That’s about par with many participants on this board.
Well, it was a paradise for some men…
That Rubble fella sure made out.
what’s also bad is you couldn’t even enjoy a beer without risk getting eaten by a smilodon.
Maybe 16 out of 17 cavemen preferred anal.
Hmm, maybe that gay cave man joke from a few years back isn’t as jokey as we thought.
Do you know anyone that has expressed this belief? I have never heard anyone say as much.
How similar is this result to wolf packs? I often get the sense that they’re the closest equivalent to primordial human social structure.
I think we can conclude the opposite. That men back then were EXTREMELY happy. My observation is that when men are happy doing the shit they like, sex is just a distraction.
I think one can also conclude one, a few, or all of the following must have been available. Cheap/free beer. Very good hunting or fishing. Comfortable recliners. Frequent local and regional sporting events. Classic cars that needed restoring. Well stocked hardware stores.
Well this only tells us that 1 in 17 men had there gene’s passed on to future generations, they could be getting laid more often that that. Still sounds like a lot of lonely guys on Saturday night though.
Or maybe each cavedude was banging 17 cavewimmin?
At least they didn’t have to put up with annoying cell phones.
It’s worth noting that we’re not talking about cave men, though. The study’s conclusion is that agriculture is what caused this shift, just 8,000 years ago. These folks were not living in caves. (Not that cave men did that very much either… but an agricultural community 8000 years ago is a very different place than a where a smilodon-dodging hunter-gatherer lived).
And in that respect, it actually makes a lot more sense than in a cave man setting. Only someone with a farm produces the extra food it would take to have 17 wives (or 17 slaves) bearing his children.
DInt cave ladies have anuses?
Nope, it doesn’t mean that at all. It just means that:
1)The ancestor survival rate for some men was much higher. It tells us nothing about how often people had sex, or how many children they had.
- Men married later than women
When men marry at age 32 on average and women marry at age 16 on average, then every generation will halve the number of male ancestors. After just 5 generations/200 years there will be 16 times more female ancestors as male even if every person has exactly the same number of surviving a children
The survival thing is a bit more complex.
Imagine a peasant farmer and the local lord all produce 10 sons and 10 daughters. 5 each of the farmer’s children live, all 20 of the lord’s children live. 5 of the Lord’s sons marry the peasants daughters. None of the lords daughter want to marry commoners. Each child then produces 10 sons and 10 daughters, half of the peasant’s son’s children die.
In this second generation, the lord will have 100 male-line ancestors (10 from each of 10 children) and 100 female ancestors. The peasant will have have 50 male ancestors (5 each from 10 children) and 100 female. Lord’s grandsons marry cousin’s form the peasant’s lineage.
Repeat for the next generation: Lord has 2000 male line ancestors and 2000 female-lines. Peasant has 250 male-line ancestors and **2000 **female.
So within just three generation’s, the peasant’s wife has produced 10 times more ancestors. Nothing to do with the amount of sex or the number of offspring. Simply differential survival. Men die at higher rates than women, so we end up with fewer male ancestors.
People always jump to the simplistic conclusions from these studies, rather than looking at what they really mean. Yes, the phenomenon of polygamy is a factor here, but most of it is just due to differential survival rates and the earlier age of marriage of woman.
Well, I assume so did smilodons, but cave wimmin anuses don’t help much if the alpha male has a big stick.
:eek:
50 Shades of Grey is historical documentary?
I don’t think any normal man has ever thought tbat the Stone Age was some kind of paradise. Its just women thinking that they would think that, since hey =“los of sex with Cavewomen, with consent not an issue”.:rolleyes:
Which of course it BS.
Good analysis, but I think you used “ancestor” a couple of places where you meant “descendant”