[bubblewrap]

"less conflict for romantic rivals given the expectations"

This assumes all men would be equally likely to get to have sex with the women. Otherwise, if the whole society has to take care of the children, but only a few men get to procreate, it just means many men working for free (like drones) to support other men's children.

Of course that would be a good scenario for some members of society - the women who can choose to mate only with the most attractive men, and the few lucky men. I doubt it would automatically create a happier society, though.

[YUMad]

It already is like that to an extent. 80% of all women that ever lived had offspring, while only 40% of all men who ever lived did.

[ionised]

Where are you getting those numbers from?

[KaoruAoiShiho]

DNA analysis https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dn...

[ionised]

That says it was true historically, not any longer.

[magduf]

That reminds me of something I read once about college, saying that "20% of the men were getting 80% of the sex".

[ppseafield]

> > "less conflict for romantic rivals given the expectations"

> This assumes all men would be equally likely to get to have sex with the women.

I think the OP meant since no one was expected to be monogamous, there is no "cheating" and no conflicts of "infidelity". More women having multiple partners means potentially more different men would be having sex.

> it just means many men working for free (like drones) to support other men's children.

Well, not just anyone's children, because they would all be related by blood. They'd be taking care of family.

[magduf]

Sort of. There's a big difference between working to raise your cousin's kids and working to raise your own.