X, simply because any generation failing to produce a son will end the passing of the Y chromosome, even though the genetic line continues and may later produce a son using another Y-chromosome line.

This is wrong. The male lineage is traced through the Y chromosome and the female lineage is traced through mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). If a couple fail to produce any sons, the male lineage ends. If they fail to produce any daughters, the female lineage ends. The son may still have children, but they will inherit the mtDNA of his wife, who belongs to a different female lineage.

So the rate of attrition of male and female lineages is equal, unless you posit that it's commoner for couples to have no sons than it is for them to have no daughters. This is disproven simply by observation.

The short answer is that this study's results were not due to the attrition of lineages because they calculated the effective population sizes of male and female lineages separately, and found that at the time in question (4000 - 8000 years ago), the effective female population size was 17 times the effective male population size. So regardless of absolute numbers, there is a 17-fold difference to explain.

A longer explanation is that they calculated coalescence times for pairs of lineages, using coalescent theory. They used BSP's (Bayesian Skyline Plots) to calculate effective population sizes at the various coalescence points. Here's a detailed explanation of how this process works. Basically, you can think of it this way: lineages coalesce in chronological order -- the most recent splits will coalesce first. Imagine the lineages today as twigs on a tree. Recent coalescence events are the small branches close to the twigs. Older coalescence events represent progressively thicker (and fewer) branches further down, until you get to the trunk which ends at the MRCA of the entire lineage. For the male lineage, that would be Y-chromosomal Adam, and for the female lineage it would be mitochondrial Eve.

The math is pretty complex, but what they are doing is to look at the density of the branches to estimate the effective population size at a point in time, the point corresponding to the coalescence events at that level of the tree.

These models include the effects of lineage attrition, meaning that you can calculate "what is the probability of the miracle that only the lineages we need to make our tree (ancestors of people alive today whose genomes were sequenced to make the tree) were alive at the time, and no other?"

Much as it would simplify everything, the theory that these results are simply due to a selective attrition of male lineages doesn't work. If it did, it would have saved thousands of hours of work for the 90-odd scientists who authored this paper. They could have avoided all the work just by quickly consulting reddit.

It's ridiculous to think that 8,000 years ago, with humanity spread even into the Americas, that it would be a global cultural standard of breeding 17 women to 1 male.

That's wrong on both points.

First, it wasn't "8,000" years ago. It wasn't any point in time, it was a range -- about 4,000 to 8,000 years ago. It didn't happen across all the world simultaneously. The bottleneck in the male lineage appears 8,000 years ago in some populations, 6,000 years ago in another, 4,000 years ago in a third. This is expected if it were due to a cultural change associated with farming, for example, because farming didn't spread across the world in an instant either, it moved in stages.

Second, it wasn't "breeding 17 females to 1 male". This is the size of the difference between effective population sizes, it doesn't say anything about how many women were bred to one man.

The reason is that differences amplify over generations. Suppose you have a rich farmer with four wives. He has two children with each, making 8 children in all, four of whom are sons.

When he dies, his sons inherit his vast acres of farmland, and become rich farmers too. Suppose they each get 3 wives, 2 children with each, 3 sons. And those sons inherit their paternal wealth, and go on to have two wives each. It can be several generations before great-great-grand-daddy's wealth is diluted among a sufficiently large number of offspring that they become average instead of wealthy.

But each of those sons inherited that same Y-chromosome from great-great-grand-daddy, so when 8,000 years down the line some scientist is doing a coalescence study, he'll find that it coalesces to that one individual whose Y-chromosome was amplified by his successive male generations.

It's like those stories about Genghis Khan and how some huge number of east Asians are his descendants today. It's not that Genghis Khan fathered a million sons, it's just that for many generations after Genghis died, being able to trace your ancestry to him automatically meant kingship for any male heirs. Or if not kingship, at least leadership of your tribe or clan or maybe a small time warlord. At any rate, your chances of having multiple wives and multiple sons, and being able to feed and protect them until they grew to adulthood were higher than average, if you could trace your ancestry to him.

This is amplification of a lineage over several generations. So it's not that each guy had a harem of seventeen women, but rather that there was some period of wealth concentration where some guys had 3-4 wives and others had none, and that this wealth concentration lasted for enough generations to produce that 17-fold signal at 8,000 years or whenever that wave of farming and consequent economic reorganization swept through a certain area.

This is not unusual, this is something that has occurred frequently in historic times. We have actual records of it. The remarkable thing about it is that it happened very broadly - across numerous societies, like a wave, until it encompassed pretty much the whole world, or at least the world as represented by the 456 genomes they sequenced. As such, it must have accompanied a major worldwide cultural/economic reorganization of some kind, which is why they think it was farming.

The idea that 1/16 men had sex is the result of idiots sourcing idiots who sourced idiots who didnt read the original study.

Here is the original study https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract

and here is the article most people are familiar with https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

analt223 · 2020-09-11T19:17:27+00:00

whats "natural" doesnt always mean good (or worse as well).

DareyFathom · 2020-09-11T20:08:24+00:00

Regressing to barbarism would be much worse for most everyone, including women, so you should really hope this isn't the continued trend.

-Radical_Edward · 2020-09-11T19:45:59+00:00

This is completely fake, nothing is reverting to nowhere. Everything about modern dating is artificial and unheard of in history. Because harems exist now and existed in the past doesn't make it the same.

reluctantly_red · 2020-09-11T19:23:46+00:00

"Killing the weaker male seals must be romantic in the primal brain"

I dated a woman who had a weird fascination with elephant seals. She had me drive over 200 miles so we could watch them mate. Male elephant seals are so big that they sometimes squash the females to death during sex.

LooseIndication · 2020-09-12T03:59:02+00:00

A rose ? Killing the weaker male seals must be romantic in the primal brain

And that's why women, and non men, have hybristophilia and Stockolm syndrome

Hybristophilia is a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities, or crime—such as rape or murder.

Stockholm syndrome has been defined as a condition in which hostages develop a psychological alliance with their captors during captivity.[1] Emotional bonds may be formed between captors and captives, during intimate time together

Now you may understand why rappers are all about how criminal they are.

Mrs_Drgree · 2020-09-12T04:05:32+00:00

[removed]

MasterTeacher123 · 2020-09-11T19:46:19+00:00

There was always a section of male population who didn’t get any ass

Emervila · 2020-09-11T20:36:37+00:00

No

It's not going back but DOWN.

Going back would mean women losing power and become dependant again, that's not happening. Nowadays more than ever in history women don't depend on men to survive nor they need anything from men.

It's going down bc back then, women tied sex to survival, now sex is free of dependency and completely amoral therefore it's chaos since it's en entirely new phenomena what we are seeing. Women only use men for sex therefor only top 10% o less will actually succeed on sex. Going back would mean Men are recovering ground on the dating scene but today more than any time in history men have lost beyond repair our power in the game. We lost

throw-away-140214 · 2020-09-11T19:19:02+00:00

This isn't true at all ... socialism kind of puts a nail in the coffin of this idea.

If this would really happen, we'd have people starving who can't fend for themselves because they aligned themselves with the wrong provider. Advanced societies don't let that happen.

DangZagnut · 2020-09-11T20:11:14+00:00

Who cares, you can't turn hoes into housewives.

They can bone whoever they want.

12112019 · 2020-09-11T21:39:22+00:00

It means that men need to forgo the notion of marriage, either learn game and try to spin plates or start paying.

Workaholiconew · 2020-09-11T22:12:02+00:00

Did anyone tell you, how the Y chromossome bottlenecks of human history usually follows?

Usually a enormous carnage, destruction and suffering, where at the end women became oppressed for many generations, mostly culturally. And I mean really oppressed, as in being literally considered literal cattle and receiving rapes and beating on a daily basis, not "OHHH I AM COLD BECAUSE I DIDNT WANT TO USE A CARDIGAN, I AM OPPRESSED!".

The case of 8000 years ago, was actually the last human wide Y chromosome bottleneck, but there were many others, Case in point, the middle east/ancient greek in the bronze age collapse. And far east in the time of the mongols. I mean, it makes sense, if women are going back to their instincts. It just follows lots of resources and men wasted, leading to men also going back to their instincts again. This ends up killing many 'weaker' men. Leading to a even bigger Y chromosome bottleneck.

I just hope this is not the decline everyone talks about. I just wanna be left alone. And I will not be forced into protecting some woman I have nothing to gain from.

sparklingscott · 2020-09-12T03:36:53+00:00

You provided proof for things getting worse.

WilliamWyattD · 2020-09-12T04:53:21+00:00

To the extent that you have a point about the top guys getting the girls, and the lower tiers not, you leave out one thing: the criteria that decide who is top tier for men can vary a lot. How much is power, how much is wisdom, how much is good looks, etc. And that matters.

beyond_relevant · 2020-09-12T05:01:16+00:00

Natural =/= good

Appeal to nature fallacy.

DaphneDK42 · 2020-09-12T10:36:41+00:00

8000 years ago wasn't the historic norm either. That was a rather special period, just as we were going through the agricultural revolution. The top men suddenly had the potential to amass a legion of wives. Something they most likely didn't have in previous periods. The norm is monogamy tending towards low level polygamy. 3-5 wives for a few men. Not the 600 wives which some men managed in the Bronze Age.

Low level polygamy is certainly coming back. So far mostly as seriel monogamy, where certain men get to have a succession of increasingly younger wives, and father multiple sets of children, while other men have no wife and no children.

I wonder what the implications will be.

2020-09-11T19:14:10+00:00

What does this mean for the below average/ average/slightly above average men in this 90/10 or maybe 95/5 world?

Improve yourself and get your dick wet with far less investment than would be generally required le '50s. If you can't, or while you're getting yourself to the point that you can't...pay whores or sugars

rubbooyuri · 2020-09-11T22:00:04+00:00

If you want to have harems, lots of men have to die or otherwise be indisposed. That is just basic math.

Is that what the gentlemen here want?

AutoModerator · 2020-09-11T19:05:45+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

DanteViribus · 2020-09-11T23:45:04+00:00

Male dating in its current form is not going back to its past. Men are currently tied to chains not at the head , not at the arms, not at the legs but at the spine. A man is practically useless without a spine.Women strive for more and men achieve more. The law is equal although implemention of the law is not.

In order for male dating to go back to its historical past men must become more violent. Violence on a wide scale is what would closely be similar to the prehistoric past . Women have received a boost on their reproductive strategy and men as well but to a lesser extent.

Sir_manalot · 2020-09-12T10:37:31+00:00

[deleted]

Hoopy223 · 2020-09-12T15:32:42+00:00

Lmao and how do you know this? If anything it was the other way around in our “historic past”. Men were the ones who had all the legal rights, property etc for example. Unless you mean the caveman days but if that never changed (ie, biggest meanest guy with the biggest club got all the ladies) then we would still be in caves.

Also the caveman days were likely full of rape and woman-beating, no birth control, no age of consent, yeah what a great time for women lol.

Grave_Heresy · 2020-09-12T21:29:42+00:00

We were reverting back 2 decades ago. We're past that. Instead, we are going even further than even our ancestors. I'm thinking we're staring down the barrel of 95/5 rule . Remember, we have technology today that permits hypergamy at an unprecedented level.

Daffan · 2020-09-13T05:13:44+00:00

is that meant to be a good thing?

2020-09-15T16:38:56+00:00

Monogamy is better for civilization: more stable families, more income per family, men are more willing to work and contribute to society, kids more likely to grow up as productive members of society, repeating the cycle.

Old ways: only the big shots get a harem, lots of single moms and poverty, men are less inclined to work and contribute, more crime, more inbreeding. Pretty much every polygamous society not built on literal slavery ends up being a shithole.

sigma1932 · 2020-09-16T10:32:12+00:00

It would be more accurate to say we're de-evolving into a more primitive, less civilized state.

How long ya think it'll be before we get to the point where it's socially acceptable for men start physically maiming (if not outright executing) their "rivals"?

Also remember there is no "consent" in nature, nor is there a family court, or marriage, or child support, or... really any sort of feminism as a whole.

Not suggesting or encouraging anything (I would prefer not to have to constantly watch over my shoulder for the dude who wants to take me out)... just pointing out characteristics of primitive, purely instinctual behavior.

As for whatever numerical distribution of the Pareto principle (the 80/20 rule) you want to use, it won't matter... because if it goes far enough, you'll be looking at extreme male scarcity... after which we'll most likely be replaced by an outside civilization with a more hard-patriarchal and thus technologically-capable culture.

Title	Male dating isn’t getting worse. It's returning to its historic past
Author	apgelt2
Upvotes	19
Comments	116
Date	September 11, 2020 7:05 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/iqx0m0/male_dating_isnt_getting_worse_its_returning_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/male-dating-isnt-getting-worse-its-returning-to.230177 https://theredarchive.com/post/230177

Comments