Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

... where the fuck do you guys live?

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, North Carolina. We kinda have a lot of geeks here. (And from my own experience there seems to be a correlation between polyamory, non-Christianity, and geekdom).

[Devling]

... where the fuck do you guys live?

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, North Carolina. We kinda have a lot of geeks here. (And from my own experience there seems to be a correlation between polyamory, non-Christianity, and geekdom).

Geeks have a known hatred of Christianity.
(It's probably 'cause they feel alienated by mainstream Christians denouncing many of their favourite activities.)

[Sonlirain]

Well from a standpoint calculation the # of males vs the # of females a monogamic society should have the same (or nearly the same) number of both females and males.

However in nature there are usually more females than males but not nearly enough to guarantee everyone 2 wives.

[penguinofhonor]

Well from a standpoint calculation the # of males vs the # of females a monogamic society should have the same (or nearly the same) number of both females and males.

However in nature there are usually more females than males but not nearly enough to guarantee everyone 2 wives.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Women can have multiple husbands too if they want.

[Frumple]

Yeah... if you were going for maintaining ratio parity, you'd end up with things like a 3/2 or 4/3 group or whatever, probably.

[Telgin]

Which actually does make me wonder why there aren't more females born than males, on average.  That's the case in all mammals that I know, if not most vertebrates.  Seems advantageous for there to be a higher proportion of females, unless it's because having more males means they have to compete harder for breeding rights.

And now I realize I'm getting a touch off topic...

[lordcooper]

Which actually does make me wonder why there aren't more females born than males, on average.  That's the case in all mammals that I know, if not most vertebrates.  Seems advantageous for there to be a higher proportion of females, unless it's because having more males means they have to compete harder for breeding rights.

And now I realize I'm getting a touch off topic...

Because of chromosomes?

[Dutchling]

There's actually a higher chance of getting a boy than a girl. Sadly, I learned this fact in my statistics class and not my genetics class so the prof didn't know why

[Frumple]

Something something gestation long youth period something, iirc. Near equal ratio of genders apparently provided for a near-ish optimal child/provision ratio or some crap like that. Or so the last word on it I remember hearing is.

It's important to note that pretty much every attempt at explaining whatever caused evolution to do what it did is essentially and almost 100% complete and utter just-so bullshit. The root and actual answer is we have no goddamn clue and absolutely zero means or even the possibility of obtaining the means of finding out to any degree to even approach reliability, nevermind reach it. Fun storytelling, not science in any meaningful sense.

We know or can know what happens, we might be able to figure out what causes it to happen (i.e. map the genome, etc.), but we have no bloody chance nor method of obtaining a chance to figure out what caused things to originally fall into that pattern.

_{P.S. Evo psych can suck it.}

[Telgin]

Which actually does make me wonder why there aren't more females born than males, on average.  That's the case in all mammals that I know, if not most vertebrates.  Seems advantageous for there to be a higher proportion of females, unless it's because having more males means they have to compete harder for breeding rights.

And now I realize I'm getting a touch off topic...

Because of chromosomes?

Well, yes, but the configuration could have evolved differently.  With different sex chromosome configurations, any ratio is theoretically possible.

It's important to note that pretty much every attempt at explaining whatever caused evolution to do what it did is essentially and almost 100% complete and utter just-so bullshit.

Fair enough.  It's plenty fun to speculate though. 

[Hiiri]

Seems advantageous for there to be a higher proportion of females, unless it's because having more males means they have to compete harder for breeding rights.

Yes, this. If there are 300 females for every male, males have better chance of reproducing. Thus favoring male births (and vice versa).

Wikipedia knows it all:

1. Suppose male births are less common than female.
2. A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3. Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4. Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5. As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6. The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, North Carolina. We kinda have a lot of geeks here. (And from my own experience there seems to be a correlation between polyamory, non-Christianity, and geekdom).

Tell me about it. At this rate I'm going to be the only monogamous atheist in the world.

[Gunner-Chan]

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, North Carolina. We kinda have a lot of geeks here. (And from my own experience there seems to be a correlation between polyamory, non-Christianity, and geekdom).

Tell me about it. At this rate I'm going to be the only monogamous atheist in the world.

In comparison I'm a polyamorous christian. So that makes me feel a bit strange too.

[lordcooper]

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, North Carolina. We kinda have a lot of geeks here. (And from my own experience there seems to be a correlation between polyamory, non-Christianity, and geekdom).

Tell me about it. At this rate I'm going to be the only monogamous atheist in the world.

In comparison I'm a polyamorous christian. So that makes me feel a bit strange too.

Isn't that sort of not allowed?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

King Solomon had 500 wives and 1,500 concubines, so...

In all seriousness, the condemnation of polyamorous relationships came later down the line in Early Christianity and isn't backed by scripture at all. I think it may have been declared by the church in defined opposition to pagan religions that allowed it, and as this was before even the Great Schism it was passed down to all Christianity.