Dokushin Kizoku: Danjohi 1:99 Sekai no Akuyaku Reisoku - Ch. 3.1

[hermitowl]

As someone who mains Krita for Graphic Design, you are in good hands.
As long as you don't use GIMP or anything Adobe, you'll be good.

 

[phil777]

It wouldn't have hurt for the cavalry to arrive late THIS time.

 

[Flostirend]

 

[DeadintheWater]

One way it could work in this story is a pseudo-monogamous union, where the man marries a single woman, the head of her family, and she gets control over her husband's sexuality. So she can 'lend' him to other women for reproduction, like her relatives to ensure everyone in her family get a chance to have descendants, or women from other families in exchange for favors or to make political connections.
Or at least that's how it would work amongst nobility. Commoners would probably have no chance of anything resembling a normal marriage, with the men forced to work in brothels and the women having to save for years just to hire a prostitute for a small chance of getting pregnant.

Another possibility would be that the nobility controls the men, and commoners are dependent on the nobility to continue, while the nobility is dependent on the commoners to provide the food/resources/work to keep their territory going. The nobility shenanigans like marriages for political connections would be handled by the daughters going to other territories.

 

[Dephra]

You guys go let me hold this alone ahh situation

 

[AdvancedWind]

One way it could work in this story is a pseudo-monogamous union, where the man marries a single woman, the head of her family, and she gets control over her husband's sexuality. So she can 'lend' him to other women for reproduction, like her relatives to ensure everyone in her family get a chance to have descendants, or women from other families in exchange for favors or to make political connections.
Or at least that's how it would work amongst nobility. Commoners would probably have no chance of anything resembling a normal marriage, with the men forced to work in brothels and the women having to save for years just to hire a prostitute for a small chance of getting pregnant.

The problem is that such a world would be extremely unstable, with endless ressentment from the 95%+ that would never get a man. I can't see this populace not revolt constantly against nobles hoarding the males, specially in the earliest periods of civilization where there just wouldn't be any meaningful military . It would basically be people killing each other by the dozens and even men dying constantly in the fighting.
As a species, it's certainly possible to have that huge of a difference if the low number group is males, I agree. But as a civilization? No fucking way.

 

[habla]

The problem is that such a world would be extremely unstable, with endless ressentment from the 95%+ that would never get a man. I can't see this populace not revolt constantly against nobles hoarding the males, specially in the earliest periods of civilization where there just wouldn't be any meaningful military . It would basically be people killing each other by the dozens and even men dying constantly in the fighting.
As a species, it's certainly possible to have that huge of a difference if the low number group is males, I agree. But as a civilization? No fucking way.

polynesia had reproductive ratios of over 35:1. you just need institutional violence to get rid of the excess men, or in this case women, and maybe some genital mutilation to make cheating harder if you're concerned with that

 

[AdvancedWind]

polynesia had reproductive ratios of over 35:1. you just need institutional violence to get rid of the excess men, or in this case women, and maybe some genital mutilation to make cheating harder if you're concerned with that

There's a difference between localized, temporary ratio issues and systemic worldwide imbalances. Humans wouldn't never get to a point of developing any kind of meaningful culture with such a lopsided ratio.

 

[habla]

There's a difference between localized, temporary ratio issues and systemic worldwide imbalances. Humans wouldn't never get to a point of developing any kind of meaningful culture with such a lopsided ratio.

wow, racist of course what you consider a "meaningful culture" is up to you, but the polynesians did a very good job developing navigation techniques
also, in what world was polynesian polygamy localized or temporary? we're talking about a premodern region where you could go thousands of miles or hundreds of years without encountering a different society.

 

[AdvancedWind]

wow, racist of course what you consider a "meaningful culture" is up to you, but the polynesians did a very good job developing navigation techniques
also, in what world was polynesian polygamy localized or temporary? we're talking about a premodern region where you could go thousands of miles or hundreds of years without encountering a different society.

Their ratio was 35:1, not 99:1. I should have clarified I was talking about the manga ratio, so this is entirely my bad lmao.

 

[Nivek]

don't kill delicious chocolate bandit lady. 😭😭😭

Nah she will become one of his loyal followers,

Also blueballed and cockblocked per tradition

 

[YamiryuuZero]

I believe this situation is what we call "cockblocked"

 

[TenThousandWaspsInACoat]

You know one thing I always wonder about these ratio stories is how the hell the population survives. For a species to have a stable population at minimum they need to have a birth average of 2.2. For a population with this large of a gender ratio they would need a birth average of 100.2 meaning that every woman would need to give birth to a hundred children minimum for there to be a stable population. Any species with such large gender ratio would very quickly go extinct unless there is some unique strategy which allows them to make up for it.

Your math is off, incredibly off. If every woman gave birth to 100.2 children you'd have an INSANE population growth. You'd increase your population by almost a hundred times each generation.

It's the guys who would need to father a huge number of children. Which isn't that hard given that male reproduction is far less limited than females. Guys would need to be super promiscuous though and basically have kids with tons of girls. I.e any male in the setting would need to father that many children, albeit it could be with any number of women.

 

[TenThousandWaspsInACoat]

That would be the case if the women were in the minority, but since the population is almost entirely women they only need to birth a bit more than one child on average. It's the men who would need to sire 100 kids each, which is significantly easier.

Yeah, guy has his math inverted. If every woman had 100 kids, their population would go through the roof. Almost a 100x increase.

Another possibility would be that the nobility controls the men, and commoners are dependent on the nobility to continue, while the nobility is dependent on the commoners to provide the food/resources/work to keep their territory going. The nobility shenanigans like marriages for political connections would be handled by the daughters going to other territories.

He could just jizz in a bucket then everyone gets to fill their turkey baster...

 

[traplolihunter]

Kritaaa!!!

 

[Goldni]

cockblocked already

 

[marsyah]

nooo pls dont kill those bandit..

 

[Nuxx_13]

You know one thing I always wonder about these ratio stories is how the hell the population survives. For a species to have a stable population at minimum they need to have a birth average of 2.2. For a population with this large of a gender ratio they would need a birth average of 100.2 meaning that every woman would need to give birth to a hundred children minimum for there to be a stable population. Any species with such large gender ratio would very quickly go extinct unless there is some unique strategy which allows them to make up for it.

Not really. Generally Births per woman are counted 2 for 1 because they need to replace themselves and a matching man who both make up roughly 50% each. But in this situation, 99 women for one man would mean that it would need to be 1.1 at most per woman, because they need to replace themselves and the one man.
It rather means that one man has to do 100 women for sustainability.

If we had 1 woman for 99 men, then your calculation applies.

 

[GreenDude1]

Not really. Generally Births per woman are counted 2 for 1 because they need to replace themselves and a matching man who both make up roughly 50% each. But in this situation, 99 women for one man would mean that it would need to be 1.1 at most per woman, because they need to replace themselves and the one man.
It rather means that one man has to do 100 women for sustainability.

If we had 1 woman for 99 men, then your calculation applies.

My calculation takes into the fact that you need more men to be born. If one man does 100 women then there would only be one man born.

 

[Markerov]

POnis