Um… VTC for a lot of reasons. (a) "Earth's governments' violates the Book Rule. (A city government might not...). (b) The decisions of characters (individuals or organizations) are specifically off-topic. (c) Our sweet spot is, "this is what I want, how do I get there?" Asking "Let's change X. What happens next? is an off-topic high concept question. (d) No specific problem to solve (open-ended, hypothetical, all answers equal, etc.). (e) As the help center states, we're here to help you build your world - not to tell your story.

I have to agree. Anything resembling a solid answer would be an entire book, and there's no way to identify a "best answer." This is a writing prompt, not a question.

Simple, arm the women, why would they want this? you've only said the space women are desirable 🤗

I don't think OP is asking for a story writing answer. The question is about what worldbuilding mechanics might come into play in the event of an invasion that the populace may not want to fight in. Actually an age old issue, and only a few concrete answers to choose from, which are straight from history books. Voted to keep open.

The spacegirls may be cute, but they have no loyalty to my country or God. Away with them.

Well if it's off-topic then that's that. It was my fault for not checking the rules and I doubt rephrasing will fix that if the premise itself is not compatible StackExchange. Have a good day.

The Girls comic-book miniseries has a small-town take on this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_(comics)

@LiveInAmbeR It's on topic enough, and not unusual for this site. You just distracted them with the phrasing, I think. It's a question that's definitely about worldbuilding (therefore the chosen close reason is invalid) but probably could have been more focused in the asking (but that is not the close reason they chose). Bear in mind you weren't hit by moderator action, but by a handful of other user opinions who have no more rank or say than you do. Voted to reopen.

@JamieB "probably could have been more focused in the asking (but that is not the close reason they chose)" there were three different close reason chosen. The system just shows the most voted one. Besides, we don't tend to reopen for the wrong reason when multiple apply.

@vlaz I also don't think it was unfocused enough to answer, just unfocused enough to invite a misreading of the intent. Some people read "how would earth's governments resist" as a story prompt and not "how would earth's governments resist" as a question about mechanics that should come into play. i.e. it is not actually asking about plot.

@JamieB It's unfocused enough to not answer. Keeping questions open at any cost is contrary to Stack Exchange's expectations for how their site works. This question doesn't even explain what it is the beautiful women are trying to do. Promote an ideology? Take over the world? Get trade concessions? All the OP described was the messenger, not the message. Without knowing the message, the Q is impossible to answer. Sure, sex sells, but I can't imagine the beauty required to convince me to murder my mother. There are a lot of problems with this question.

The question's been edited to fix some of the issues mentioned in the comments. Now, the point has (hopefully) been made clearer. A lot of it is different, but the idea is still the same.

Let me see if I understand this: What the beauties are offering is membership in their empire. Is that offer optional, or is it going to happen unless we fight against it? If the former, you'll lose 90% of the men to the combo of love and community and 75% of the women to community (there are details, roll with me on this). There won't be anything the government can do - in fact, the government might encourage it. If it's compelled, that's a somewhat different matter. But most of my original complaints are still in force. How is this not writing your story for you or an off-topic choice?

@JBH Oh it's definitely still off-topic, but at least it reads better. :)

@JBH For close reasons A and B, he is not asking about the individual decisions of characters, he is asking for how collectively the governments would react. Asking about how human nature should shape a setting is not the same as asking about how individual governments will react. He also clarifies that he is looking for insight from a history and social sciences perspective which reiterates that this is about human nature and not individual choice, and also addresses D "open-ended, hypothetical, all answers equal, etc" because it gives a metric to measure a best answer by.

Lastly, close reasons C and D don't seem too agree with the help center guidelines for asking questions about events. The help center reads: "Questions need to include the setting/situation and the event or, the result you are trying to get to and the setting/situation." What you've described is 1 of 2 ways that are allowed to ask about events, but since the question includes "setting/situation and the event" it is on topic even without a set desired outcome.

At least... that is how the question currently reads after revisions, I didn't actually read how bad it was when you wrote that comment.

@Nosajimiki help center: " If on the other hand you aren’t sure what a character (be it an individual or organization) should do, that is out of scope for the site." Worse, there is no metric for a best answer - that hasn't been explained and no conditions, limitations, or restrictions have been idetified. This question is off-topic, even the OP has admited that.

@JBH He's not asking about a specific organization though. Asking "what would the US government do" is out of scope for this reason. Asking what "would the world governments do" in a general since is asking about human nature. The "geopolitics" tag, which he used, is meant for exactly this sort of question, and his last paragraph establishes his intent that he is looking for an answer based on history and social sciences which sets criteria for a best answer.

@Nosajimiki Really? The OP is asking about a choice. It's the choice that's off-topic, not the context of the choice. The whole point of the parenthetic in the rule is to help people get that point without having to use an entire paragraph to explain it. We don't help people write stories and what choices anybody, anything, or any group of anythings makes is 100% storybuilding. The geopolitics tag's purpose is to identify questions asking about developing the rules for world-scale politics. Choices made by such entities are always off-topic.

@JBH A choice is a datapoint, a pattern of choices is statistics. In a plot, any single choice is reasonably possible, but across a data set of choices, predictable and inevitable patterns emerge to form rules in your setting that are independent from individual choices. This is the basis of all social sciences and why users with a background in social sciences keep arguing with you about these kinds of closes and voting to reopen.

Asking about how a bunch of people will generally act is no different than asking a question about evolution. Even though a specific animal may or may not survive to produce offspring (that would be plot), the setting can inform a lot about the direction evolution will move in because of the rules that will emerge from statistical likelihoods.

@LiveInAmbeR If you want to take down this question, that is up to you, but my point is more about how JBH misrepresented the rules of what is on topic. He has a history of VTCing all social science questions and often misrepresents the rules in his VTC choices. While I very much respect JBH for his overall creativity and his areas of expertise, he seems to have a strong bias against social sciences that I don't agree with.

@Nosajimiki You'll of course understand my resentment of your accusations. This site is about the rules of a world. Asking how a government must be organized or its laws expressed to bring about a specific choice - that's worldbuilding. Asking what choice a government (much less all governments...) will make - that's simply guessing and brainstorming. Had the OP provided a list of previous decisions and asked what the logical next decision would be, that might be on-topic...

@Nosajimiki But, my friend, that's not what the OP did. Asserting that as the basis for circumventing the "choices aren't allowed" rule make you a bit more like what you've accused me of being. Frankly, I'm all for social science questions - but a social science question must be about the basis of choice making... not the choice. "Which doll will my little sister choose?" is impossible to objectively answer, ...

@Nosajimiki ...even as her brother. "What about my little sister's personality makes this doll her favorite?" on the other hand, is much closer to worldbuilding (and a valid social science question). But, if you feel that strongly about it, by all means post this as a question in Meta.

@JBH I think you've missed my point. What your little sister would choose and what little sisters in general would choose are two different questions. Little sisters in general are not specific characters; so, the kinds of choices they make are direct products of thier nature and environment. Common behaviors for a little sister can be predicted, even if your little sister might choose something else.

Likewise, what Earth's Governments in general would do is fundamentally different than what your government would do, the fact that he is asking about all governments is actually what makes this on topic, not what makes it more off topic. The Earth in this question has many governments, they won't all make the same choices, but when you look to history and sociology, the nature and environment of these governments will cause certain prominent behaviors to emerge.

The "organization" rule does not apply here because this is not 1 organization, but a set of organizations who as a whole will tend to act a certain way even if some choose a different course of action.