If suddenly humanity began to have a natural 40/60 gender birth

/pol/ pls go

>>53004923

Working on a futuristic setting where sometime in the past a bioweapon disease was released upon the world. The world was able to create a cure, but a side effect of the cure is that the gender birth ratios have been skewed slightly.

Still not sure if I want it skewed towards males or females yet, but I'm certain I want to keep it around 40/60

>>53005102
Ok. Why do you want to add this detail? What does it actually add to your game? Because it sounds like you're just adding that detail for the sake of itself, and if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter how it works out.

>>53005178

General setting differences from IRL to encourage role playing and improversiation among my players

Really just looking to see if anyone else had any thoughts towards the idea, didn't think I was starting shit with anyone.

>>53004923
Everything remotely related to gender or politics is not automatically /pol/. /pol/ can't go for five minutes without asking for the death of all Jews, so this probably isn't /pol/.

>>53004891
If you want to go the harem route with 60% females, its obvious how that would play out

With 60% males, you'd likely see a significant decline in typical family structure, alot more war and alot more industry. Women would likely be revered more and treated more like sacred cows, or rape would be insane

Really depends on the laws and social structures of your setting, though
60/40 split seems unimpactful and a needless detail to include in any way other than a passing remark. Consider skewing the ratio a bit more

>>53004891
>unmarried adults
or,you know, just do without marriage or allow polygamy

>>53005481
I feel like that would only happen if the ratio was skewed harder.

>>53004891
Politicians and businesses would cater more to the larger audience of the gender with the higher birth rate, for one.
At least, if capitalism works like it does today.

>>53004891
IT'S TIME FOR THE BULLSHIT TRAIN TO HIT THE FAN.

So, what are we doing today? Fetlife discussion is always an option, but since we're already on a gender thread this needs more blatant disregard for the thread. How about I explain comedy like I know what I'm doing and people berate me for it.

First off, the Superiority theory of humor. The idea that when we see others act stupid or feel pain it's funny for us because we're not in their situation.

Example: Everyone who's butthurt in this thread because it exists.

>>53005451
I think you're imagining a much higher gender ratio than we're talking about here. 60/40 isn't even in two to one territory, let alone harem.

In all likelihood, you'd end up with one sex having a less favorable position than it does now, but not on a massive society-warping level.

>>53004891
if the males are more numerous we get increased suicide rates as far as the asians showed us

if the females are I guess it will mean increase in infedilty and poligamy

File: D4A6AB3E-73F7-4F16-A479-044072099BE6-435-00000060F7FD1172.jpg (171KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x667px

The world would become China

>>53004891
From what I've heard, because Y sperm are slightly less heavier than X sperm, they swim faster and thus have a slightly greater chance in reaching the egg than X sperm. I believe it's the reason why 105 males are born for every 100 females. Before human life expectancy tripled, a lot of boys would die before adulthood.

>>53004923
If it was /pol/ or /r9k/, there would either be (actual) misogyny or unsubstantiated broad claims on female psychology. OP is not acting like a /pol/fag so far.

>>53004891

The gender balance is a delicate equilibrium that can't be upset. It's like global warming; Canadians might welcome 6 degrees of average warming, but thousands of species might go extinct.

> Go to small liberal arts school in deep red state
> Gender gap is roughly 50/50, possibly slightly more females than males
> Everything is fine
> Next year, gap pushes more in females' favor
> Whatever, this isn't --
> Next year, gap is roughly 60/40 female to male
> Drama starts to break out in earnest among the females
> Men start to behave either hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine
> There start to be guys walking around wearing fake tits
> On the other end of the spectrum, women start to all meld together into androgyny
> Women are behaving more aggressively
> By Year 4, it's 64/36 female to male
> We start to be That School
> Girlfriend is openly suicidal because of all the bullying she's getting from other women
> Feminist house turns into the Gender House
> The big news on campus is a bunch of female-to-male transgendered kids want to join the frat that rapes everyone
> I graduate and never look back

Women are crazy and men are horrible, but when you have an equal mix our iniquities start to balance each other out. When the ratio gets put off by even a little, catastrophe ensues.

>>53004891
So did humanity arrive at a 40/60 ratio? Is the 40/60 ratio somehow enforced, whether artificially or by some weird biological mechanism? I think there'd be some incentives to at least even it out, at least if there's more women than men, if not just forgetting incentives entirely and just waiting for the ratio to even out naturally somehow.

>>53005901
I wonder how that gap shifted. Did more women decide to go or did less men decide to go? Were women favored or pushed into those schools? Scholarships?

>>53005919
The ratio only evens out in the long term. In the short term, which is probably a longer term than human civilization, there'd still be a noticeable gender skew.

>>53004891
If were going to be serious about this you'll first have to explain how genders work in your setting. Are there biological differences between the genders? Are these differences physical or mental? Is your setting an SJW's utopian dream?

If you want to base it on the real world you'll first have to decide what differences there are, if any, in the real world and then extrapolate from there. For real world examples you could take a look at modern china (for heavy male ratio) or post ww1 europe for heavy female ratio, but then again there might be some big cultural differences between these historical examples and your setting.

>>53006106

It's a symptom of a larger problem. Men in general aren't going to college at the same rate as women. And women are more likely to go to a liberal arts school than a male. And women are more likely to major in Lesbian Dance Studies than men, where there's an overt political agenda that revolves around fear of the kyriarchy. If all you have is a gender studies degree, everything looks like a phallus trying to rape you.

So the more women there are on a college campus, the more paranoid everyone gets. They start to try to find reasons to justify the fear, and so they start lashing out at anything that isn't exactly like them.

Here's a perfect example:

> http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/03/ann_arbor_woman_pleads_guilty_1.html

She was in a Women's Literature class and frightened herself, then faked a hate crime from a Trump supporter. She needed something to explain the sense of fear she felt, so she reified it by scratching her face and inventing an acceptable target.

Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, if you find an all-male school somewhere, they're probably re-enacting Lord of the Flies right now if there aren't occasional mixed-gender dances. So it's not about me distrusting women; it's about me distrusting single-gender spaces.

>>53004891
>would there be any noticeable effect on society/civilization

Yes. It would start subtle but eventually become dramatic changes. I'll take a female dominant outlook, but its generally applicable to a male dominant one.

1. Women would become more aggressive to one another. Studies on primates have shown that female groups become more aggressive to rivals in reduced pools of males - because being able to reproduce is ultimately a key driver of existence and if there's not enough to go around, the most competitive will be the most successful.

2. Males would become more promiscuous. For males as the larger pool of females gives them the option to reproduce with, their level of responsibility to raising a kid lowers: because the opportunity to just pump and dump becomes a more viable strategy as females come to the males and fight it out between each other to keep them happy. For a real world example: In China there's a who city where women pay men to be their boyfriend and do whatever they can to keep their men satisfied incase a rival loses out.

3. Fischerian Runaway would switch to male tastes, as they would be able to dictate which characteristics are desirable to them in mates (because the pool is larger to pick from). Meaning that in a feminist wet-dream society of more women than men, men actually have far greater control over a womans looks and lifestyles than the every had. It depends on how much you invest in his sexual theories though, but simple 'Sellers market' theory works here just sensibly.

3. More Bi-Sexuality/Homosexualuty: Some studies suggest that Females are born Bi-Sexual or Gay but rarely straight. This means that more Female-Female coupling would occur. It is however unclear what level of male-male coupling would occur as no one has had the ability to study it. In high male populations though like prisons, a power dynamic emerges between givers and receivers so that may apply.

File: 1493495529989.gif (1016KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 640x432px

>>53005451
There are micro-instances of this kind of gender divide, already. I can't state the exact ratio from memory, but among folks with college degrees in some cities, most notably New York and DC, there are more eligible women than men. Why people are increasingly self-segregating with regards to wealth and education is a different topic, but it's happening so let's go from there.

Basically, the result is that there are fewer young couples with children. It also allows a career-focused culture to thrive, because finding a partner becomes more of a hassle than just working more.

The end result is an increase in the wealth-gap, as couples with education spend a lot of time and effort choosing a partner and rearing the most successful kids so that they, too, can find a suitable partner and career.

So you don't get a silly societal meltdown a la A Handmaid's Tale or Children of men, but you do see radicallu different family values developing where all the resources and education concentrate (cities).

Societies have so many ways to deal with this that it basically comes down to what is easiest to swallow.

Monasteries or nunneries might come back into vogue in a religious society, the 'surplus' of the more prominent gender being segregated into isolated communities.

Or in a non-religious society you might have more of a hikikomori phenomenon- people who don't really value themselves and don't feel they have any purpose in society.

Or in a more liberal one you might have homosexuals of the more common gender are able to be much more open while the other still faces pressure to remain in the closet and have a heterosexual relationship at least as a cover.

Or we all just kind of get used to it and it has no discernable effect from inside, it's a lot easier to get a date as the less common gender but people are just as out of your league or below your standards, so more folks of the common gender end up going home alone or rarely in a threesome within the range they'd already be dating.

>>53006554
I heard Japan is going through this right now. Look up 'herrbivore' man.

>>53004923
This is obviously /d/. On every global fetish thread there's at least one post about gender ratios like this.

>>53006554
>Or in a non-religious society you might have more of a hikikomori phenomenon- people who don't really value themselves and don't feel they have any purpose in society.
I don't care for the contents of this thread, but you have my personal thanks for articulating this thought. No, really, thank you.

>>53004891
The larger gender would have to pick up some of the roles commonly performed by the smaller gender. Norms would probably get watered out in the long run, although this is happening in the real world anyways.

Nothing really interesting to be quite honest faggop, there would be more homosexual relations on the dominant gender or just polygamous familiar units

>>53006554
AS we're dealing with overpopulation, I don't think people will go into lengths to deal with the problem unless it gets significantly worse.

The last point you made seems quite likely, though.

>>53007286
We're far from overpopulation.
We produce more than enough food for everyone, but we lose a lot because some rots before reaching the consumer, some is stolen, some is destroyed on purpose, some dies in the fields. And then there's of course the West and how much we waste.

>>53005102
>>53005451

We've acutely seen ratios close to 60/40 favoring women in postwar years. It's a REALLY good economic move.

Almost all men get married and end up working hard to provide for a family, unlike bachelors that are typically less ambitious. More women move into the work force, a net positive that provides a great economic path forward.

We've never really seen 60/40 in favor of men, but we do know that 55/45 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

Interestingly enough, outside of some sort of societal intervention, an uneven birth rate is nearly impossible. All human communities have ratios of about 50% male to 50% female, differing only by a few percent in any outlying case.

>>53007327
>55/45 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

They've never gotten close to 55/45

Even at the worst of the girl-baby drownings, China only reached 52/48

>>53007325
Overpopulation is not a global problem, but it's a massive local problem. SE Asia and south Africa have populations that have greatly outstripped resources and infrastructure.

>>53007381
>52/48 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

>>53004891
But anon, the human birth ratio varies naturally from 40-60% based on the health/nutrition/age of the mother.

Human uteri will actively suppress male zygotes from implanting in times of lower nutrition, as one example.

>>53007327
>60/40 ratio
It encourages too much competition, which can be really, really bad.
You end up either getting
>Planet of the Bitches
or
>Mad Max
>>53005901
Pretty much this. The reason Compsci majors don't go fucking bananas is because we know that there are still bars we can pick up chicks at.

>>53007153
If it was /d/ you'd expect at least a 2-1 ratio, if not 25% men 50% women 25% futa.

File: 295198-M.jpg (13KB, 180x295px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 180x295px

Read pic related

Setting has a male:female ratio of something crazy like 5:95

Basically, men become non-citizens and are subject to slavery as the husband to sisterhoods of 15+ wives.

>>53007327
India will be a shitfest.

>>53004891
60/40 in favor of women is great for economics and brithrates. men get laid, and women can be spinsters and not throw a shit fit. Flip that number, and suddenly dudes start getting mad at the lack of poon. The middle east has basically this exact problem due to multiple wives. Its like 30% of the reason that desert hellhole is more kitty litter than sandbox

>>53007327
>economic disaster from looking at China.
>most consistent and rapid growth ever experienced in human society which has has transformed China from an agricultural economy into a tech and manufacturing powerhouse overtaking Germany, the UK, France and even Japan in less than 20 decades

Wew

>>53007713
Do you have a pdf of it?

>>53004891
If it's overall imbalance, you can make it work. Viz a lot of yhe posts ITT

If it's actual birth chance, the species is fucked unless it develops strict rules for the number of children and ways t deal with the 20% of the population that will inevitably be out of luck.

>>53007863
It already is

>>53008297
>and their environment and society is on the brink of collapse because they skirted all sensible safe means in pursuit of profit AND their cultures norms aren't meshing with their actual situation
Anon, you need to stop.

>>53008297
>20 decades
I mean give me 200 years and I could get shit done too.

>>53008355
With their advancements in tech those things are practically non-issues for them, or soon to be non-issues.

>environment

We've poisoned our own land/water/air during our industrial revolutions and that didn't cause any longterm problems to our environments. China also has better tech to deal with those problems than what we had during our industrialization period.

>society

An aging population isn't a problem either; robotics will fix those problems too.

The 55/45 thing for China has been great, since men in general produce more than they consume China has been able to maintain a massive trade surplus which has given it the capital needed to invest into high-tech industries. Technology can, and literally will, solve all those problems.

>>53008361

I meant to write 2 decades. Sorry about that.

>>53008493
>China also has better tech to deal with those problems than what we had during our industrialization period.
Which is why they are totally using those techs, scaling back their industrialization rather than pushing it to it's limit for profit, and their wealthy elite all own land outside China. Nope, government corruption isn't a hallmark of Chinese society.
> robotics will fix those problems too
Ignoring how their culture's ethics absolutely rail against such impersonal treatment of their elders.

>>53008297

The advantages and disadvantages of China's economy are greatly exaggerated.

Now I'm wondering what viable solutions exist to a worst case senario, one sex just full on stops being born naturally

>>53005901
>It's like global warming
So gender balance doesn't actually exist?

>>53008895
There has been some success in expeirments using one egg to fertilize another in rats.

>>53008984
It exists, but it's totally natural and any evidence that it should actually be leaning towards the other direction is just a bunch of hooey spewed by scienceticians with an agenda.

>>53008493
It's hard to say what effect it has, since we don't' have a 50/50 all other variables the same China to compare it to.

>>53008997
Interesting to know, on the other side, if women stooped being able to birth females, we'd have to get much more creative, some means of artificial womb or ovim, possibly built into sex bots or cyborgs of some form, this is assuming the genetic engineering needed to turn an adult male into a functioning female is impossoble

>>53009035
Agreed, all that said I'm not against reduced emissions and cleaner energy

File: China.png (447KB, 640x391px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 640x391px

>>53008762

>>53006369
>it's about me distrusting single-gender spaces
This right here
I'm so glad that of the two good schools near me I went to the mixed-gender one not counting the catholic schools, seeing as I'm from a prod family
I ended up in a friend-group that was about half grill, which I think was probably a good thing?

One thing that I noticed was that straight guys at my school were very homoerotic in comparison to aforementioned boy's school, where apparently if you so much as tilted your head in either direction in the locker room you'd be labelled a flaming faggot. What this means, I have no idea.

>>53008656
>Which is why they are totally using those techs, scaling back their industrialization rather than pushing it to it's limit for profit,

But the profit thing is good, you only have this chance, like right now, to sell a purse you made for 30 cents to some rich woman in Sweden for the equivalent of 180 dollars. The environment can wait, it will, quite literally, fix itself.

>and their wealthy elite all own land outside China.

That's what happens when you have money; you buy things. While Europe buys handbags or new shoes the Chinese use that money and buy agricultural land, factories and research to better compete in the future while also heavily investing in research back in China.

>Nope, government corruption isn't a hallmark of Chinese society.

China ranks fairly moderate in government corruption and has been getting better.

>Ignoring how their culture's ethics absolutely rail against such impersonal treatment of their elders.

You don't seem to understand how little Chinese culture matters to China's political elite.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/28/anqing-china-six-elderly-people-kill-themselves-burial-ban

See that? The Chinese political elite literally banned coffin burials and nobody in China stopped them. The communists there have removed Chinese spiritualism and mysticism, Chinese 'culture' is what the ruling party wants it to be. If they deem robot house-workers OK then they'll be OK.

>>53008762
I agree, most people seem to think that China is either some kind of hellscape that's being devoured by demons or a superpower that can take on the rest of the world and win.

>>53008895
Depends on which gender.

If only women are born (no matter what kind of sperm cell was used or if Y-sperm results in no child) then, while men still exist, a cure would be researched and men would asked to provide as much semen as possible for future artificial insimination once all men are gone.

While the men are alive I think women would throw themselves at them to ensure a chance at reproducing.

Once only the sperm-banks (government) has semen then only the high achieving women would be allowed to have children. Having good grades/a lot of wealth would ensure that you get children so most women would focus hard on studies. Most research would be spent on developing a way to bring males back or ensuring reproduction without them.

Might have women bandits attacking sperm clinics to ensure they get children.

If men we would probably see research into artificial wombs.

>>53009129
I like that instead of using that on me, who is arguing that China is in a pretty good position overall, used it on a random guy who said to take what you hear with a pinch of salt.

>>53009194
It might have something to do with only 20% of prehistoric men having children (by comparison 80% of women did) so any possibility of calling another man homosexual/weak/low-value was used by men on each other to lower that man's chances of siring children (and thus increasing their own chance of having kids).

>>53009278
Beijing is a toxic hellhole where you don't go outside without a mask or at night though.

>>53007327
>More women move into the work force, a net positive that provides a great economic path forward.
>implying
Increasing the workforce while keeping the same number of jobs that support an already existing population is bad, whether it be labor suffrage or immigrants.

>>53009347
Yours fit the meme better

>>53009410
I'm the other guy that's why I said;

>I like that instead of using that on me

>>53009347
So guys who actually have contact with a similarly sized population of girls aren't as ultra-straight caricatures?
That kinda makes sense

I mean, it's impossible to know what constituted an insult back in the palaeolithic. I mean, apart from shit that's universal to all cultures

>>53009347
>It might have something to do with only 20% of prehistoric men having children (by comparison 80% of women did)
Not this shit again.

>>53004891
>40/60
In favor of men? Expect a lot more "losers".
in favor of women? Expect a lot more polygamy (which ironically would again lead to more "losers").

Nothing else would change, women would remain self-overestimating fuckholes.

>>53009432
Yours fit the meme better

>>53009500
What?

>>53008326

Support authors, fuck face

>>53010666
That requires money, which many of us lack

>>53004891
There already is a drastically higher rate of unmarried men and we're only 48/52

>>53010744
Then go without until you get money.

>>53004891
How about something like the Moon is a Harsh Mistress? The lesser numbered gender get more control because they have more choice, and might even take multiple partners, satisfying both sides if they can get over being co-husbands/wives.

>>53011377

It's interesting to note that it was only the "Western" station on the Moon that went Cucky

In the Chinese station its clearly states that the left-over men either get over themselves or get airlock'd

>>53011411
The Russians do the same and the Chinees are too barren to profit off of polygamy.

Go read Date-onomics

>>53004923
>holy shit it's something that could be construed as political POL IT'S POL GET THE FUCK OUT POL AHHHHHHHHHH

>>53010666
The Great Enemy reveals himself. Fuck off Satan, I ain't buying your shit.

>>53011434

Date-onomics basically says that men aren't as smart as women and that women either have to date down or be as assertive as possible if they want a man on their level.

Boom, wow, just saved you 200 pages of Social "Science"

>>53011486
Thanks anon, what a shit book.

I hate this "men are dumb" meme that keeps getting spouted.

>>53011545
>"men are dumb" meme
It's true. Women are naturally slightly more intelligent and a lot wiser than males.

>>53011580
>women actually believe this
If anything, the female bell curve is narrower than the male bell curve, assuming that they even share the same mean.

>>53011580
I mean, I would love to believe that but everything just disproves that notion.

>>53011606
>implying
I'm a man. I've just studied enough psychology to know how this all works.

>>53011629
>psychology

That's not a science. It holds as much credence as fortune telling and energy crystals.

>>53011629
>I'm a man
>I've studied psychology
Choose one

>>53011377
Men will always get the shit end of the stick no matter if they're the higher or lesser numbered gender so long as there is a government.
Withotu a government a single man can claim a harem by force even if he's not an "alpha". With a government women are given the power to say no and they will say no to 92% of men even if they're only 100 men to 10k women.

>>53011784
Only if the government/state enforces woman's suffrage, monogamy, etc and so forth.
It's entirely possible to conceive of an actually patriarchial government (as it would literally be, not what feminists like to think the modern day is) where women don't have the same rights as men.
At the risk of sounding /pol/, there are numerous examples of that in the past and in the present, just not in the present west.

>>53011855
Not with a notoriously smaller male population. There has never been a notoriously smaller male population until current year and we're just like 6-8% disadvantaged.

You would have to create an entirelly different society because capitalism and consummerism depend on women being obliviously in the edge of safe and paranoid, with men being miserable and unfulfilled.

You pretty much have to go full Mad Max to remove women's power, even before suffrage they had enough say in household administration and sexual selection as to manipulate their husbands into certain business ventures or chose who their sons would marry.

Women are cunning little cunts that count on the male's instinct to protect them as a weapon against men who don't do what they want.

>>53011665
Explain why it's been given so much legitimacy then

>>53012011
You describe it as if women are a burden, a necessary evil that science should be making obsolete

>>53012017
It really doesn't have any legitimacy, it has a lot of attention but then again: so does communing with the dead. Doesn't mean it actually works.

>>53009400

Yes, but once upon a time those jobs would pay for the wife and kids to be at home. Nowadays, they don't. So the increased workforce has to compete for the same jobs.

>>53012104
Okay deprogram me, why is psychology a myth?

>>53004891
Not really, male/female they're basically the same, in this day and age.

Depending on which way the ratio is slued, you'd get a few more higher gender working in jobs traditionally held by the other. slightly lower birth rates or maybe larger family's), higher rates of unmarried adults, ect...

however things might be a bit more interesting if this happened some time in the past,
(say in 1066 halley's comet, cut down the male birth rate, then flash forward to today, I bet things would be a fair bet different)
or if the shift in ratio was accompanied with something such as a major war for example.

>inb4 /pol/ & feminazis jump on this topic

>>53012280
>or if the shift in ratio was accompanied with something such as a major war for example.

But it happened, WW1 and WW2 killed a lot of young adult men.

>>53008334
Without a significant gender imbalance, we've evolved with 80% of women and 40% of men reproducing. The Chad effect is natural, it would only get stronger.
If anything, a 60f/40m could be the final solution to even things out.

>>53012048
They are, society would improve drastically if they were forced to think and act like men, or were just replaced by obedient gynoids.
Women are the chaos and selfishness men subject themselves to in order to procreate.

>>53005102
40/60 favoring women will have little to no affect on population however 40/60 favoring men would see a large drop in birth rates. So if you want it to negatively affect the population than id say 40/60 favoring men is thr way to go.

>>53012381
That's a lot of actual misogyny there, like legit woman hating, you sound like a loonatic

>>53012329
yea and things were more interesting for a bit, till the ratios came back into balance.
to my knowledge ww1 or ww2 didn't permanently alter the birth ratio. just remove a large number or young men.

>>53012117
>Nowadays, they don't.
Because the workforce effectively doubled! Supply increased, and demand decreased, it's little wonder why wages decreased.

Suffrage was the direct cause of women needing to work, and it's done nothing but hurt them.
I wouldn't wish wage slavery on my worst enemy.

>>53012048
I mean, I can think of a lot worse societies than one populated entirely by men and artificial wombs, with genetic diversity maintained by purposeful splicing and engineering from a common database.

It's gay as fuck, but I can think of worse societies.

>>53009050
Anon, we're having great steps in artificial wombs. If women stopped being able to get pregnant today, I'd give less than 10 years for the whole scientific community to give some provisional solution for the issue, even if it's a jury-rigged, autist-breeding mess.
My guess is that realistically we should have fully functional wombs for some species in a few decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/25/artificial-womb-for-premature-babies-successful-in-animal-trials-biobag

>>53012342
It's just destroy human genetics as three billion women refuse to have sex with anyone but 8 million men.
Women aren't logical, if you make a whole team of 10/10 Chads who are all 6'4" NFL players with STEM degress, they'll go for the quarterback or the surgeon. If you control it to all being quarterbacks and surgeons, they'll make up an excuse to still only fight over a single one.

Men enjoy and exalt diversity in their partners, but women will always hivemind other women into unanimity.

>>53012413
>loonatic
Bugs or Daffy?
This is important.

>>53012476
>but women will always hivemind other women into unanimity.

You can notice this in female behavior. When one gets married the other feels pressured into doing it too, when one divorces the others do it too.

>>53011629
Male psychologist here. You're wrong.
Males are smarter and concentrate the geniuses as well.

>>53012451
human pyschology would require some pleasure outlets, Gynoids, Deep Immersion VR, Even Fem-borgs of those males so inclined to act as career women

>>53011434
>Date-onomics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039ns91
Seems like a bunch of hearsay and conjecture to me.
But could be interesting if we(men) really do respond differently to the number of available women. I wonder if this could be manipulated by say, casting 3 times the number of women as men in films and sitcoms for example.

>>53012048
>>53012011
you do sound a bit like your girlfriend left you
>>53012381
now you sound like she keyed your car on the way out

>>53012629
Or you could just go full Greek homolust

>>53012743
not everyone likes traps

>>53012639
I dug my key into the side of his pretty little souped up four wheel drive, carving my name into his leather seats...maybe next time he'll think before he cheats :)

>>53012778
>implying the Greeks didn't fuck manly men right alongside their twink fuccbois.

>>53012794
>roastie whore begging for attention
Like pottery

>>53012794
>not taking photos and posting it on Instagram
6/10

>>53012798
even worse

File: zero-dollars-bill-web.jpg (40KB, 750x318px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 750x318px

>>53012827
Is this the new insult equating women to their genitals? I would say that I'm proud of my womenhood... but i'm actually a man. Gotta go find some girls to chat up :)

>>53012927
>I'm a man
> :)
Could have fooled me, fag

>>53009500
And don't forget that more losers means more war.

>>53012953
Come now, this isn't a social gathering where we gain favorable chance to mate with girls if we put each other down. You can be polite to me :)

>>53012639
The 10/10 way to open your eyes and see how useless, manipulative, devious, selfish and childish women are, is not being attracted to them.

>>53007713
>15+ wives
Would slavery really be enough for it to be a dystopia? Does the book even present the setting as a dystopia?

>>53012612
I thought that males were both smarter AND dumber than women. The IQ curve is narrower for women, but wider for men.

>>53012983
>altering your behaviour to suit the whims of women
Wew

>>53013052
I alter your mom's sperm content nighty :)

>>53013036

It's not a dystopia as much as a "Look, how ironic, they treat the men as lesser and expect the men to stay in the home and take care of children!"

>>53012827
>>53012847
It's a song you dip.

>>53013036
That's correct, but the mean is slightly in favor of men as well.
But then again, IQ doesn't really measures intelligence. But whatever it measures, it's pretty much the best predictor for most good stuff in life, like financial success and life expectancy.

>>53013052
If you don't, you don't get laid.

It's pretty simple anon.

>>53013198
>implying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9peJrA3YL4

I love youtube embedding :)

File: Good Save.gif (2MB, 256x274px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x274px

>>53013256
Just saying.

>>53006369
>if you find an all-male school somewhere, they're probably re-enacting Lord of the Flies right now if there aren't occasional mixed-gender dances
my brief experience in a private all boys school was fairly pleasant

Then again that was in a time when it was perfectly acceptable to cut the bullshit and beat the crap out of one another in the various sports. Maybe that stopped things from getting too crazy.

>>53013382
A good healthy row brings us closer together with our friends

>>53006106

Fewer, not less.

File: pasquale.jpg (11KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 350x233px

>>53013515
It's for these little things that I keep coming back.

File: Strawman_Senpai.jpg (9KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 247x204px

Guys I'm leaving this thread for /pol I think they're more respectful of women :)

>>53013871
t. roastie or cuckie

>>53008297
Except China's economy is literally built on funny-money and a significant portion of their "legitimate" money is locked up in untransferable assets or bonds, and so are essentially dead ends from an investment perspective because of how the party-state handles Capitalism.

You're also forgetting the decades of self-fucking and ecological/agricultural evisceration through the Great Leap Forward and the various failed Five-Year Plans of Mao and his cronies, which were so horrific for their own people that even the USSR was like "You need to tone it the fuck down."

File: 3a8.png (1MB, 963x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 963x1920px

>>53014017
You'll have to explain what those words mean :)

>>53014017
t. microdick

>>53011580
Not at all true.

Men and women are about as equally intelligent as each other. Testosterone just has a habit of getting in the way by making men chimp out on occasion, and estrogen makes women weave plots and gossip over petty bullshit that can be easily resolved by direct assessment of the situation between both parties.

>>53012451
>I mean, I can think of a lot worse societies

Sure, Saudi society and Wahabbism aren't as bad as Pol Pots Cambodia, but it's still pretty damn bad, dude.

>>53013871
>implying women deserve respect ⸮

On a more serious note, would being a guy with a disproportionate M/F ratio in females' favor be favorable for men, or disappointing and devoid of harem tropes? Maybe nothing would change and most of us would either still be undesirable to women or we would be too autistic to follow through in communication even though women's standards might've dropped low enough to tolerate it.

Then again, I am hesitant to not blame myself for anything inadequacies that I see, because I see being quick to blame society over oneself as being a cop-out.

>>53004891
With an increase in percentage of males, the world moves back to more traditional family structures with women being confined to the home. However women are considered more valuable then they traditionally were.I'd imagine sexual assaults and rapes would go up as well, but the birth rates per woman would have to go up to remain sustainable.


First thought on less men is that not much changes and that women will now work more often in harder job fields, so men remain at the top and bottom but the bottom is less steep. The more likely reality is that polygamist relationships become more common eventually being made into law, the men at the top climb higher, the men at the bottom end up clamoring over less desirable women of which there will be less available. Sexual assaults and rapes go way up. Birth rates will also need to increase per woman.


Birth rates don't really change human nature it just exacerbates it.

>>53012794
>>53012827
>>53012847

>not recognizing a very commonly played country song.

you must be niggers, or close to it.

>>53015039
Is it really country? They play it on the local pop/soft rock station a few times a week.

>>53012474
10 years? you crazy?
If women just stopped being able to be pregnant all the sudden, it would take about 9 or so months, ( dependent on if all current fetuses just keep going or miscarry or something).
After that BILLIONS of dollars and every applicable scientist would be working on it, and ethics would suffer defenestration.
I'd give us at least a year.

>>53012011
>Not with a notoriously smaller male population. There has never been a notoriously smaller male population until current year and we're just like 6-8% disadvantaged.

..right after the world wars?

Well statistically, less chance that the girl is attached.

>>53005619
I was thinking that myself.

>>53005901
>want to join the frat that rapes everyone
Well who wouldn't?

>>53013382

My experience was a lot of gay shit. Like, if there's no women around, everyone goes a little homo no matter how tough they are.

>>53004891
More females and less males likely increases birth rate globally, if it continues with this trend, women will slowly outnumber men significantly. Chance of multiple partners becomes more real

>>53014106
no u

>>53013382
>>53017233
I sometimes wonder what it would be like if someone invented an actual working anti-aphrodisiac.

>>53014267
If there were 200 women, 99 robots and 1 Chad. Chad would get 140 of the women and the remaining 60 would become self-hating lesbians.
Women NEVER date down.

>>53017165
Only in the young males, and all that caused was a lot of 20yo women married to 40+ men.

Fewer wars as there'd be more pussy to go around and thus less incentive to fight.

Assuming females outnumber males, other way around and it gets worse.

>>53016391
It might also cause a massive blowout of mysoginy. As much as we like to tell us otherwise, breeding is 90% of a woman's value.

In a sort of similar vein because this thread is about girls, why don't female characters get -4 strength? All women are significantly weaker than men and ought to take a -4 strength penalty for realism

File: 1469404505948.jpg (44KB, 398x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 398x370px

>>53018341
>Games of collective make-believe
>Realism

>>53018341
Because you touch yourself at night.

>>53018404
I'd say that's all the more reason. Maybe change it to +4 strength to male characters to represent the effect hours of furious masturbation has on male upper body strength

>>53018517
>not masturbating with your toes

>>53004891
only about 40% of the work would get done.

>>53018341

Your "average" female adventurer is going to be on another level of fitness compared to your average female.

>>53018285

Vietnam War was fought over pussy?

>>53005511
I feel like a lot of you dont understand much this would impact the population in a given area.

Take a larger city of around 1 million people. A 40/60 split means we have 400.000 of one gender, and 600.000 of the other.

That is 200.000 leftover.

And this is on a small scale. We are what, 7 billion people on the planet? There are 1/3 too many of one gender. That's 1,4 billion people leftover, assuming literally everybody was paired up.

Then you factor in homosexuals, which, assuming the same rate in both genders, would proportionally hurt the dominant genders chance of finding a match from the opposite gender.

I honestly feel like the most obvious choice, polygamy aside, would be to heavily encourage gay partnerships for the dominant gender. It is the easiest solution to the problem, and it can help control the population size (so 40% dudes don't knock up 60% women all the time)

>>53005569
What a piss poor attempt to derail the thread.
You should be ashamed.

>>53019814
>would be to heavily encourage gay partnerships for the dominant gender.

This only works if the females are the dominate gender

Pretend-Bisexuality comes much easier to women than it does men.

>>53020466
I didn't say it was easy.

But even if the overall population was repulsed by the idea, in a situation like described in the OP, where this isnt going to change - the divide would always be there. Then a long term program to encourage it would still be very likely to succeed.

And if there are too many men, I can imagine it would be very desirable, to avoid having too many "no girls available, I'll rape whatever I can find" cases.

>>53020466
>>53020640
Force traps to be more acceptable?

>>53018256
Why is that?

>>53008895
I once encountered this problem when I was making an all tomorrows inspired setting.
I thought the Qu in that book were a cop out so I wanted the humans to evolve naturally over millions of years separated from outside populations by hundreds of light-years.
The founders of these colonies would be various religious, minority or radical groups who want to be left alone by the rest of humanity.
2 of these groups would be radical gays and lesbians who hate the opposite gender with a passion.
Now this is were I ran into a problem.
Someone else mentioned artificial eggs and sperm but those wouldn't work in humans because of genomic imprinting.
What is genomic imprinting?
It's going to sound retarded when I explain it to you but thats only because it is.
It's basically a genetic double check to make sure you have a mom and a dad and if it thinks you have 2 moms or 2 dads or are somehow a product of immaculate conception then it makes you retarded and infertile among other nasty effects.
The exact conditions are angelman syndrome if it thinks you have 2 daddies and prader-willi syndrome if it thinks you have 2 mommies.
Now this makes an all female or all male world quite troublesome even if you have artificial wombs and artificial eggs/sperm.
The only solution I could come up with without invoking genetic engineering is that you can still make viable artificial eggs/sperm even from genetically infertile people but that still renders your second generation too stupid to work the technology to make a third.
Either way I think a population of humans evolving around these conditions would make for a very interesting species.

>>53012017
>so much legitimacy
>he says even while the replication crisis still ravages the entire field of psychology
wew lad

>>53010429
A key factor for the survival is that workers (read: men) produce more than they consume to generate surplus wealth which the powers-that-be can redirect towards the advancement of the civilization (ideally). This requires the men to be kept happy or at the very least complacent. What often helps is to guarantee them a mate, which is why strictly enforced polygamy where adultery is a punishable offense worked so well for such a long time: every man is guaranteed one (public) wife (with the powerful and rich having private mistresses) and therefore kept happy and productive.

By "loser" I mean losers from a societal or evolutionary perspective: those who fail to reproduce for non-religious reasons. These are the bottom dregs with nothing left to lose. They will either become violent (which works for Islam, because it redirects these "losers" into conquering foreign lands and capturing sex slaves for themselves) or they become indifferent (see the grasseaters in Japan, MGTOW in America or the beautiful ones from Calhoun's mouse utopia). Neither are good for the prosperity of a country, so a societal system should be aimed at minimizing the number of "losers".

Throwing off the balance of women in either direction would offset the balance we had in the monogamous West prior to the sexual revolution. Having more men would mean that inevitably a third of men become "losers". Having more women than men means that these women still need men to provide for them one way or another. Either they become spinsters, or we have polygamy. If they become spinsters this isn't a problem (women are barely productive anyway) if we have a welfare state that forces men to indirectly provide for them anyway (system has many problems I won't get into right now). If we declare polygamy legal, then most women will gravitate to the top which will only decrease the chances of low worth men to not become "losers".

Just remember that monogamy favors men and polygamy favors women.

>>53020960
>A key factor for the survival
*of a civilization

>>53020910
What about straight cloning and copying genes that have already worked?

>>53004891
We have actually seen similar things happen to Pacific Islanders at various times. If it's a male heavy skew then they tend to either castrate excess males or the society becomes very warlike and raids heavily for the best kind of booty. Don't know any prewar society that heavily favors females. Though, as in the postwar (WW1) German and French societies there have been times where there has been high competition between women for husbands. There were also warlike cultures with a heavy female skewed ratio. Thinking Mongols, Arabs, and Viking age Norse, where a good proportion of males die in battle, but the remaining males have multiple wives + concubines taken as spoils. The children to father ratio can get ridiculous. Like twenty plus children per father, with literally hundreds of kids per father for the upper levels of society.

Inheritance law can be an absolute nightmare in these situations, especially because the various wives/concubines all fight between themselves to get the best inheritance for their children.

>>53021347
>high competition between women for husbands
How would that even look? Genuinely curious because the very idea is just so unreal.

>>53012432
>>53009400
>>53012117
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/Review%20of%20Economic%20Studies-2013-Dustmann-145-73.pdf

Except, it doesn't quite work that way, when the labor pool expands, the available jobs expands to compensate. The effects of an increasing population only decrease wages in the absolute lowest percentile of income while the increased capital increases wages in the higher percentiles. The thing about supply and demand of labor is that there is almost never a slope of +1 or -1, it varies in elasticity and in the case of the supply and demand of labor, supply is an upward slope instead of the downward slope of most situations. This study details it more, granted, it's about immigration but the point is about how population increases affect things.

>>53021522
Partly it meant an increase in pre-marital sex in societies where it was pretty taboo. It also meant women didn't shop around as much, once you got a suitor you're more likely to marry them and lock down the male. Old dudes are the real beneficiary though, as younger women are willing to marry more bachelor's and widowers. People also marry for the first time at a younger age.

>>53021604
ah yes
that explains the welfare explosion

>>53021058
While cloning would work it would also prevent any evolution and the entire reason i tried to make the setting in the first place was to come up with a diaspora of human species that evolved naturally.
So no gene editing of any kind, It's pretty much impossible in that setting.

>>53012512
>You can notice this in female behavior. When one gets married the other feels pressured into doing it too, when one divorces the others do it too.

t. guy who knows two females

>>53012827
>being a retard on 4chan
Epic

>>53012927
>Is this the new insult equating women to their genitals?
Yeah, some incel virgins have the idea that you can tell how much sex a woman has had by the length of her labia. Sort of like how your dick gets a little bit longer each time you fap.

>>53004891
40/60 is not an evolutionary stable strategy. As soon as a mutation for 50/50 shows up it would start to become dominant again.

>>53020899
Because they don't think for themselves.
Men will seek the parter that fits them best, women will seek the partner other women want.

>>53006430
>>53006554

Today it occured to me the studies on nonbinary genders turn this idea into a means of making same sex marriages and the fallout of inequalities almost tribal which sorts itself by turning the situation into a idealized genetic distribution given availability provides the possibility observation.

>>53024751
I'll bite.

I know that humans are surprisingly quite conformist and compliant with authority, which is something sociology has observed time and time again, such as in the Milgram Experiment in the case of authority obedience and the Asch Experiment in the case of group conformity.
The rationale for conformity is that it is better to fall together than to fall alone, and there is the idea that if you are not doing what everyone else is doing, then you are likely doing it wrong.
In the Milgram Experiment, I think 65% of people went all the way with it, but of those who didn't, there was a 5% difference between the genders (55-70%, I don't remember).

I know that gender differences, even if actually overall minor, are far from minor when it comes to sexual stuff, as females are usually more picky than males in mate selection. Conformity could be an influence in sexual selection in females, or it could be concurrence because of common qualities of a particular male. Males might not be so different and actually try to compete for mates and value a certain female. This is assuming you are telling the truth.

>>53021604
silly anon, trying to bring evidence into a /pol/ debate. Next you'll be telling us that the earth is warming!

File: Extreme Retardation.jpg (34KB, 367x469px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 367x469px

I want /pol/ to go away forever.

File: 1475522195213.jpg (9KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x222px

>>53015039
>implying country pop is real country

>I'll go to /tg/ today maybe it's not sh-
Oh

Ok

>>53012927
>btw im a man xD
nobody cares, go away attentionwhore

holy shit I was reading through this thread and it took me until 3/4 of the way down to realise I got here from /tg/ and not /his/. I was kind of wondering what was with the "le le le /pol/ xD" shitposters, /his/ usually doesn't sink quite that low

>>53015039
I only listen to wall noise. I guarantee that I am as white as you or whiter.

>>53009372
No worries, all those harmful gases will be safely absorbed by chinese lungs and metabolised, or buried with the corpse later. It'll fix itself in a reasonable time span.

>>53009278
>The environment can wait, it will, quite literally, fix itself.
Not before killing off massive amount of humans to restore the balance in a self correcting process

>China ranks fairly moderate in government corruption and has been getting better.

Only because placed like Greece and north korea drag the average down

>You don't seem to understand how little Chinese culture matters to China's political elite.
That is true. The elite never cares about anything other than keeping/increasing their power. That's true everywhere

>>53025885
All entertainment forums are suffering an infestation of /leftypol/ leeches from tumblr.

>>53018256
>Women NEVER date down.

You say that, but look at people that date meth addicts

File: 1374250338704.png (1MB, 680x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x499px

>>53004923