Print Story Gals, hang on to your men
Marriage
By muchagecko (Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:19:56 AM EST) boys (all tags)
As if women need more pressure.


Did anyone else hear about this?

If reminds me of Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. We just need to start cloning boys.

< It was an early bonfire night | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Gals, hang on to your men | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Well... by moonvine (4.00 / 2) #1 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:25:46 AM EST
it is certainly not true for india or china.

Yeah. by muchagecko (4.00 / 2) #4 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:55:17 AM EST
Sad that the birth rate numbers are skewed by killing the baby girls.

"It means more if you have to earn it, even if it's by doing something as simple as eating a meal." Kellnerin
[ Parent ]
Yeah by ambrosen (4.00 / 3) #6 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:02:30 AM EST
Women are more useful, but men are more violent. Sucks.

[ Parent ]
Everyone has a purpose by vorheesleatherface (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:39:55 PM EST
and is good at some things over others for a reason.


[ Parent ]
Makes sense from an evolutionary point of view by hulver (3.78 / 14) #2 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:27:40 AM EST
It takes longer for a female to create a child than a male. So the greater the proportion of females to males, the higher the population can become. With one male servicing multiple females.

Now, if we can just get society to shake off this outmoded "monogamy" we can all get busy re-populating this planet!
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

Newsletter: SUBSCRIBED (nt) by komet (4.00 / 9) #3 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:34:43 AM EST


--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
[ Parent ]
and since each man will be required to do by georgeha (4.00 / 9) #5 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:57:00 AM EST
prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature


[ Parent ]
Just dont by joh3n (4.00 / 3) #9 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:27:17 AM EST
piss off the Coca Cola corporation, you prevert.

----
I just ate about 7 pounds of meat
-theantix

[ Parent ]
Just fryin' chickens in the coop... by greyrat (4.00 / 4) #12 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:02:46 AM EST


[ Parent ]
I will NOT deny them my essence. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:41:01 AM EST
I bet it has something to do with fluoridation of the water supply.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Old Idea. by anonimouse (4.00 / 5) #8 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:47:14 AM EST
I have been proselytizing this message for a few years. I am glad to see more converts to the cause.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately by riceowlguy (4.00 / 3) #13 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:14:18 AM EST
in humans, genetic factors and natural selection tend to keep the ratio of males to females close to 1:1.  To quote from an essay by Stephen Jay Gould:

"The observed equality of males and females, in the face of obvious advantages for female predominance if evolution worked on groups, stands as one of our most elegant demonstrations that Darwin was right - natural selection works by the struggle of individuals to maximize their own reproductive success...let us say, for example, that fewer males than females are born.  Males now begin to leave more offspring than females since their opportunities for mating increase as they become rarer...if any genetic factor influence the relative proportion of males born to a parent (and such factors exist), then parents with a genetic inclination to produce males will gain a Darwinian advantage - they will produce more than an average number of grandchildren thanks to the superior reproductive success of their predominantly male offspring...since the same argument work in reverse to favor female births when females are rare, the sex ratio is driven by Darwinian processes to its equilibrium value of one to one."

So, next time I'm lonely I can blame Darwin, I guess.

The quote is from an essay with one of my favorite titles ever by Dr. Gould: "Death Before Birth, or a Mite's Nunc Dimittis" - which focuses on a species of mite in which the females hatch from their eggs already pregnant with the next generation, having been fertilized in their mother's womb by their (usually) lone brother, who does nothing but die hours after birth.  Since exclusive sib mating destroys the premise of the above mechanism driving the sex ratio to 1:1, these mites do tend to maximize their reproductive success by producing one male and as many females as possible.  The male, having done his part, is free to "depart in peace", hence the reference to the Canticle of Simeon.

So, if we really want to bring about the whole "two girls for every boy" fantasy, we should just start mating with our siblings exclusively.  Since I'm an only child, I'm not real big on this plan.


[ Parent ]
As I'm not an only child, by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #21 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:23:30 PM EST
I find it even more distressing.

[ Parent ]
I was under the impression by wumpus (4.00 / 2) #24 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:33:43 PM EST
that it was pretty universal across most species (at least those genetically determined). I suppose that bees might be an exception (although since the drones outnumber the queen but the female workers outnumber the drones, go figure which way it's skewed).

Since nobody has managed to breed a domestic species into a skewed sex ratio, I'd say that evolution can't do it in mammals (without culling one sex or the other each generation).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
The birth ratio might be close to 1:1 by chuckles (4.00 / 2) #25 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:44:26 PM EST
But some cultures are known for polygyny, so one alpha male "occupies" several females while the beta males are SOL (and in their desperation might be persuaded to take extreme action to achieve sexual satisfaction). Other cultures, on the other hand, were distinguished by monogamy. Perhaps the advent of "no fault divorce" in the West is a way for men who are so inclined to practice an adaptation of polygyny within the constraints of Western morality.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Of course, the phenomenon of... by leviramsey (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:11:13 PM EST

limited-time marriages (under slightly different names and terms in the shi'a and sunni traditions) in the Islamic world is, analogously, a way for Muslims to have virtuous casual sex without declaring that casual sex is not vice.


--
Could I be the next Lee Abrams?
[ Parent ]
Hmmm... /me rubs hands together Dr. Evil fashion. by greyrat (4.00 / 2) #7 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 08:47:12 AM EST
I see a bright, bright future. BUHWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

But you really don't need that many men. I mean, after all, each man produces billions and billions of sperm over a lifetime and most of them go to "waste", IYKWIM. Y'all w0m3nz need to be more efficient about how you use all those opportunities.

I wonder... by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #10 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:52:20 AM EST
Is pollution really the problem or is there some subtle sex-selection process going on?

Lots of species adjust their sex ratio based on external conditions; I wonder if a lop-sided male/female ratio could be the result of some sort of pressure to create more humans overall (i.e., from an evolutionary stand point, more girls==more babies in 15 years).


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.

Heh. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #11 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:54:02 AM EST
I guess I'm not the only person to have that thought.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]
my comment below pointed out by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #36 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:38:57 PM EST
that it couldn't be evolutionary. There was another article today that mentioned something about huge testosterone level drops in men. The interesting thing about it is that it also mentioned the difference between boys and girls. Boys get a huge dose of prenatal testosterone (and turn into boys). If there is some testosterone antagonist masking the effects, large numbers of those girls are going to have y chromosomes.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
WIPO: Are Evil by FlightTest (4.00 / 2) #14 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 10:21:48 AM EST
All of them us.

Don't worry too much by dmg (4.00 / 2) #15 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM EST
There is bound to be an upside for the girls too...
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
more info by dmg (4.00 / 3) #16 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:36:02 AM EST
can be found here.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
ring to index by moonvine (4.00 / 3) #18 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:43:14 AM EST
finger ratio = "scientific" palmistry? very interesting. thanks for the linkies!

[ Parent ]
The more I investigate all sorts of esoteric stuff by dmg (4.00 / 2) #19 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:50:39 AM EST
the more scientific it all seems to be.

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
does it follow then by moonvine (4.00 / 2) #17 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:41:42 AM EST
that men with very low sex drive would be attracted to their own sex, and more inclined to bi-sexuality?
i wonder about this.

[ Parent ]
sex drive by alprazolam (4.00 / 2) #20 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:20:33 PM EST
is sex drive the same thing as making out drive? if i'm interested in making out with anything with tits but ambivalent towards fucking, do i have a low sex drive or high sex drive?

[ Parent ]
I would say high drive... by greyshade (4.00 / 3) #22 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 12:25:51 PM EST
Just a different gear ratio.

"The other part of the fun is nibbling on them when they get off work." -vorheesleatherface
[ Parent ]
I'd say by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #23 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 01:14:35 PM EST
Oil change required.


[ Parent ]
Tank Girl! by moonvine (4.00 / 2) #26 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:07:42 PM EST
n t

[ Parent ]
oil changes by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 06:00:19 AM EST
one of those things in life that are often easier and more rewarding to do for yourself rather than paying somebody else to do.

[ Parent ]
girlfriends by moonvine (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:28:16 AM EST
do it for free.

[ Parent ]
free by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:36:52 AM EST
sorta like linux, eh?

[ Parent ]
open by moonvine (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:41:46 AM EST
source!

[ Parent ]
Seems anecdotal by ShadowNode (4.00 / 2) #27 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 05:21:26 PM EST
I find it quite plausible that a few small communities would have an imbalance in births without any sinister causes.

Guys, cool down and *think* by bob6 (4.00 / 2) #29 Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:45:20 PM EST
I read a few posts of men (I presume) who rejoice. I have five sisters plus three female in-laws and I assure you I know it first hand that your expectations won't be met. First, the hordes of females in heat providing desperate and diverse propositions: not going to happen, ever, in any way. That fantasy thrown away, I also beg you all to consider the following points, amongst other:
  1. what happen to people who turn out to be so precious for a single task?
  2. who would do the housekeeping?
  3. what would public toilets look like?
  4. which sports would be on prime time?
  5. which ethylic beverage would be cheaper?
No thanks, I prefer to stay a human being, a full-featured boy, stick close to one single woman and do my duty to rebalance the ratio.




Answers:
  1. slaves
  2. men exclusively
  3. seats, only seats
  4. ice skating, not football
  5. Bailey's, not beer


Cheers.
Gals, hang on to your men | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback