You have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. That

>>36964996
>water is wet

great insight faggot

Why do you assume anything women say is based on logic or facts?
This is why you don't get laid son. Facts don't matter

>>36965039
these arent facts either. its like studying history, you have dates and times and draw conclusions from them. its not real, its opinion science. what does harder even mean. i could go rape anyone i want right now as ancient humans could do, so what exactly is hard about this

>>36964996
I'm saving this for later.

>>36965072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ

Jordan peterson talks about this at about ~1 hour and I think 10 minutes or so, but it's best to start from the beginning anyway. He is a very interesting psychologist. Basically the dominance hierarchy is so deeply ingrained in animal psychology (not just human, the dominance hierarchy is much more ancient than humans) and affects everything we do. To establish a dominance hierarchy, it must be mediated by something, and in human civilization it is mediated by female choice.

>>36964996
>twice
No, 13 males for each female.

>>36965138
It's not bait, it's a verifiable genetic fact. It is verified by science.

If you deny it you are denying facts.

If you can't imagine how it's possible then you are retarded, because I outright stated in the OP how it's possible.

>>36964996
I wonder how much shit was stored in that ass when this picture was taken

>>36965190
That's a weird thing to wonder about

>>36965170
Unless your ancestors had a male pregnancy or a lesbian pregnancy, you have exactly one male ancestor for every female ancestor. That's just a fact. Mother and father, 2 grandmothers and 2 grandfathers, 4 great grandmothers and 4 great grandfathers, and so on. I have no idea where you're pulling a 2-1 ratio from.

>>36965252
If one male impregnates two women, the resulting offspring will have the dna of one man and two women. For the entire population, this ratio is 1:13 and not 1:2.

File: 1473778436157.jpg (116KB, 500x725px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x725px

>>36965252
>I have no idea where you're pulling a 2-1 ratio from.
FROM FUCKING VERIFIED GENETIC FACT, you fucking idiot.

I'm sure in 7th grade you learned about Genghis Kahn.
Genghis Kahn fucked hundreds, possibly thousands of women. After defeating a village, Genghis Kahn's army would rape all of the women in the village, and Kahn had the first pick of the women. It is impossible to say how many illegitimate sons he actually had, but it is verified that some of Kahn's own sons (that he raised in the traditional sense) had forty kids of their own.

So how many kids did Genghis have? Let's just throw out a number and say 1-thousand.
That is 1-thousand kids who all have a different mother but only 1 father.

Are you starting to realize how the 2-to-1 ratio is possible you fucking imbecile? Or are you saying that somewhere else in the world there was a woman who had 1-thousand kids with all different fathers in order to equalize what Genghis Kahn did, a feat that is not even biologically possible for a woman to do?

If one man impregnates multiple different women with his sperm, this creates an imbalanced number of female-to-male ancestor ratio.

Pretty sad I had to explain that because it's an uncontroversial fact that everyone agrees on and even middle schoolers could think about it for a few minutes and figure out how it is possible.

>>36964996
So what would stop the men from mating with women at an equal rate? They didnt want them, or chad killed them? Im surprised that all these primitive beta men didnt equal the statistics with rape or something

>>36965321
>resulting offspring will have the dna of one man and two women
If you're saying they'll both have the DNA from the two women, then no, that's not how it works. They'd both have one man and one woman, same as everyone.
>1:13
Either you're not very smart or this is bait, you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

>>36965376
Alright now you're getting somewhere, but not quite in the right way. They'd all still have one father and one mother each, but assuming there was some incest between the offspring down the line, there'd be a slight imbalance. Just throwing out numbers, maybe around 1.01:1 after a few hundred years, but a global average of 2:1 is completely unrealistic unless they 1000 women's kids exclusively bred with each other or the kahn himself.

I'm not saying men don't have it harder than women, just that your reasoning isn't correct
.

>>36965550
Both won't have the DNA, but they'll on average have 0.5 unique male parents and 1 unique female parent.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract
It was 1:17.
>chad fucks 17 women
>beta males fuck 0
>resulting generation has 1 male parent and 17 female parents
>this happens worldwide

>>36965673
You just worded it badly, no one has two mothers.

It's not mathematically possible to have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors
Assuming you mean ancestors as in people in your blood line, this is biologically impossible and stupid

>>36965722
No, it is not. I don't know what OP meant specifically, but it is entirely possible. 1 guy has 2 children to 2 different women. Some generations down the path their descendants have children together. Such children would have 1 less male ancestor than female ancestor.

>>36965144
I meant the picture. I don't care about courting women anymore.

File: online_dating.jpg (38KB, 798x514px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 798x514px

Women are the only ones stupid enough to think dating is the same experience for both men and women.

>>36965673
In the example you provided, they'd still have one male and one female each. Unborn kids have no ancestors.
>>36965902
But it'd work the other way too, and I know way more women with kids from different fathers than the other way around.

>>36965447
rape has been outlawed for most all of human history in nearly all societies

>>36965957
The conditions were different in the past. Men went out hunting, men defended the tribe, ect, so they were more likely to die without having produced offspring. Even today we still see that men die younger than women on average. You would also have cases where powerful men would take multiple wives, just because they could. Leaving weaker men without a mate.
In any case the female to male ratio would have been different than today, with females outnumbering males.

>>36965957
are you being retarded on purpose?
>>36965967
do you even know how long human history is?

>>36966055
and of course, in the past, the idea of a woman sleeping around with many different men and having their children would be very unlikely. Such a woman would probably be stoned or banished.

>>36964996
Like you said most men dont count. Women are having a hard time finding a suitable partner. Why did you even make this thread?

>>36967303
>Women are having a hard time finding a suitable partner.

I agree with that but I get annoyed that women bash on the friendzone when lads use it but women use it all the time, they just change the wording

He wont commit to me or he is scaried of commitment

is the same as Im in the friendzone the only major difference is that she could either be in the friendzone or the sexzone.

if she was in the sexzone it was her choice to have sex anyway