/sty/ - pigsty

Now the bit that I'm sure will get a lot of hate heaped my way, I'd like to explain my personal situation. I've described it on certain other chans before, the response usually starts out positive from a purely sexual standpoint, then turns very negative (though the hate usually sounds like it's coming from one person, it is possible this was just the lone femanon on those sites.)

This is kind of long, so if you don't want to read a long blog post with potentially boring personal information, just stick to the first post's hypothetical, please.

For most of my life I was a serial monogamist. Every girl I'd date I'd do so with the express intention of marriage. At one point I was even dating a girl I had no sexual attraction to, but we had great conversations, she was exceptionally smart and we got on really well exceptionally, so I was willing to sacrifice the sex life for an otherwise happy relationship. In the end she cheated on me. They all do. Virtually every girl I've dated since middle school has followed roughly the same pattern, they think I'm safe and I'll stick with them no matter what so around the two year mark they cheat on me. The new guy is always done with them in under a month so they come crawling back, but (and I realize given where this ends up this is a little hypocritical) once I'm cheated on all interest is gone, and while I'm kind of an awkward dork, I've never been alone for long. I'm high testosterone and have a voice that's for some reason very pleasing to most women. So if a girl cheats, by the time she comes crawling back saying she made a terrible mistake, I'm already with someone else.

Several years ago I fell head over heels for a gorgeous but obviously insane borderline. I thought she was the most beautiful woman I'd ever seen, and of course at the start of the relationship she acted like everything I'd want in a mate. That's what borderlines do. Over time she became physically and emotionally abusive, poisoned my cats and cheated on me, so I eventually snapped out of the haze and ended it, but it left me a complete wreck.

I found after her my already extremely high standards were suddenly much, much higher. And I found myself making decisions the old me wouldn't like. No woman measured up to this fantasy image of the first few months of the relationship. This short, curvy virgin with freckles and glasses, the voice of an angel and enormous natural breasts and the body of a chubby fertility goddess who was conservative, wanted to have lots of kids and loved to cook for me, and seemed to be talented at everything. Every girl after I'd compare to her. "This one can't cook." "This one sleeps around." "Her body's nice, but her face is no where near as pretty." "Her breasts are just way too small" and so on. So I found myself adopting the "pair and a spare" rule. My options were to be depressedly pining after a destructive nutjob, or compensate for each girl's deficits by dating three or four at a time. Suddenly I was able to increase and lower my standards at the same time.

Now I have a bundle of issues of my own, so when I say this I'm not trying to be insulting to them, but I'm particularly appealing to girls with issues. My mother was nuts, so I'm just sort of tuned to that. They can say and do things that would make most guys run, and I just go into a protective mr fixit mode. My brother tells me I have "broken wing syndrome". "The way you take in girls, it's the same way you've always taken in strays since you were little." And in a way it's true, I was one of those kids who would always find wounded birds, sick dogs and cats and so on and bring them home begging to keep them. My mom would usually agree to let me nurse them back to health. I gave the local shelters a lot of business, and even went before the city counsel to get them all converted to no-kill shelters. And in truth, when I was at my lowest after the shit with the borderline, the thing that got me over it most was adopting a stray puppy, who's actually asleep next to me as I type this.

I'm far more receptive to a girl who needs my help than one who doesn't, I'm ashamed to admit. Among the girls I'm going to mention there's one I've spoken to occasionally for maybe half a year, I'd run into her in the same place, she'd message me over snapchat, send nudes and such and while she was cute and I'd compliment her or whatever (I never asked for the nudes) I was just never that into her. Then last night I run into her again, and she drops this long sob story about how her mom's abusive, and she's a rape victim, and she's tried to kill herself over and over and I can feel myself launching into "I can save her!" mode and suddenly she's bumped herself way up the list, but because of the way it happened this time I can look at it from outside and see there's something kind of fucked about that. If in terms of interest she was a 4 to me yesterday, why does her needing my help make her an 8?

I mostly appeal to girls with daddy issues. I used to cringe at abdl/ddlg stuff, but every girl I date either already has it or develops it while we're together, so I've just shrugged and embraced being called "daddy". Aspects of the fetish appeal to me I guess from a childish perspective. I like cuddling, bringing her treats, watching cartoons and old movies together, getting her stuffed animals and coloring books, reading her bedtime stories. My voice is my biggest strength, really. Girls get downright obsessed with hearing it for whatever reason, I have a lot of exes that have stalked me over the years. I had to delete my okcupid because every time the status would switch to single a bunch of exes would just suddenly pop up to ask me how I was doing.

I travel in certain fetish circles, and the short version (if I go too much into detail there's a long trail of posts on other chans that'll come back to haunt me) is I know a lot of girls who want to live in with me and essentially become lifelong slaves. They want to be pets, they want to be kept in cages and on chains, walking around with tail plugs in and collars on, cooking for me and cleaning for me and wearing whatever I want to dress them up in. I have a list of girls like this I get in and out of contact with every so often, some I've been in contact with for over two years. We've met, the chemistry is good, they seem to be sincere, they desperately want to come live with me. Now, I know this is partially just justification, but if I take one in I'm basically giving every other girl on that list the finger. Every so often a name is added or removed, but it's stayed steady at 20 girls. I know I can't house and care for 20 women, but six should be no problem, perhaps eventually 12. Two of the girls are friends and fully accept the idea of living in a polygamous household. Others, what they specifically want done to them should leave no space for complaint, but the vast majority of them I know would not be pleased about the idea of sharing me.

Logically, they want to live captively, they want to be brainwashed and collared, and it should be pretty simple to logically say to them "slaves don't have a say" or "pets can't get mad about other pets, because I have a dog and a cat doesn't mean I can't love them both equally." but I just want them to be happy.

I'm trying to figure out how I can get them to accept the situation, having sisterwives, sharing my love. If I could just settle that to my satisfaction, if I could be sure I could keep them happy despite there being other girls in the house I'd start bringing them in pretty quickly.

I've watched reality shows on polygamist families, read the book on the quiverfull movement, numerous ones on cults, brainwashing and stockholm syndrome, watched the entirety of Big Love looking for the answer. Most of those women get into it because of religion, though. I just don't know if I have it in me to be mean enough to make it work.

Several want very rough things to happen to them, rougher perhaps even than what I'm into. One wants to be hypnotized and turned into someone completely different. You'd think that would be enough to ensure they wouldn't have a word to say about sharing with other girls, but still most aren't keen on the idea.

The typical day to day, or what I dream it would be would be coming in to find my wives busy keeping my household happy. One or two are in the kitchen making something. I step behind her as she is, my hands around her waist and kiss her neck. This has always been one of my favorite things to do in any relationship. I love that feeling, and then saying "Whatcha makin'?" or "That smells really good." She'd be wearing a collar, they all would. Little else. Some stockings or thigh highs, flip flops so they don't get dirty, some lingerie or a harness, perhaps a sexy apron if she's in a kitchen. Another is busy on a sewing machine (one of the girls wants to be a seamstress) I'm not sure what she's making but I know it'll look good on her. Two others are sitting on the couch playing a video game or watching something on netflix. I grab two which don't seem particularly busy and I latch their collars to chains on either side of my recliner. They sit on either side of me on pillows. Another comes over and sits in my lap. Eventually I drag one off to the bedroom.

Sometimes I cook for them or get a bunch of pizzas, while I'm out running errands I find treats and stuffed animals to bring back for them, flowers on occasion. I ask before I leave if they have any special cravings and drive all over town hitting every fast food place to make sure their cravings are fully satisfied.

That'd be living the dream, for me. Growing old together like that.

Bla blah tl;dr

>>3857
>In the end she cheated on me. They all do. Virtually every girl I've dated since middle school has followed roughly the same pattern, they think I'm safe and I'll stick with them no matter what so around the two year mark they cheat on me.

You're not the catch you think you are. Cheated on once? Unfortunate. Cheated on every relationship? You probably have some very off-putting behaviour you aren't aware of.

If I had to bet, it's that you are extremely boring, because jfc I could barely get to the 4th paragraph.

Thanks for informing us all on your cliche harem fantasy. It ain't ever going to happen anon, you're not hot OR rich enough.

>>3861
>If I had to bet, it's that you are extremely boring

Probably.

>I could barely get to the 4th paragraph.

It's so much worse than that, evidently you couldn't read any of the first post, or the single sentence second paragraph:

>This is kind of long, so if you don't want to read a long blog post with potentially boring personal information, just stick to the first post's hypothetical, please.

Kind of makes it seem silly to complain when there's a disclaimer right at the top that it's not necessary to read it if you're one of those bizarre people who hates textwalls on forums.

>implying I want a damn man to take care of me.

Wew lad, fuck that.

>>3856
The entire point is bullshit, because the 80/20 "rule" is based off someone cherrypicking a line out of a single study that said women wouldn't sort most of the men in that sample into the attractive group, only 20% were put there.

What the person then continued to ignore was that this didn't mean fuck all, because the women messaged people all across the scale of attractiveness, with men mainly messaging the top third.

>>3857
Sounds to me like you're just dating people who are stupid easy to get with because of their issues, not that you're some catch.

No-one cares about your harem fantasy.

>>3866
I appreciate all of the responses so far, but honestly this is more or less what I'm looking for. The post about me was just background information. I probably should have left it out.

I'm really just looking for answers to the question which you'd pick between:

>Guy of your dreams, everything you've ever wanted in a relationship, but the catch is you have to share him with other girls.

or:

>Guy you find completely repulsive and wouldn't normally date, but you will have his undivided attention at least for the moment, though he may still take a mistress in the future or such.

>>3868
>Sounds to me like you're just dating people who are stupid easy to get with because of their issues, not that you're some catch.

I don't think I'm a catch. I just think I appeal to a certain demographic, girls with daddy issues. There seems to be a lot of that these days.

Honestly, just forget the second post, I'm not really important here, I'm just trying to see if there's circumstances -which I could use- in which girls would admit to accepting a situation where their guy has other girls and wouldn't totally hate it. Like the situation in Big Love.

I just went into detail with how I arrived at this position because I wanted to avoid a slew of pointless "you're a selfish scumbag" "you're making this shit up" "it'll never happen" type responses.

It's not that I'm any catch, to you I'd never appear attractive, especially with me revealing this stuff about myself, but these girls are already smitten, and you know once you're attracted to someone it doesn't matter whether objectively speaking they're a 4 or a 10 because in your eyes they've become a 10.

Don't suggest they're easy though, many of them were virgins or only had one partner before me. Very few of them are anything approaching promiscuous, there's one single mom in the group that I guess has had quite a few partners, but even so I wouldn't call her easy.

>>3872
You said that the vast majority of them cheated on you, right? Says to me that they're not exactly hiding away their sexuality for the right person there.

And most people wouldn't choose either, because both would be fucking miserable situations. The first is obviously better because at least you're getting something actually tangible out of it (as opposed to just purely the affection of someone you feel nothing towards), but both are shitty situations.

The first being slightly more appealing to some people isn't evidence of hypergamy by the way, no more than going "Would you rather be shot in the head or be burned to death" is proof that people want to be shot in the head.

>>3873
>You said that the vast majority of them cheated on you, right?

Oh, uh yes those girls. I was putting them in a completely separate category and just referring to the current ones who I'm not in a committed relationship with yet, so they technically can't cheat on me. I don't have any interest in my exes. Well, I mean aside from one, but that's purely from a physical perspective and not remotely healthy.

>"Would you rather be shot in the head or be burned to death" is proof that people want to be shot in the head.

Okay, let me put it another way…

Picture your ideal relationship. You're with a guy and you're totally into him, the relationship is great. Then one day he tells you he wants to get married, commit to take care of you, etc. (assuming that appeals to you, point is you're happy with the relationship as it is) but he wants to be a polygamist and has a set of "sisterwives" he'd like you to meet, and all while he's trying to sell you on this, your phone has been buzzing non-stop. It's (pic related), how did he even get your number? This guy followed you around a book store one time and somehow has been texting you ever since. He keeps making endless… "romantic" overtures and saying such pantydrenching things as "We'd make some really pretty babies you know, just saying" and "You know, you're really special, and I'd love for you to be my first and take my virginity, because I trust you. And I like you that much." and "Why the fuck aren't you responding, bitch? I know you're getting these messages. Stop being a stupid whore. I don't have to be nice to you, you know."

Assume simultaneously a caliphate takes control of your local area, and under their interpretation of sharia law you must either wed one of these two men, or be gangraped and then beheaded/stoned or whatever. And just for the sake of argument, let's say you don't want that to happen to you.

Which do you pick?

>>3868
https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

Article in question

>>3874
>I don't have any interest in my exes
>I found after her my already extremely high standards were suddenly much, much higher. And I found myself making decisions the old me wouldn't like. No woman measured up to this fantasy image of the first few months of the relationship.

So, you don't have any interest in her, you just compare all future partners to her? Really makes you think.


And obviously still the person I was already with and was happy with previously over the creepy ass person I barely know who's leaving me borderline threatening texts, and is essentially stalking me.


You're still using the same "Would you rather X bad thing or Y bad thing" to try to garner evidence that women want X, rather than them just preferring it to Y.

It's the same thing as I was saying with asking if someone would rather die super painfully, or less painfully. Obviously neither is the best option, but if you have to pick, less painfully is better.

>>3875
That's the one, thanks anon.

Don't trust the retarded 80/20 shit people post, it's just a fantasy, and as I said, it's proven wrong literally two words later.

>>3857
This honestly reads like you're trying to conscript vulnerable, needy girls from this board who share your harem fantasies.

Either that or you're just a narcissist who loves to talk about yourself and lacks the theory of mind to write an argument without irrelevant blogging.

>mfw I have a fantasy similar to OP's
>except just for one person instead of a whole harem
>and he didn't get brainwashed willingly
>and he's a fucking fictional character

Thankfully I remembered all the posters in the shameful fetishes thread and immediately felt better about myself.

>>3874
>deny knowing either man
>go to live with mother or other family members or friends abroad under the guise of finding a husband to bring back and raise children with
>either stay with these family members/friends or meet a nice guy online and go to live in his country
>never return
Done.

>>3857
Jesus Christ. Did Onision discover /sty/ or something? Lmao.

>>3883
Honestly, that comparison right there? That stings more than anything I've ever been called. I despise everything about that scumbag. Politically we couldn't possibly be more opposite, except I think I agree with him on circumcision in the vaguest sense.

I used to have routine arguments with an ex who watched his videos. It started around the whole Shilo head shaving/amnesia stunt. I hated every video I saw of him, but right there she started giving me constant updates on the drama surrounding him, and at first I was just like "Why do you watch this piece of shit? These are publicity stunts, it's clearly all bullshit." but that soon became "You do what you want, but I really don't want to hear about this infuriating asshole."

Practically every week she'd give me an update on whatever his latest bullshit was saying she hated him, and after a while I just went numb to it. I remember her once coaxing me into making an account on his forum to argue with a bunch of his decisions, and within five minutes he'd personally banned me and deleted all my posts. I remember cringing at the fact that you weren't allowed to pick carnivore or omnivore as options during the sign up process, and were force to say you were vegan or vegetarian. He's a serial rapist and abuser. I'm nothing like him.

>>3884
methinks the lady doth protest too much

>>3885
fuck.

>>3874

I would kill myself, but barring that the second one. Sorry to burst your stupid bubble OP, you're not going to convince normal, mentally healthy women that being sisterwives is anything other than being a pathetic cuck.

>>3888

Exactly, and he can't even convince us to buy his dumb shit!

>>3890
I'm not trying to convince you, though. The last thing I'm looking for is another girl. No offense, I'm sure you're smart and all, but I made the mistake of dating a girl off a chan site years ago.

I've given you no reason to be interested in me, and several not to. That's why I said imagine your ideal guy.

As it is I have a list with 20 names on it, as it is I'm trying to whittle the list down, I don't have the money, space or time for 20 wives. 12, maybe. After I see how it goes with 6.

I have two who approached me as a set and are totally cool with the idea, in face they don't want to be separated -though they don't want to have sex in front of one another. Thing is I've gotten kind of sort of almost serious with one, basically to the exclusion of all others, and they keep messaging me every day asking where I've been and if I still want them, and I'm like "Yeah, of course… I've just been busy." but at the moment this girl's more important to me, so I'm trying to see if I can get her to accept the others.

In theory I should be able to, her big fetish is hypnosis. I know nothing about that fetish, but she wants me to reprogram her into my dream girl, and assuming that actually works, I should just in theory be able to suggest it to her while she's under. I mean, I think hypnosis is bullshit, but she believes it works.

>>3892
So you want 12 sister wives but can't handle 3 girlfriends? Give up; you're not man enough for your shitty dream.

>>3895
Bitch, I did not ask for your advice.

I don't care if you see my desires as childish or impossible, I have what I do because I do what I want regardless of how it would look to others.

It's not something I'm going to be talked out of, it's built up over a couple years. From your perspective, remove me from the equation. Boiled down to it's most basic components the question is, would you rather be one of several wives of a "top" male, or have the undivided attention of a mate you wouldn't otherwise consider?

This is going to be a reality you're going to have to face before long, you've had it too good for too many years. You've been able to force the state to pay for your children, and men pay the majority of taxes, so essentially right now you're forcing every man in the country to pay for your kids. Polygamy simply allows certain men who can afford it to pay for the children they have with multiple wives. If all that matters in marriage is that the parties involved are consenting adults, there's no argument against polygamy.

So within your lifetime, you're going to have to deal with this scenario unless you snag some guy you like now before it happens. You'll have to decide between settling for the full attention of a guy you have no attraction to, or settle for a portion of the attention of a wealthy guy you are attracted to.

>>3896
Holy shit, fuck off retard, no-one's going to be forced into fucking polygamy.

It's pretty damn obvious the shit you're spouting is just fantasy anyway, you're not going to be getting the harem you jerk off.

People will just be single rather than be in relationships that make them miserable, and as has already been demonstrated in this thread, your stupid idea that women only like some hypothetical top whatever the fuck percent of men is bullshit. In fact, there's evidence showing that people are happiest in relationships with partners or a similar social status to them.

Go back to whichever forum you came from.

>>3899
Looks like I hit a nerve.

>no-one's going to be forced into fucking polygamy.

You're right, that should be the conclusion you came to anyway, unless ironically you're some retard with no reading comprehension. It was never suggested you would be forced, it's suggested you'll have to choose, settle for one or settle for the other. They're both settling, but guess what princess, that's what life is. It says a lot about how vapid and self-obsessed you are that you think having this choice is being forced into it. Yet you seem fine with men being forced to pay child support for kids they didn't father through taxes.

Incidentally, you screeching and having an autistic fit doesn't make the idea stupid. You declaring things as if they're fact just again… comes off as you having a childish fit. And you seem very, very threatened by the very idea of this thread. Perhaps you should waddle off to another one instead of acting like the forum was made specifically for you?

>>3900
Oh yeah, I'm really sensitive about robot world theories, you got me.

Do you seriously think that coming into a forum, spouting stupid shit and having someone go "Fuck off retard" is evidence that we're all sensitive about what you're saying and are having fits over it?

You get that the vast majority of people out there are capable of having happy long term relationships, right? All across the spectrum of looks?

No-one's going to be forced into the choice you're saying they will, because the idea that women only chase some chad figure is complete bullshit.


Trying to act condescending and acting like other people are dumb when you're the one who made the ridiculous original claim really doesn't work.

>>3901
>spouting stupid shit

Alright, here's the thing imbecile, you saying it's "stupid shit" does not make it stupid shit. This is your opinion, if you weren't autistic you'd be able to see beyond yourself.

You're asserting something that has been carried out pretty much since the dawn of our god damned species and is the natural order of the majority of mammal species that is currently legal in a fair number of countries, and women in the US and Canada actively take part in despite it being illegal of their own free will is "impossible" and "a fantasy". Read that back and think for a minute idiot. That very fact right there, the fact that I can name a single set of women who have CHOSEN this situation against risk of legal reprecussions indefinitely proves you wrong. Full-fucking-stop. So what specific facts would you like to bring to the table? Which specific claim is stupid that you can unequivocally refute with something other than "I DON'T LIKE IT!"?

>having someone go "Fuck off retard" is evidence that we're all sensitive about what you're saying and are having fits over it?

No dear, you don't get to create an artificial majority to try to pretend anyone's being a childish, needlessly aggressive idiot other than you. It's you that's acting oversensitive, not a single other poster on this board. Every other disagreement has been humorous or handled maturely, I'm saying clearly the fact that you're demanding this discussion ends because it's triggered your fat ass to the point that you're screeching "holy shit, fuck off retard" is proof YOU PERSONALLY are sensitive to it. Which you'd see if not you know, the whole autism thing.

>No-one's going to be forced into the choice you're saying they will, because the idea that women only chase some chad figure is complete bullshit.

If it's legal, the only men who aren't going to be having polygamist marriages are the ones that can't. I even suggested you should snag someone you like now before that happens. In that situation regardless of how much it triggers you, you would have to compromise. You can't claim you're being forced to do something when you have two choices. Actually, you have three, you could be alone with a vibrator. But the point of the entire thought exercise was which you'd pick if those were your relationship options.

>Trying to act condescending and acting like other people are dumb when you're the one who made the ridiculous original claim really doesn't work.

I would say "fuck off retard" "you jerk off" "your stupid idea" and so on is being condescending and calling someone else dumb. And I haven't made any "ridiculous claim" I don't give a fuck what your personal values are, you're simply not that important, tubby. It's currently practiced in a number of countries legally, and in your own in secret as it has been all throughout history, and the women doing it in secret clearly very much find the situation appealing. And the guy you're into (who I never specified as "chad" but apparently that's what you find most appealing since those were the original terms?) probably wouldn't settle for you when he can pick another woman who looks just like you along with three others who fit other tastes and fetishes. That's what you're not getting here, your competition is other women. How are you going to compete with four women? You're not.

>>3902
>Alright, here's the thing imbecile, you saying it's "stupid shit" does not make it stupid shit

It's stupid shit, because the entire basis of the idea is false, and has been demonstrated as such in this thread.

Some people enjoying polygamy doesn't in any way make your point more valid.

>Which specific claim is stupid that you can unequivocally refute with something other than "I DON'T LIKE IT!"?

The claim that women are only interested in absolute top tier men, which is the entire basis of your point.

>No dear, you don't get to create an artificial majority

Do you even know what the words you use mean? Everyone in this thread apart from you has called you an idiot, or disagreed with you.

At least two others have insulted you, I'm just the first to tell you to go back to whatever forum you came from, because robot invasion shit isn't welcome here.

>If it's legal, the only men who aren't going to be having polygamist marriages are the ones that can't.

That's some nice projection there mate.

It's perfectly legal to be in a polyamorous relationship in my country (not marriage admittedly), but still barely anyone does it, it's pretty much exclusively in a few tiny religious sects.

>I would say "fuck off retard" "you jerk off" "your stupid idea" and so on is being condescending and calling someone else dumb.

Sure, but the difference is, I'm not the one making dumb claims that run contrary to reality. You're being condescending because you really don't have any other arguments.

>How are you going to compete with four women? You're not.

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't. The thing is, the vast majority of people are monogamous, and don't pursue polygamous relationships even in places where they are legal (which from my understanding is pretty much everywhere in the first world, you're not going to get arrested for having two girlfriends).


Your whole point is based off the idea that being in a relationship with two people is somehow illegal, and that women only find the absolute top percentage of men attractive enough to be in relationships with.

Neither is true, which is why you're an idiot.

>>3900
You're a thin skinned narcissistic faggot.

Every altruistic thing you've ever done was so that people would like you, including all that shit for animals. Your mother's emotional abuse destroyed your personality and made you crave boundless adoration. You're attracted to mentally ill girls because you want to make them wholly dependent on you. You made this thread so you could find an internet girlfriend who you could roleplay with over sexual slavery (all of your posts support this). You're a fucking worm, and >>3896 is one of the most disgusting things I've read in my life.

>>3902
>YOU PERSONALLY are sensitive to it
Not that anon, but I'm here to back up what she's saying. Fuck off, retard.

i can't believe i read this whole thread

what am i doing with my life

>>3903
>because the entire basis of the idea is false
And what's the entire basis? Your whining doesn't rewrite reality. You're working off delusion after delusion after delusion. I'm going to spell this out for your fat retard ass one more time.

-The "80/20 rule" was mentioned as a single line of the post off-hand, it's not the "basis" for anything, imbecile.
-I never once asserted "women only go for the top men" your entire basis for saying "this isn't based on reality!" is pulled straight out of your stupid ass. I suggested that it's a normal thing many women desire that's gone on all throughout history, and that if a guy has a choice between marrying you or marrying a woman who looks like you along with several other women, chances are he's going to pick the other woman. In that situation, you're not going to be able to compete with that so you WILL have to choose between a "top" guy who can attract multiple women -which at this point you'd basically be admitting you have brain damage to deny is something that appeals to a fair deal of women- or a guy who is unable to. Fullstop. None of your insane ranting or repeating of bullshit information pulled straight out of your ignorant ass will ever change that, so whether you like it or not if you don't settle down with someone before it becomes legalized this is a CHOICE you will have to make in the future, fucking deal with it.

>Some people enjoying polygamy doesn't in any way make your point more valid.

Are you genuinely braindamaged? I'm seriously starting to feel like I'm picking on a retarded person. Read back what you just said. It was initially claimed it was impossible. The fact that it's the naturally occurring order of things for most mammals that have family units, the fact that there's a number of countries where it's currently practiced, the fact that women are choosing to do it in countries where it isn't despite it being illegal, you just assert none of these facts matter because…? Any time there's a gender imbalance it occurs. Look at Dongguan, China. Local factories in that city prefer to hire women, so 11% of the men moved out, that's the entire imbalance. As a result of the slightly smaller dating pool it very quickly became the standard that each man have three public girlfriends, and men in the city are considered losers if they have less than two.

But let's get at what the real issue here is, you're the female version of a wizard, aren't you? You're struggling to get even one guy, so the thought of you having to actually compete for sex? It enrages you. I don't spend any time on wizard or robot boards, they're depressing frankly and from my limited exposure much like Rodgers they're equally or more hostile towards men who've had any sex at all -or really any positive attention from the opposite sex- than they are towards the "3d succubi" or whatever. When I'd discuss this topic on certain /b/ boards, there were a few wizards that would pop up angry that the idea would mean even more competition for them, but they embraced it when they realized through taxes they're currently paying for women's kids they didn't father, so the only difference with polygamy allowed is that that money would go back into their pockets, which they could spend on their realdolls or robowaifus or whatever. I know, the thought of guys having equal footing in the dating world frightens you. You who clearly has a lot of issues with men as it is.

>The claim that women are only interested in absolute top tier men
If you can't pick out a line where I specifically stated "this is the basis of my ideology" or something to the effect, then you know you're making shit up and making a complete fool of yourself.

>Everyone in this thread apart from you has called you an idiot, or disagreed with you.
Okay, this settles it. You can't fucking read you stupid bitch. At this point you personally calling me an idiot can only serve as proof in itself I'm not. You're saying THAT in direct reply to THIS:
>It's you that's acting oversensitive, not a single other poster on this board. Every other disagreement has been humorous or handled maturely

Which specifies only you are acting childishly. Which other poster even used the word "idiot"? You're the triggered one. You're the one that decided to get aggressive and demand the thread end because it offends your delicate sensibilities. Why don't you just go read another thread, retard?

>That's some nice projection there mate.
Another word you evidently don't know the meaning of.

>It's perfectly legal to be in a polyamorous relationship in my country (not marriage admittedly)
Talk about moving goal posts. Like I said, in those countries where polygamist marriage isn't legal the relationship can't legally go anywhere. Because a relationship isn't "labeled" as such doesn't mean people aren't having them though. And I know you're trying desperately to move goal posts here, but if you're having a casual or open relationship, that is technically a polyamorous one. Like, explain these women. Their relationship is taboo, frowned upon, illegal, yet these four women choose to share one guy despite the hardships. Why is that? It's not religion in their case

>I'm not the one making dumb claims that run contrary to reality. You're being condescending because you really don't have any other arguments.
I have not made a single claim contrary to reality you frothing retard. Highlight somewhere, ANYWHERE I said "Women only go for top men". The entire point of the thought exercise depends on that not being the case. This is how far up your own ass your head is. THINK.

The initial hypothetical posits "Would you choose between sharing a 'top' man or having the undivided attention of one you don't find attractive?" If I believed every single woman would choose the top man, I would never have asked this fucking question, imbecile. This is how utterly divorced from reality and completely unable to read you are. Your entire bullshit claim is proven to be straight out of your ass by the very first fucking post.

>the vast majority of people are monogamous
I've seen fairly compelling science to the contrary, that as a species the entire chemical reaction of love is only supposed to last for a couple years, which is why there's so much infidelity and generally speaking most don't end up marrying their first partner. You're increasingly demonstrating your own naivety and inexperience when it comes to relationships. As I said to begin with, I used to be a serial monogamist, women disabused me of that notion. Why should I stick to one woman if you can't be faithful to one man? Why should I settle when you seem to think you should get to experience a wide variety of dicks before settling down after you've "had your fun"?

>>3904
>You're a thin skinned narcissistic faggot.
An anonymous one, apparently. This is fucking hilarious. What's my name? What do I look like? Where do I live? Your stupid projecting ass doesn't know a single fucking thing about me, but the idea of what I'm proposing sends you into such a rage you create this "idea" of me to attack.

>Every altruistic thing you've ever done was so that people would like you, including all that shit for animals.
Funny, I've never publicized it. In who's eyes does me feeding a stray dog make me look better? Who does that make like me more? Swing and a miss. I'm describing my personality and how I ended up where I am, but you don't know my name or anything about me. And you never will. If I was a narcissist this thread would be stuffed with pictures of myself. I'd be going out of my way to try to sound attractive instead of being open with shit I know is going to send a bunch of the sort of girls who get angry at other girls in the cosplay community for being "sluts" or "wearing shitty costumes" into a frothing rage.

>You're attracted to mentally ill girls because you want to make them wholly dependent on you.
I'm not attracted to mentally ill girls. I specified I won't go near a girl with borderline, for instance. Or bi-polar.

>You made this thread so you could find an internet girlfriend who you could roleplay with over sexual slavery
How many fucking times did I say I'm not looking for any more girlfriends? I have casual things going on with 20, in person not online and as it is that's way too many. That was never the fucking point of this thread.

The point was "Oh wait, hey. This site is one of the few chans that's predominantly female. I can get some brutally honest opinions about whether they'd choose to share the affection of someone they weren't attracted to, or have the undivided attention of someone they weren't." So many of these replies are so stunningly self-absorbed though.

>is one of the most disgusting things I've read in my life.
Do explain why the thought of you having to make an unpleasant decision disturbs your snowflake ass so thoroughly.

It's reality, the reverse is the current situation. The state is your husband, you (the collective you, not you personally) are "married" to every man in your country through taxes. Men pay the majority of the taxes which is then given to women to care for their children, UNLESS they're married. Every 'single mom' is essentially a polygamist. Legalizing actual polygamy only reverses the roles. Every time this has been mentioned it has been ignored and glossed over, most likely because you realize having no issue with this makes you look like a huge hypocrite for flying into such a rage about the idea of a man committing to multiple women.

>>3909
>The point was "Oh wait, hey. This site is one of the few chans that's predominantly female. I can get some brutally honest opinions about whether they'd choose to share the affection of someone they weren't attracted to, or have the undivided attention of someone they weren't."
You got your answer, and now you're just bitching because you didn't like the outcome. Your entire question was some "Would you rather be smothered in your sleep or set on fire?? Obviously being smothered is better, right???? It's just a choice sweaty =) You're not being forced into anything in either case =) That's life, princess =) Choices =)" type garbage.
>The state is your husband, you (the collective you, not you personally) are "married" to every man in your country through taxes. Men pay the majority of the taxes which is then given to women to care for their children, UNLESS they're married. Every 'single mom' is essentially a polygamist.
This level of rationalization all to defend your stupid sisterwife animu harem fantasy. I'm dying.
Get the fuck out of here already, kid. Or rather, stay. Adopt a trip, too. Perhaps this place could benefit from an obnoxious, homegrown cow ala swami.

>>3910
>You got your answer,
No, I got a couple answers then you got triggered and started reeeeing that I leave because the idea enrages you.

>Would you rather be smothered in your sleep or set on fire??

It really says more about you that this is how you see the scenario. The idea of you not getting absolutely everything you want is interpreted as a death sentence to you, that's how self-absorbed and vapid you are. Death of the west right here, ladies and gentlemen. And no, I'm not talking about your answer, I'm talking specifically about your reaction here. Look, what inspired me to make this thread was that "You have five dollars to create your ideal man" thread. The entire idea is "you can't have everything" and you've redirected and tried to make the focus me and then attack me instead of addressing the reality you don't want to deal with.

It's simply a "would you rather" scenario. "Would you rather eat a piece of gum 12 people chewed or clean a construction workers boots with your tongue?" they're both unpleasant situations, the question is which you personally would have a better time dealing with. But the thought "I can't have my dream man and have him all to myself?!" is interpreted as fucking death to you because that's how self-absorbed you are.

>This level of rationalization all to defend your stupid sisterwife animu harem fantasy. I'm dying.
So why aren't you countering it? In what way is it wrong? What's your personal objection to polygamy being legal?

And it's not so much a "sisterwife animu harem fantasy" as a "bdsm petplay sisterwife reality."

Stay triggered.

>>3911
Your question was stupid because realistically, both scenarios are shit. Pretty much every female here would rather be in a monogamist relationship with a man they love who isn't batshit insane than either of the situations you described ("a caliphate takes control of your local area, and under their interpretation of sharia law you must either wed one of these two men, or be gangraped and then beheaded/stoned" lmao), which isn't vapid or self-absorbed. It's just fucking reasonable (ie something you have trouble grasping for whatever reason).
>And it's not so much a "sisterwife animu harem fantasy" as a "bdsm petplay sisterwife reality."
Then don't ask us, go ask your gfs and see. There's a pretty high chance these "20 girls" will high-tail it out of there when they find out you're a polygamist narc who calls people who don't want to cater to your fetish "self-absorbed", but who knows? The fact they got with you to begin with implies they might actually be dumb enough to fall for such a meme. Make your case with them, see how things go and begone.
I'm not even the person you were initially arguing with. I know I shouldn't be giving you (you)s, but I think this shit is funny.

feels like you asked this question just cause you know people would choose the less shitty option (polygamy) to maybe feel better about your desires or to get validated in some way? could be wrong but that's what im interpreting.

that being said, both are horse shit. imo polygamy is pathetic and disgusting and i'd rather never get dicked down for the remainder of my life & just support myself 100% than be reduced to essentially a cuckquean. i also wouldn't subject myself to staying with someone i'm not interested in physically/sexually/emotionally who ALSO might cheat, there's 0 logical reason to choose this. i'm worth more than either option can provide.

>>3896
"So within your lifetime, you're going to have to deal with this scenario unless you snag some guy you like now before it happens."
no one would ever have to settle between these two options. there will always be men who are between the "what you probably refer to as 'Chad' but has shit morals/desires in regards to sex" guy and the "sounds like a stale piece of white bread" guy. it'll never be that black and white. men are diverse and it's stupid to assume they only come in 2 shit types. the middle ground exists and will continue to.

>>3912
>Pretty much every female here would rather be in a monogamist relationship with a man they love who isn't batshit insane than either of the situations you described

Alright, let me dumb this down and make the guy the person making this decision so you can see how you sound right now.

Let's say you told a guy "You can have a girl who's gorgeous and good in bed but a slut or a girl who's plain and has little interest in sex but a total virgin" and the guy angrily responds "Fuck off retard, your scenario is STUPID! Both options are SHIT! I should get it all! Obviously I would prefer a gorgeous girl who's a virgin and wants lots of sex but only with me!" "But the point of the scenario is th- SHUT UP, FUCK OFF, REEEEEEE"

It's not an ideal situation, at it's basic component it's asking you would you pick a life where you have the ideal mate you want but you have to share him with other girls, or one where you're with a guy you have no interest in, but you have his undivided attention?

I think you get so angry because you realize both this scenario is going to become an increasing reality in the coming years, especially with the spread of sharia law, and because neither option is perfect, but that's the point. And I think having to think about settling for less than perfect sends you into a rage. Protip: You're not special. You don't deserve everything you want in life. (And no, I'm not suggesting I am either, but there's nothing wrong with striving towards it.)

Look, put the polygamist thing aside for a moment just so I can explain how immature you're being about this. You're going to have to settle one way or another. Settle for being alone, settle for someone who doesn't want all the same things you do, settle for someone who's attractive but completely unstable or someone stable you feel no sexual chemistry with. That's what life is, that's what relationships are. Gender roles have been incredibly imbalanced in the west since the 60's at least. I could go through all the usual MRA shit and double-standard shit, but I'm sure you know about all of them. Hell, the thread right below this one is about female privilege. Personally I despise the idea of privilege regardless of who it's being labeled on, but you have to admit there are obvious imbalances. Women are celebrated for owning and using sex toys, men are mocked for it. All film and television caters exclusively to female sexuality, even super hero films all feature flat chested women with unattractive figures, but has a ton of well-built handsome men who always find some reason to be shirtless. When a man and a woman commit the exact same crime, at minimum the man will face double the sentence. We see this especially with teacher sex scandals. How many men get house arrest for fucking their middle school students? Virtually every woman convicted of it does. You have an economy, media, legal system and tax system which all cater to you, this is just part of how the pendulum is going to swing the other way.

So at it's core the scenario is simple, man of your dreams but you share him, or possible undivided attention of a guy you have no interest in. Which is it? Or you could be alone too. Or hey, let me toss in a fourth option.

You can focus on your career, and fuck guys you meet off of datings sites, routinely have one night stands, have a drawer full of vibrators, six cats, wake up one day realizing you're too old to have kids, you have no connections, you're at best going to be "the friend" and quietly cry about this before buying a three foot dildo and consoling yourself you don't need anyone and you're a strong, independent woman while all the dicks that have dumped loads in your mouth flash through your memory and you realize this is the closest you'll ever have to intimacy and hug one of the cats.

>>3914
>Let's say you told a guy "You can have a girl who's gorgeous and good in bed but a slut or a girl who's plain and has little interest in sex but a total virgin" and the guy angrily responds "Fuck off retard, your scenario is STUPID! Both options are SHIT! I should get it all! Obviously I would prefer a gorgeous girl who's a virgin and wants lots of sex but only with me!" "But the point of the scenario is th- SHUT UP, FUCK OFF, REEEEEEE"
I'd assume that neither scenario is wanted or desirable, and leave it at that. I certainly wouldn't be screeching at everyone who told me to shut up or fuck off like you are, because that's a valid answer too. Not one that I want, but it'd be pretty fucking entitled and vapid to demand only what I want from total strangers I chose to intrude on, wouldn't it?
>It's not an ideal situation, at it's basic component it's asking you would you pick a life where you have the ideal mate you want but you have to share him with other girls, or one where you're with a guy you have no interest in, but you have his undivided attention?
Neither. Both are trash-tier. I'd just find someone else because the first person mentioned wouldn't be my ideal mate, and neither would the latter. That's entirely reasonable and valid, too, why are you calling people self-absorbed for seeking their own happiness in life at no one else's expense? Because you're scared of rejection if you tried to be the first one?
>this scenario is going to become an increasing reality in the coming years
That sounds pretty unlikely, and more like something you tell yourself every night because you're convinced you deserve a harem (hint: you think you deserve this so much because you're the self-absorbed one). And even if it were true, it wouldn't affect me and other people who already have SOs who love them and don't have the desire to be with other people.
>You're going to have to settle one way or another. Settle for being alone, settle for someone who doesn't want all the same things you do, settle for someone who's attractive but completely unstable or someone stable you feel no sexual chemistry with.
Nah. I'm already with someone who's attractive, stable, shares sexual chemistry with me and is not a sack of shit. Thanks for the lecture, though. Doesn't sound like you're projecting a reductive, shitty world view and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy at all.
>[tl;dr, irrelevant block of text on female privilege and sex toys discourse, something something "always find a reason to be shirtless", "teacher sex scandal", "flat-chested women", "super hero films"]
Ok
>So at it's core the scenario is simple, man of your dreams but you share him, or possible undivided attention of a guy you have no interest in. Which is it? Or you could be alone too. Or hey, let me toss in a fourth option.
Both scenarios are piss-poor, I'd rather be alone than get cucked for the rest of my life or be with a human being I don't like at all. Luckily, this is unrealistic and like >>3913 said, just your way of rationalizing your dumb fantasy. Sorry no one's entertaining it.
>You can focus on your career, and fuck guys you meet off of datings sites, routinely have one night stands, have a drawer full of vibrators, six cats, wake up one day realizing you're too old to have kids, you have no connections, you're at best going to be "the friend" and quietly cry about this before buying a three foot dildo and consoling yourself you don't need anyone and you're a strong, independent woman while all the dicks that have dumped loads in your mouth flash through your memory and you realize this is the closest you'll ever have to intimacy and hug one of the cats.
Do you jerk off to this scenario, too? Is this the fate you imagine for every girl who refuses to be your sisterwife? Too bad life's not that simple, huh?

>>3913
>feels like you asked this question just cause you know people would choose the less shitty option (polygamy) to maybe feel better about your desires or to get validated in some way? could be wrong but that's what im interpreting.

Kind of, it's more selfish than that honestly. It's not so much justifications for it, I've obviously got a laundry list of that.

I'm trying to get a glimpse into what would make the scenario more appealing and easier to accept. If I could convince a girl to be happy in this situation. That's the thing. And I have discussed this with a lot of them. To be totally honest I generally test the waters with the girls I'm less concerned about backing out. Generally the ones with the whole "little" fetish respond most violently to the idea, others seem to be fine with the scenario as long as they would be the "top" wife or the "first" wife. I've had several ask me if I could just take them first, maybe thinking once they were here they could prevent me from getting other girls or whatever.

It's about how I can make this situation appealing and acceptable. Like, I'll give you an example. One of them is this gorgeous girl, easily a 9/10, she's in college, huge natural breasts, blonde with blue eyes, she's had a stable boyfriend since high school who wants to marry her, but he's been her only partner up until me -and yes, that she would pursue me when she has this guy who by all accounts is genuinely a catch and fits the definition of a 'chad' or whatever and has been totally faithful to her is a huge red flag, but that aside- she doesn't want all the responsibility or the future laid before her. She's tired of school and having a career. She wants to be abducted, drugged, repeatedly raped, wake up in a cage filled with semen from an unknown number of men and be kept completely for someone else's pleasure. And it took months of meeting and discussing it directly and fooling around and such before I believed she was sincere, but the point is, in that scenario obviously her happiness doesn't much matter. So much of her fantasy is a total loss of control and being made to do things she finds repulsive. Still, overall the only part of that which appeals to me is that it's filling her fantasy -though I'm not bringing in other guys to take part.

So it should be pretty easy then, right? Just get the two girls who want to have sisterwives from the outset, the four who's focus is being humiliated and kept chained and forced to unpleasant things at all times, that's six right there.

But that isn't what I want. Hot as she is physically, if the entire "relationship" was her being repulsed by her situation and always resisting and regretting her decision, I wouldn't enjoy it at all either. Play's one thing, consensual nonconsent's something I can do as a one-off in an otherwise loving relationship, but obviously I've got my hangups. Someone said earlier I "need to be adored" or some shit. Who the fuck doesn't want to be adored? Not by strangers, but I definitely want that in a relationship.

This other girl I mentioned initially just worked herself to the top of the list by being basically perfect in all regards. She has this beautiful idealized picture of what life's going to be like with me, and I posed this question because I'm going through my own choice right now, and trying to find away around it. Focus on this one very sweet, attractive girl who's never slept with anyone else and basically just wants to be a live-in housewife who could easily get bored or turn out to be crazy later and leave me feeling like I wasted all my time with her two years from now, or give up what could turn out to be the ideal relationship I'd been looking for for a more secure relationship with girls who want to be forcibly kept here as slaves and I'm sure won't leave but I don't have as much of an emotional connection to?

This isn't even "Can I convince her to accept this situation?" It's "Is there a way for her to be in this situation and HAPPY about it?" She's totally smitten with me. The idea that I'd bring her here and she'd pretend to be okay with it but secretly hurting inside or I'd find her sobbing and regretting her decision is my nightmare.

>>3916
>It's about how I can make this situation appealing and acceptable.
You can't. Just find a cuckquean girlfriend and be done with it.

>>3915
>I certainly wouldn't be screeching at everyone who told me to shut up or fuck off

Oh yeah, I'm sure you'd just love that reaction and respond well to it.

To be honest, I thought it was going to be a split response. I thought half the responses would pick the first scenario and half would pick the second (whatever personal biases I may have that make me think one response is less honest than the other.) I expected a lot of responses starting with "Both options suck, but if I had to choose…" And I expected "Obviously I'd rather share the guy I liked, but I wouldn't be happy about it" and "I guess I'd settle for stability with a guy I wasn't initially into." and from there just focus on the "sharing" responses and question them on their reasoning for why it would be better, what specifically makes it more appealing and what they would do to make themselves happier in that situation so I could then apply those responses to this girl.

It's like they say with car purchases, once you've signed the contract your every thought after that is just rationalization for why you've made a good decision. That's the thinking I'm trying to get to.

>That's entirely reasonable and valid, too, why are you calling people self-absorbed for seeking their own happiness in life at no one else's expense?

I'm saying it's self-absorbed to see two scenarios where neither is 100% perfect and assert it's a choice between being shot or stabbed to death, as if having to share an "ideal" guy or having the undivided attention of a guy you're not into are both death sentences. It's about making the best of a bad situation.

>That sounds pretty unlikely
Polygamy in my country? It's more likely than you think. Hell, maybe a second question should be "Alright ladies, you have to pick between actual patriarchy taking over your country and men getting to tell you how to dress and marry multiples of you, or having borders and walls and not flooding your country with rapefugees and not being the tolerant progressive you claimed to be."

>I'm already with someone
Oh, wonderful. So you did do what I said then, and settled down with someone now before it was too late.

Hell, better scenario. Take that awesome guy you described, it's ten years from now, polygamy's legalized and he asks you how you feel about accepting sisterwives into the relationship? Do you abandon the entire relationship and flee this supposedly awesome guy?

>Do you jerk off to this scenario, too?
Why do you want to talk about what I jerk off to?

>>3909
>antifeminist because feminism screws over men
>advocates fucking polygyny
You are trash. Polygyny in the modern age does not give men a better deal, it gives an ultraminority of men a better deal while fucking over most men and women. Under polygyny, YouTube celebrities get forty wives while a huge number of men go their whole lives without intimacy. Don't bitch about equality you manipulative, retarded motherfucker, your social vision fucks over almost everybody.

I said you're narcissistic because you literally cannot talk without blowing unnecessary paragraphs on yourself. Feeding a stray dog is something you tell people about, like setting up no kill shelters. Why the fuck would I believe you're guarded and modest in real life when you're this much of a narcissistic attention whore online? I've never seen somebody so eager to go into barely relevant, self aggrandizing blogging.

>I'm describing my personality
You have the self awareness of a flea. A huge amount of what you said had nothing whatever to do with the fetish you're seeking unnecessary validation for. Describing your personality when it's totally irrelevant is narcissistic, just like talking about your appearance when it's totally irrelevant is.

>How many fucking times did I say I'm not looking for any more girlfriends? I have casual things going on with 20, in person not online and as it is that's way too many
I don't even believe this shit. You seem like the sort of redpill autist who thinks women find sexual approval the most important thing in a man, and it really seems like you're trying to come off as a rescuer figure for mentally ill girls willing to put up with your fetish. You're obviously bitter towards women and laughably thin skinned. Even if you got all the wives in the world they would still get tired of you.

>So many of these replies are so stunningly self absorbed though
Look at all of >>3857. You are the most self absorbed person I've seen on an image board in about six years. You think I'm being defensive, but I'm completely sincere. You probably meet diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and would learn a lot about yourself if you googled it.

>>3919
Oh I see, you're doing that thing where you act ridiculously over the top hostile, and then when it's pointed out how childishly aggressive you're being and how little sense what you're saying makes you say "I was just baiting you, trying to push your buttons" aka "I was only pretending to be retarded!"

But making it even worse, you're following that incredibly autistic formula of greentexting a strawman, and then using the strawman derived straight from you ass as the basis for a childishly hostile insult.

>antifeminist because feminism screws over men
>advocates fucking polygyny
>You are trash.
I guess in the vaguest since I'm antifeminist in that it is a completely garbage ideology, but that was never the point of my message. I'm guessing you're drawing this from the BPS video's thumbnail, but I didn't exactly pick it, the video was posted because it outlines how men are paying for single mother's kids through taxes.

You follow this up by asserting some stranger on the internet you know nothing about is "trash" which suggests to me either you have autism, or your attacks are projection, because passing judgment on a stranger like that suggests you think a little too highly of yourself.

>Polygyny in the modern age does not give men a better deal, it gives an ultraminority of men a better deal while fucking over most men and women. Under polygyny, YouTube celebrities get forty wives while a huge number of men go their whole lives without intimacy.

I'm going back to the whole autism thing with this, you're describing a scenario that hasn't yet happened and your interpretation of what would happen as factual. "This is what I think would happen… therefor it's fact… and you're horrible for wanting it!" Just incredibly dumb. The scenario you describe again confirms what I said about you, your childish aggression stems from your fear of this scenario. Forty wives would be a bit beyond most. I don't just mean in terms of money either, I mean it would be impossible to spend very much time with them. Do you have any statistics on the countries actively practicing polygamy that prove your nightmare scenario is actually what would happen? You fear it, but from my perspective more competition is always good.

>you manipulative, retarded motherfucker,
Who have I manipulated, and why are you so incredibly butthurt?

>I said you're narcissistic because you literally cannot talk without blowing unnecessary paragraphs on yourself. Feeding a stray dog is something you tell people about, like setting up no kill shelters. Why the fuck would I believe you're guarded and modest in real life when you're this much of a narcissistic attention whore online?

It's sad that I have to repeat this, but I'll ask you again, how in the fuck can someone anonymously attentionwhore? You don't know my name, you don't know I look like, there's no screen name, no pictures, no personally identifying information at all. You sound bitter, frustrated and jealous but calling anon an attentionwhore just demonstrates your profound stupidity. From an outside perspective, there is no difference between us. This argument could be the same person replying to themselves. I could have made dozens of posts on other boards on this site, and you would never ever know it. You may as well go through the rest of your life in utter paranoia responding with this level of hostility to every anonymous post you ever see on any chan site. Every single fucking word in your post is utter nonsense. You say I'm a narcissist because I talk about myself? Who in the fuck am I supposed to talk about when describing personal experiences?

>Describing your personality when it's totally irrelevant is narcissistic, just like talking about your appearance when it's totally irrelevant is.
Well, to the first charge I would say when explaining your personal reasoning for an interest in a fetish explaining your personality is anything but irrelevant, and to the second I don't think I've described my appearance at all.

What this boils down to is you don't like my fetish, so you don't like me, so whatever I say or do is inherently bad because you have sever autism. I describe something you perceive as good? Oh, you're just saying that to make yourself LOOK good. I describe something I think will have a positive effect on society? WRONG! It'll ruin it! I know because I can see the future! It doesn't matter what I say, I've presented a scenario that personally offends you so you're attaching every label and insult you can think of regardless of how little sense it makes, and in the process only making yourself look profoundly butthurt. Your posts boil down to little more than kinkshaming, frankly.

>You seem like the sort of redpill autist who thinks women find sexual approval the most important thing in a man,
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The charge "You're just looking for online girlfriends!" is made, I respond "No, I'm not looking for girlfriends, especially not online." and what do you reply? "Ugh! I am incredulous! To think you would believe women want your sexual approval!" Every fucking post from you is going to be like this, you're getting more deranged as you keep this up.

>You think I'm being defensive, but I'm completely sincere.
Meaning you're definitely being defensive.

No, I have diagnosis, NPD isn't among them. Now, I could respond directly to your charge and list the shit off, oh but that would be narcissistic right? Proving you wrong would be self-absorbed. The only "right" course of action is to just forego all my plans and my fetish because some autistic dipshit who hates my fetish and is personally offended by the mere notion of my lifestyle asserts it.

Grow the fuck up.

>>3920
>I describe something I think will have a positive effect on society?
Explain how it will have a positive effect on society.

Monogamous cultures outcompeted polygynous cultures for a reason. Men under monogamy direct more attention towards child rearing, while under polygyny men neglect many of their wives and kids and invest effort into wooing and marrying more women. Also, polygyny produces a ton of men who are romantically isolated by codified legal or social restrictions, and they tend to turn to crime or destructive, high risk behavior.

You make no empirical claims but you demand empirical claims. I don't want to deal with your comment because you produce text in a multiplicative process where you double the size of everything you reply to, but I'll do some.

>I'm guessing you're drawing this from the BPS video's thumbnail, but I didn't exactly pick it, the video was posted because it outlines how men are paying for single mother's kids through taxes.
You clearly resent what you think of as female privilege.

>This is going to be a reality you're going to have to face before long, you've had it too good for too many years. You've been able to force the state to pay for your children, and men pay the majority of taxes, so essentially right now you're forcing every man in the country to pay for your kids. Polygamy simply allows certain men who can afford it to pay for the children they have with multiple wives. If all that matters in marriage is that the parties involved are consenting adults, there's no argument against polygamy.
Fuck off with this shit. You aren't explaining how polygamy makes anything better, you're inflicting it as a social system on women as punishment for them and as blatant sexual fantasy. Make actual arguments if you want to be taken seriously. When somebody does make arguments against polygamy (gender imbalance leads to social problems) you accuse them of being speculative, while you counter speculate that polygamy will make things better (for no reason other than it making women miserable).

>It's sad that I have to repeat this, but I'll ask you again, how in the fuck can someone anonymously attentionwhore?
I find this unbelievable. How new are you to chans? "I'm anonymous you dumb bitch" makes no sense when EVERYONE is anonymous. People like drawing attention to themselves, and attention whoring is doing it in a way that neglects content other people reasonably would want to see, which demonstrates unwarranted self importance. It's attention whoring to post your face all the time like anybody wants to see it, and it's attention whoring to talk about your childhood and relationship history when the thread has nothing to do with it.

When I assumed you were looking for online girlfriends, I was interpreting your self indulgent bullshit charitably. Talking about how you saved animals and you're a really sweet guy in a thread asking farmers whether they would accept polygyny is absurd. So is blatant advertising like >>3891 which suggests you're some outdated, ESL version of a Mormon. You are so pathetically invested in winning us over on this that I assumed you were using lolcow as a dating site.

>You follow this up by asserting some stranger on the internet you know nothing about is "trash" which suggests to me either you have autism, or your attacks are projection, because passing judgment on a stranger like that suggests you think a little too highly of yourself.
You are a goddamn idiot and you should have known you would be hoisted by this petard. I'm tired of reading all your shit and getting annoyed enough to reply to it. Type less you ridiculous faggot.

>>3921
>Explain how it will have a positive effect on society.

The current major issue destroying the west is children growing up without fathers. I can go through a number of statistics on how that's the single biggest indicator of a child not finishing school, committing violent crimes, drug use, and so on.

What's caused the situation with fathers? The state. It makes marriage unattractive for either party. Women feel no need to get married when they get more money directly from the government if they're unwed. Why doesn't marriage appeal to men? You can see vid related for a more comprehensive list, but women initiate 75% of divorces, and this is repeated with gay couples. Gay men are the least likely to divorce, lesbians are most likely (and there's the domestic abuse issue.) The only way to reverse this is to make marriage appeal to men again. I doubt western women will respond to pleas like "stop being sluts" "stop divorcing men" "stop emasculating your partners" and so instead the prospect of committing to a group of women would appeal to a specific set of men. If you have a better idea to make men want to marry again, by all means suggest it.

>Monogamous cultures outcompeted polygynous cultures for a reason.
Same reasons patriarchies outcompeted matriarchies? And here you were complaining competition was bad.

>You clearly resent what you think of as female privilege.
I specifically stated I don't like the idea of any privilege, I'm not blaming women and if I hated them I'd be some MGTOW faggot. You're projecting because you have no defense to any of these things. Western society is clearly imbalanced towards women. The very notion that women were capable of rape was laughed despite the statistics showing they really do it as much as men.

>you're inflicting it as a social system on women as punishment for them
It really says more about your own psychology that you see it this way, and think of it as a punishment. Since you're whining about post length, read these and get back to me:

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2001/02/i-would-never-go-back-to-being-a-monogamous-wife.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-jacobs/how-to-marry-a-second-wif_b_64142.html

>"I'm anonymous you dumb bitch" makes no sense when EVERYONE is anonymous.
…Are you kidding me? THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. There is no me here, it doesn't matter what personal stories I tell, no names are given, nothing that can be used to identify me. Like I said before, for all you know you complimented a post I made on /pt/ earlier with no idea it was me who wrote it (though you don't seem like the sort to ever have a single thing nice to say about anyone else, what with the autism and all.) You don't know a god damned thing about me. When I say "I'm anonymous" I mean it literally. It's like I said before, my fetish threatens you, and thus anything I say angers you and is negative. Some of it's projection, but mostly it's just plain autism. You don't really have anything to attack here, so everything I say is just bad. There's no "me" though, these are all anonymous posts. How is it bragging? In what way could it possibly benefit me? Is there some "farmcon" coming up and I could walk around the bevvy of female wizards going "You know that guy who said he took in strays when he was 8 and had like 20 girlfriends? Yeah, that was me." Think about how fucking ridiculous you sound suggesting this incredibly stupid shit over and over.

>you accuse them of being speculative, while you counter speculate that polygamy will make things better (for no reason other than it making women miserable).

I accuse the suggestion that "youtube celebrities will have forty wives" of being speculative, because the situation has never come up and it's so childishly specific. In ten years youtube might go the way of myspace with the way the ad situation is going.

As for the "making women miserable" well we know what's been documented as having that effect, feminism and sexual liberation. Every single year since it started women have reported lower and lower happiness. The current system doesn't work. And while I certainly don't want to end up like Saudi Arabia, I'd go out on a limb and suggest rates of happiness among women are likely higher in many of those countries where it's legal than in western ones.

>It's attention whoring to post your face all the time like anybody wants to see it,
Which I haven't done, so you're again talking out of your ass.

>and it's attention whoring to talk about your childhood and relationship history when the thread has nothing to do with it.
You're saying this about a thread I created. Are you seriously presuming to assume what the thread I made is about? Of course my involvement in the fucking fetish is relevant. I didn't go into my education or employment history, I didn't tell you random stories of my childhood, every bit of information given related directly to the lifestyle and fetish this thread was created about. If someone created thread about domestic abuse would you call them a narcissist for then opening up about their experiences with it? Every time I think you've made the least possible sense you say something dumber.

>So is blatant advertising like >>3891 which suggests you're some outdated, ESL version of a Mormon.
I'm agnostic, that post was clearly a joke. Yes, it's meant to suggest some positive benefits of it for women, but the last line was intentionally silly and directly referring to the beliefs outlined in the show embedded in the post.

>You are so pathetically invested in winning us over on this that I assumed you were using lolcow as a dating site.
I'm guessing you're all so defensive about this because this is a regular occurrence on this site. In general, girls on chan sites aren't appealing as dating prospects for the same reason guys on them aren't. Autism, poor social skills, obesity, terrible hygiene, loose hypocritical morals. I could go into my specific experience years ago dating a girl I met on /b/, but as it's about me you would just assert it was narcissistic to give you any information that proved you wrong, and I'm sure half the information in it would just be used to mock me, because you're just aimlessly attacking every word I post. It's pathetic.

>You are a goddamn idiot and you should have known you would be hoisted by this petard.
You're just a very insecure, easily threatened, closed-minded, hateful cunt with severe issues with men. You interpret anything that would bring men joy as harmful to women.

This thread is exactly why men should be killed. We don't need them, they're retarded and not worth dealing with, and they're dangerous in their delusions.

>>3923
B..but where will babies come from then?

>>3923
Valeria Solanas on a chan site? Well, I guess with StaminaRose gone, this would be her next likely stop.

>>3924
Cloning, like that all female species of ant that's highly efficient but can be easily wiped out by virtually anything because anything that will kill one ant in the nest will kill every single other one due to the lack of genetic diversity.

Incidentally, I get it now. I hadn't posted here in a while, but it should have been obvious. If I was posting on /cow/, the go-to insult would be autism. If I was posting on /pol/, the go-to insult would be jew. On every board it's a combination of projection and the qualities of whoever's most frequently mocked there. This is a site filled primarily with female posters that particularly focuses on cosplayers and the likes of Onision, of course narcissist would be your go-to insult.

And believe me, I'd want it to be legal both ways. That would speed things up nicely. One man with ten wives, one woman with ten husbands, the man can have ten kids at a time, but the woman can still only have one at a time. It's a situation that fixes itself, the few men who would take part in the latter situation are willingly removing themselves from the gene pool while the former proliferates and spreads it's dna and values.

I told you this is what an influx of muslims will bring. I asked you to suggest another way to make marriage appeal to men. You know this is where society is heading, and you only have yourselves to blame if it bothers you so much.

>>3908
Okay, so in your argument, women are attracted to all sorts of men, right? SO, why would any woman choose to be in a polygamist relationship, something that's still exceedingly rare in countries where it's legal (bar ones where women are heavily oppressed and have next to no say in the matter, and even then), rather than just staying single and waiting until she finds another monogamous person she's interested in?

>But let's get at what the real issue here is, you're the female version of a wizard, aren't you?

Haha, yeah, you totally caught me out there, that must be why I think you're retarded.

>You're the one that decided to get aggressive and demand the thread end because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

I mean, I just told you to fuck off because you were posted retarded robot tier shit, something that isn't welcome here.

I never said anything about the thread at all really.

>Like I said, in those countries where polygamist marriage isn't legal the relationship can't legally go anywhere.

Who gets in a relationship for it to legally go somewhere? You can still get married via a ceremony, you just can't sign the paperwork.

No-one goes into a relationship looking forward to some changes in their tax and signing a sheet of paper down at your local births deaths and marriages office.

>Their relationship is taboo, frowned upon, illegal, yet these four women choose to share one guy despite the hardships. Why is that? It's not religion in their case

Because they're polygamists? I've never denied it existed, I've said that it's a massive minority. The fact there's a series about them honestly just supports me.

>Highlight somewhere, ANYWHERE I said "Women only go for top men". The entire point of the thought exercise depends on that not being the case. This is how far up your own ass your head is. THINK.


Did you consider that your "thought exercise" just completely falls apart without that claim, because women will just choose the third options of not being in either relationship and waiting until they meet a monogamous person who they want to be with?

Try taking a deep breath, maybe walk away from your computer a bit, and think about how dumb this whole idea is, because it's reliant on either "You will literally die if you don't choose", which is obviously not going to be the case in real life, or relies on the idea that women only find those top tier men attractive, which is why they have their harems, and the other men are incapable of finding that.

Without either of those factors, your idea just makes no sense, because no-one will stick with it.

>I've seen fairly compelling science to the contrary, that as a species the entire chemical reaction of love is only supposed to last for a couple years, which is why there's so much infidelity and generally speaking most don't end up marrying their first partner.

I mean, ignoring that that science is anything but compelling because it ignores the hugely complex nature of human relationships and tries to boil them down to simple production of a hormone, you get that monogamy doesn't mean you're with someone forever, right? It means you bond with one person at a time, you're only in a relationship with one person at once.

>Why should I stick to one woman if you can't be faithful to one man? Why should I settle when you seem to think you should get to experience a wide variety of dicks before settling down after you've "had your fun"?

Yeah dude, you're totally not a robot.

Go see a therapist about the fact you can't get over your ex, don't take it out on strangers online.

>>3916
>Like, I'll give you an example. One of them is this gorgeous girl, easily a 9/10, she's in college, huge natural breasts, blonde with blue eyes, she's had a stable boyfriend since high school who wants to marry her, but he's been her only partner up until me -and yes, that she would pursue me when she has this guy who by all accounts is genuinely a catch and fits the definition of a 'chad' or whatever and has been totally faithful to her is a huge red flag,
>And it took months of meeting and discussing it directly and fooling around and such before I believed she was sincere, but the point is, in that scenario obviously her happiness doesn't much matter.

Do you honestly think that anyone believes this shit?


I love how you say you're not a narcissist in one post, and then in the next need to boast about how attractive this woman who's leaving her perfect boyfriend to chase after you is.

It's honestly even sadder than a lot of the shit I've seen Onision do, because you're just pretending to do it online.

>>3926
>why would any woman choose to be in a polygamist relationship

Well, as we've established plenty of them choose to, and it's gaining in popularity. I asked you why they chose it, you didn't have a response.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/polygamy-is-more-popular-than-ever

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/support-for-polygamy-is-rising-but-its-not-the-new-gay-marriage/?utm_term=.8fbc79176b6f

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201210/the-three-reasons-polygamy

Like I said, where there is even a slight male scarcity, polygamy flourishes. I gave you the example of Dongguan, that's from an 11% drop in male population, because the reality is you can keep waiting for that "perfect man" who measures up to your standards, will forgive your numerous faults, let you control every aspect of his life, control the home and finances and risk you walking out on him with all his money, but that guy has no reason at all to wait for you. Like I keep telling you. Why would he pick you when he can find someone better who will accept sharing him? This is going to leave you with two options, being miserable with a low status guy who may still seek another wife or leave you, or being miserable with a high status guy who commits to others along with you. All the factors women have put in place over the last 60 or so years have come back to haunt you. Shit like mgtow, realdolls, all that "waifu" retardation. It's a natural course-correction, the majority of those guys really didn't have anything to contribute to the gene pool anyway, but this is how humans respond to a gender imbalance.

>that must be why I think you're retarded.
It's how any troglodyte responds to an idea that you don't like and feel threatened by. I may as well be walking by a cave with the first stick lit on fire. Your response is much the same.

>you were posted retarded robot tier shit
If it's so retarded how come so far you haven't been able to provide anything resembling a counter argument and instead fly into an autistic rage and rely entirely on empty insults? You can say "science is retarded and books are for faggots" but that doesn't make it so. Your words are as empty as your life.

>Who gets in a relationship for it to legally go somewhere?
Most women, anyone thinking long-term, anyone looking for a commitment. Most want public acceptance and validation. My mother has this friend, she's always complaining about her daughter. I haven't met her, but I think she's late 20's early 30's. She's been seeing this guy on and off for years, demands he commit to marry her. He finally relents, but he just wants to go to a court house, get it done quickly and quietly. "No!" she says "I want to get married in the church! Are you ashamed of me or something? I'm not worth spending the money?" IIRC, his family not liking her is part of his reasoning, but she wouldn't relent, so he left her. It's like with gay marriage, civil unions afford the same rights and protections, so why quibble over the title? Because it was never about the marriage itself, it's about forcing society to accept you. People want to be able to live out in the open.

>Because they're polygamists? I've never denied it existed, I've said that it's a massive minority. The fact there's a series about them honestly just supports me.
I ask you why they're polygamists and you answer because they're polygamists…? I'm asking WHY, why these women and countless others choose to share their husbands. There's numerous other shows and websites and such. There's the Quiverfull movement as well, I actually think polygamy's more merciful than that, better for the kids as well.

And anyway, would you apply the same "appeal to popularity" to homosexuals? Do you frown as much on them because they're only 3% of the population? Are you one of those cunts who says gay men are misogynists because they won't fuck women? It's a simple question, instead of feigning outrage I'm hoping for a simple "no".

>women will just choose the third options of not being in either relationship and waiting until they meet a monogamous person who they want to be with?
As I outlined, who are they going to do that with? I spelled this out for you, marriage has become increasingly important to women, but much less important to men. You've given it away for so long there's no reason for men to commit, the last sixty years have made nothing about it appealing. Like or not, this is what's coming. This is your future. You're going to have to either settle for a low status man you feel nothing for, or a high status man you have to share. Because as I keep telling you, this wonderful man of your dreams you're waiting for, why would he settle for just you if he's so wonderful? The autism alone takes you out of the running even for most polygamous households honestly.

>no-one will stick with it.
And yet they are. I've asked you again and again and again. Why would any guy settle for just you? Why are those women CHOOSING polygamy? Why is it increasing in popularity? How else are you going to make marriage appealing to men again? You're not really arguing any of these points, you're just childishly coming back and calling it stupid and impossible despite it currently happening.

>It means you bond with one person at a time, you're only in a relationship with one person at once.
That's not monogamy, and that you believe it is is part of why you're single. If you're with a guy and he fucks you, then he goes on a trip far away from you and fucks someone while there is that monogamy? He's only with one at a time. Seems like if your definition was accurate a lot of infidelity wouldn't be infidelity. This is why so many men are opting out of marriage.

>>3927
>It means you bond with one person at a time, you're only in a relationship with one person at once.
I don't care whether or not you believe it. At this point every time you reply I just picture the gif of trigglypuff rocking in her seat. You've made your opinion completely worthless here.

>I love how you say you're not a narcissist in one post, and then in the next need to boast about how attractive this woman who's leaving her perfect boyfriend to chase after you is.
This is what I'm talking about. Do you think I'd even be considering it if the girls weren't attractive? You expect me to claim I want a bunch of fat ugly slobs draining my resources? This is the beauty of your specific style of attack. If I prove what she looks like, I'm a narcissist, if I don't prove it I'm a liar. I specifically stated that her desire to have me do that to her is a huge red flag, I didn't say one positive thing about myself, it's just luck and timing and terrible competition mostly. I honestly believe if as opposed to what I am, if I was instead in my late 40's with a potbelly and a thick grey mustache from a third-world country with a group of like-minded similar men I'd probably be even more appealing to her because what she wants is to be humiliated and degraded.

The entire point of that story was that this other girl who adores me appeals to me far more. That it would be exceedingly easy for me to grab like six of the girls who match that description, and never give a thought to whether they're actually enjoying the situation they've put themselves in. There's a girl in Texas who wants to be kept in line through physical beatings, there's another in Nevada into petplay who wants to be a pig and made to eat shit and garbage and constantly insulted and degraded. That last girl actually doesn't even make the list for me, physically she's very attractive, at least right now. I think the whole feeder thing is part of her fetish.So if I just wanted a group of gorgeous but miserable live-in slaves, I could have that, I'd not have made this thread. But the whole point is that the ones I want, their happiness matters to me.

>>3928
>But the whole point is that the ones I want, their happiness matters to me.
They won't be happy. Only a pathetic waste of life would want to be part of a sisterwife harem. Reread >>3917. Find a cuckquean and stop posting here.

>>3929
>Only a pathetic waste of life would want to be part of a sisterwife harem.
I thought I was supposed to be the one with issues with women? You're passing judgment on an awful lot of women. Women clearly far more capable of commitment and self-sacrifice than you.

>>3930
That's a nice ad hominem, but take the advice and stop bothering us with your gross kinks. Thanks.

>>3932
You just called anyone with a lifestyle you don't like "a pathetic waste of life" and you're accusing someone else of ad hominems…?

>>3933
yup

>>3922
I'm just not going to read most of that shit. You didn't respond to what I said about polygyny, you said modern monogamy is failing. I agree that the decline of marriage and increasing fatherlessness is a social problem, but adopting polygyny will introduce new problems which dwarf the current ones. Violent crime will spike when over half of men are doomed to loneliness, and children will have fathers who divide their attention among their many wives, children, and other women outside the marriage.

There are a lot of ways to deal with the current marriage crisis. Remove state involvement from marriage and child support, take legal measures to financially discourage divorce, even use state arranged marriage to tie 18 year olds at the hip. Any of that would be better than polygyny. Better yet, address the financial and job related problems that lead to so many divorces.

I'm just not going to click on this thread again, it's exhausting. You're the best argument for the character limit on replies I've ever seen.

>>3942
Anyways, I don't believe polygyny would seriously lower the divorce rate. A lot of women divorce because they feel emotionally starved, that won't change when they're competing within their househould for male attention.

>>3928
>Well, as we've established plenty of them choose to, and it's gaining in popularity.

But as has been established for fucking ages, barely any actually do, and a dailybeast and psychologytoday article don't change that, they're shitty tabloids that just write articles on whatever to get clicks.

I'm not going to reply to the other part of your text again, I've addressed it myself a bunch of times, and others have too. If you still don't understand, that's your problem.

>If it's so retarded how come so far you haven't been able to provide anything resembling a counter argument

Except for all the arguments that have been provided, about how your stance makes no sense because people could already be doing that and just choose not to? Or how the perfect guy who's also a polygamist clearly isn't the perfect guy, or even compatible with most women?

>Most women, anyone thinking long-term, anyone looking for a commitment

Commitment and signing a bit of paper are not the same things at all, are you kidding me? That's exactly why I said that people can still get married, they can still have the ceremony, they just can't sign the form.

Some anecdote you post about your mothers friends daughter doesn't really mean anything.

>I ask you why they're polygamists and you answer because they're polygamists…? I'm asking WHY, why these women and countless others choose to share their husbands.

You're asking for me to give answers as to why their sexual preference is the way it is? I have no idea, I don't know those women at all, and our understanding of human sexuality really isn't in depth enough to be able to answer that. Why are gay people gay? Why are monogamous people monogamous?

Also, your question wasn't why are they polygamists, it was
>Their relationship is taboo, frowned upon, illegal, yet these four women choose to share one guy despite the hardships. Why is that? It's not religion in their case

They're happy to share the guy because they're polygamists.

>And anyway, would you apply the same "appeal to popularity" to homosexuals? Do you frown as much on them because they're only 3% of the population? Are you one of those cunts who says gay men are misogynists because they won't fuck women? It's a simple question, instead of feigning outrage I'm hoping for a simple "no".

I don't frown on polygamists at all, if it makes them happy good for them. I frown on retards coming onto online imageboards to seek attention by making up stories.

>As I outlined, who are they going to do that with?

Maybe the billions of guys that aren't polygamists?

>marriage has become increasingly important to women, but much less important to men. You've given it away for so long there's no reason for men to commit, the last sixty years have made nothing about it appealing.

Nice projection dude. Marriage is less important to people overall, not just men.

>Because as I keep telling you, this wonderful man of your dreams you're waiting for, why would he settle for just you if he's so wonderful?

Because I'd assume the guy had feelings for me too, and was monogamous?

Do you think that polygamy is something that all men secretly want but are just hiding away from society or something? You get that makes no sense, right? Like, they could just go out and get two girlfriends? No-one's stopping them from trying today, it's just that most people aren't interested in doing that, and are happy with one person.

>Why is it increasing in popularity?

Can you read? The one article that was at all reliable you posted said that support for it was increasing, not that more people are doing it.

The dailybeast is a joke of a site, and the psychtoday article was just an opinion piece to get clicks, half of its citations were to other opinion pieces, and the other two only really talked about what polygamy is like in other countries.

>That's not monogamy

I mean, it's literally the dictionary definition of it mate, you can't just redefine words to mean completely different things and then argue that because the new definition doesn't fit people, that people aren't monogamous.

Quoted from merriam webster
>the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time


And as for your other example, no, it's not monogamy, because he's agreed to be in an exclusive relationship with one person, and then cheated.

It's not really polygamy either, but he's no longer in a monogamous relationship.

>I don't care whether or not you believe it.

You get that no-one believes you at all, right? Your stories are so obviously fabricated it's funny.

>If I prove what she looks like, I'm a narcissist, if I don't prove it I'm a liar.

Nah, you're a narcissist for posting about how totally hot she is and how great her boyfriend is and how she's choosing you anyway.

It's an attempt to put yourself as the figure of desire from this apparently super attractive woman, and most of your posts have just been trying to talk yourself up somehow, while getting insanely angry at anyone who insults you.

>That it would be exceedingly easy for me to grab like six of the girls who match that description

>I'm not a narcissist, but it would be so easy for me to go and get a half dozen super attractive women

Do you seriously not see the irony here? You say you're not a narcissist, and then not five lines later you're boasting about how you could totally go out and get heaps of gorgeous women, but just choose not to.

It's the same with the feeding stray dogs shit above. None of us give a shit, you clearly just brought that up to try to paint yourself more positively, despite it being completely irrelevant to the thread.

Your whole first post was irrelevant to your question, and was just clearly you seeking attention. If you just wanted answers, you would have just asked the question.



You're seriously pretty sad my dude.

As I said, go see a therapist to help you get over your ex, because making up stories online to boost your ego sure as fuck won't do it.

>>3930
>You're passing judgment on an awful lot of women.
>on an awful lot of women.
>an awful lot

Why are you wasting your time arguing with us silly monogamists when you could be building your harem with all those polygamous women out there?

>>3940
So to sum up your posts: Autism.

>>3942
>I'm just not going to read most of that shit.
Replying to things you didn't read? Why, that's definitely not something a retarded person does.

>You didn't respond to what I said about polygyny, you said modern monogamy is failing.
I did respond, I outlined a number of reasons the current system is failing. You didn't provide an actual counter argument based on evidence, just moral panic. "What you want will destroy civilization!" You're making the "sail off the edge of the world" argument.

>adopting polygyny will introduce new problems which dwarf the current ones.
Prove it.

>over half of men are doomed to loneliness
See, here's one of many places you prove you're talking out of your ass. The 80/20 rule I'm talking about has nothing to do with dating sites (I was kind of baffled that was even brought up since it's no where among the cited sources of the OP video.) In our current system, 80% of women reproduce but only 20% of men do. So this nightmare scenario you're describing HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, FUCKWIT. What polygamy would change is that instead of a guy having one wife and three mistresses he'd have four wives. The mistresses would grow up with a father and those "poor lonely men" you describe wouldn't have to pay for her kids. The only group pressure would be applied to is women, and you know it. It would make life dramatically better for men. Now, if you wanna present some facts by all means, but you don't have any so you'll just waddle back repeat "retard" and pretend you're not just saying "NUH-UH STUPID" and pretending it's an argument.

>even use state arranged marriage to tie 18 year olds at the hip.
Are you seriously suggesting forcing people to marry partners they don't want to is better than giving consenting adults the choice to marry multiple partners? Good god, you're fucked in the head.

At first, you were like…
>I'm just not going to click on this thread again
But… then…
>>3943
>Anyways, I don't believe polygyny would seriously lower the divorce rate.
Oh, well that settles it then. Your opinions are a perfect fill-in for facts afterall.

>A lot of women divorce because they feel emotionally starved
The primary motivation seems to generally be money, honestly. Women see endless benefits from divorce and little downside. What a perfect way to get back at her guy than take away his kids and all his shit. If however there is another wife to consider the power shifts dramatically. Now if she claims he was abusive, it's not his word against hers, it's either his word against hers and hers or his word and her word against hers. When the judge is considering distributing the assets, he'll have to consider how the wives still in the marriage will be effected, since the courts clearly care little about the husband's well-being.

>clip is Hulk Hogan and his kids sailing passed his own damn house, which his wife took from him in the divorce and he can't go near, even to see his own dogs.

>>3951
>hurr ur autistic
Okay, but you received valid advice. Leave us alone and go find your cuck harem.

>>3944
>But as has been established for fucking ages, barely any actually do
In some of the countries where it's legal, as many as 55% of the women are in polygamous relationships. Obviously not all men could afford the situation, and it will only be embraced in societies where a chunk of the male population is checking out entirely from relationships, which is currently happening in the west. I guarantee you the rise in acceptance and popularity of polygamy is linked to groups like MGTOW and the decline of interest in marriage among men.

>dailybeast and psychologytoday article don't change that, they're shitty tabloids that just write articles on whatever to get clicks.
Another logical fallacy, attacking the source rather than the claim. If you scroll through the thread, huffingtonpost and washingtonpost are also linked saying the exact same thing.

>I'm not going to reply to the other part of your text again
Meaning you have no counter argument. I'm right. You're wrong.

>your stance makes no sense
Notanargument.jpg

>people could already be doing that and just choose not to?
Are you retarded or willfully being dishonest here? Many claimed they remained in the closet because gay marriage was illegal. I've outlined how the law is not allowing men and women to explore this option for fear of jail time and the destruction of their family. I've asked you directly why these women choose to do it when they risk jail time for taking part if as you claim it appeals to no women.

>I have no idea,
You admit it, right here you're defeated. These women choosing to be in polygamist relationships even though it's illegal directly proves every single word you've said wrong.

>people can still get married, they can still have the ceremony, they just can't sign the form.

Right, "Not married… butt-buddies." "You're totally married, you just have no legal rights, have to live in secret and the state won't acknowledge your love as being the same as everyone else's." Keep talking straight out of your ass.

>Some anecdote you post about your mothers friends daughter doesn't really mean anything.
It was an example, if "they still can" is good enough, then are you saying she's unreasonable to demand a church wedding instead of a courthouse one? I mean, unless what you're saying is retarded, she shouldn't care, right? Apply your argument to these circumstances, that's the point.

>They're happy to share the guy because they're polygamists.
But WHY are they polygamists despite it being illegal? Why are they choosing to do something you claimed no woman would want? Why can't you just stop being a big blubbering baby and admit their existence indisputably proves you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about?

>if it makes them happy good for them.
Then you support it's legalization and are merely kinkshaming me personally.

>I frown on retards coming onto online imageboards to seek attention by making up stories.
Which like your "you'd be an attentionwhore if you posted a bunch of selfies!" claim, I haven't done. So again what you're saying doesn't apply to this thread.

>Maybe the billions of guys that aren't polygamists?
Would it be billions if they could legally be polygamists? Which guys are going to be polygamists? The more financially stable ones, the more family-oriented ones, the more commitment minded ones. That's what you don't get that's so hilarious about this situation. Me dating 20 girls? Morally fine. Me wanting to commit to them? OUTRAGEOUS! HOW DARE YOU! Grow up.

>Nice projection dude.
No, not projection you remarkably, insanely ignorant cunt. I am so utterly sick of your total and utter intellectual emptiness. In the most recent studies, marriage has become 37% more important to women and 29% less important to men. It's not "less important overall" it's specifically to men you complete and utter retard. You keep speaking from a place of complete and utter ignorance and then pronouncing specific things you're completely wrong about and clearly haven't researched at all as fact. Stop it. Research your opinions and present facts, or shut your stupid mouth the fuck up.

>Can you read?
Listen, I don't know how to speak stupid bitch so let me spell this out for you slowly. You don't get to dismiss sources off hand, if you can specifically refute them by all means, but if all can say is "they're unrealiable clickbait" you're not refuting any of the actual content in the articles themselves. Handwaving is not reutation, retard. It's sad I have to spell this out for you but you seem to be deteriorating with every reply.

Hahahahahaha,
>you can't just redefine words to mean completely
Hahahahaha,
>the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time
Hahahaha…
>no, it's not monogamy, because he's agreed to be in an exclusive relationship with one person, and then cheated.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

According to you, all that's required by the definition is that he only have "a single mate during a period of time" he was never with two partners, in each proposed sexual encounter he had only one mate and wasn't with the other. Funny how you think you can add clarifications not in the definition text, but I can't you hypocritical increasingly idiotic cunt.

>>3944
>You get that no-one believes you at all, right? Your stories are so obviously fabricated it's funny.
You want proof? Say please, you have to specifically ask for it. I'm not hearing another round of you asserting I'm a narcissist for presenting any personal information at all, retard. Also, again, you speak only for yourself. Claiming to speak for an imagine group to try to strengthen your position is ironically quite narcissistic. There is no collective here cunt, and your desperate appeal to popularity pleas just show how utterly weak you know your position is and how completely frustrated you are you've been decimated in this discussion again and again

>Nah, you're a narcissist for posting about how totally hot she is and how great her boyfriend is and how she's choosing you anyway.

How many times must you prove you can't read? Not everyone on this board is as stupid as this flailing cunt right here, right? This is just one isolated person completely devoid of any ability to form a coherent thought or logically reason things out, right?

Let me give you an analogy -which in itself you'll say is narcissistic despite that being the entire point of the example because you're autistic, and that's your go-to accusation and it doesn't matter to you how little sense it makes when you say it.

Michael Phelps: "I've won tons of gold medals and I'm one of the most widely celebrated swimmers in history."
>WOW, WHAT A FUCKING NARCISSIST, OMFG, HOW DARE YOU. YOU REALLY THINK ANYONE BELIEVES YOUR SHIT RETARD? OMG FUCK YOU, HOW DARE YOU MENTION ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF OR ANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS! HAVING ANYTHING TO TAKE PRIDE IN IS NARCISSISTIC! I'M TOTALLY NOT A JEALOUS LOSER SCREECHING OUT OF MY ASS!

"It ain't bragging if it's true."

Besides, you're intentionally ignoring two key components of the story to make this idiotic claim:

-I point this out as a red flag, and say she'd probably be even more into me if I was a group of older men or something.
-The entire point is that this other girl is far more desirable to me because she's into me on a personal, emotional level.

If anything it's to build up her importance here. The point is that if the physical was all that mattered to me I could just take the hot girls who want to be forced to do things they don't want to and not give a shit.

>You say you're not a narcissist, and then not five lines later you're boasting about how you could totally go out and get heaps of gorgeous women, but just choose not to.

Oh, oh oh- OH I SEE. I get it now. I was overestimating you all this time. You're a completely autistic loser with no social experience? You never leave the house, do you? I was seriously scratching my head until I got to this and realized "This stupid autistic cunt thinks this is hard."

Go read up on Dan Billzarean or Patrice O'Neal or something. Plenty of guys are capable of this for one reason or another. My bad, I just didn't realize how much of a total loser you were. Most guys could have this if they know where to look, aren't overtly hideous and have some basic social skills, financial success or talent. There are certainly enough women out there for it.

Here's the real irony though, all your attacks are pure projection. Telling the creator of a thread what is and isn't relevant to their thread? Incredibly narcissistic. Claiming to speak for every other person on an anonymous website? Hugely narcissistic. You are a massive autistic narcissist.

>>3952
>>3949
As I previously stated, I already fucking have them.

You know, if you really want proof, I actually had a pretty similar conversation to this in a thread on another site a few months, and they too demanded proof of what I was saying, and I actually ended up taking a bunch of screenshots from different conversations with the names covered over and pictures with the upper halves of their faces covered, so I could dump plenty of proof. Shut the doubters up last time.

Of course, I figure given this site's specific community it's just going to switch to insulting my girls afterwards, picking at their various body types. Which I won't much like, but they're all gorgeous to me in their own ways. Not a one of them is stupid, either.

You'll just have to say please.

>>3955
>I already fucking have them
Okay. Then just leave. No one cares about your screenshots,quit attention whoring.

>>3956
>Then just leave.
No. Take your own advice, ignore the thread if it triggers you so much. You lost the argument, all you can do is sage and demand I leave now.

No one is forcing you to read the thread, retard.

>>3957
You're the only one who's triggered, though.

>>3960
I'm saging to avoid bumping your thread.

>>3962
Okay, fair enough.

>>3960
We sage to not bump this fucking thread, idiot.

What are you trying to accomplish here? If your only intent was to get our opinions on polygamy, I think you understand that we don't agree with it.

If you're trying to convince women that polygamy is a good idea, you certainly haven't succeeded.

Now fuck off.

>>3964
I enjoy arguing, the more hostile you get, the more stupid claims you make I can easily dismantle, the more I'll reply.

Easiest way for you to get me to go away would be to treat me like a decent human being, talk like you're a mature adult, admit when you're wrong and generally be pleasant and friendly.

>What are you trying to accomplish here?
Initially, I wanted to talk to the girls who would admit to accepting a polygamous relationship and find out what would make the situation pleasant for them. Like I said earlier, it was phrased as a question because then you're in the mindset that you've come to the conclusion yourself, and when you start from that point every decision after is justifying that initial decision. I would then take the information gained and see if I could apply it to my situation in any way and use it to make a stronger or more appealing case to the girls I haven't yet cleared it with.

Then a few of you got hostile, and my intent went more towards explaining polygamy, dismantling their claims both about me and the fetish, and pissing them off while making them look stupid for trying failing to do the same to me.

>If you're trying to convince women that polygamy is a good idea, you certainly haven't succeeded.
Keep playing to those stereotypes that women act on emotion rather than logic or reason. I don't care whether or not you personally think it's a good idea, the facts have thoroughly cockslapped you through this thread. That's why you don't even want to discuss them anymore, you're thoroughly and utterly owned in that discussion. Now all you can do is sage and screech "LEAVE.

To which I will repeatedly answer, no. Because just like in real life, you have no power here. You have no control. If the thread offends you go to another one. You don't speak for everyone on the board, you speak for yourself. And you've already done so thoroughly, so why are you still here? Want to disagree with me? Do so. I'm fine arguing about this. Want the thread gone because it offends your beliefs but you can't counter it in any way? Bawww, too bad. Go to another thread. That's it. That's your only option. Argue with me, discuss the topic with me like an adult, or go find another thread that more greatly interests you. Repeating "LEAVE!!!!" like a four year old is just going to get you more "No" responses.

>>3856
Gurg..?
Not one person has agreed with you since this thread was created. Why don't you focus on your 20 2D ~girlfriends~ instead of going on a narc rampage here.

>>3967
>Not one person has agreed with you since this thread was created.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Also inaccurate:

>>3913
>feels like you asked this question just cause you know people would choose the less shitty option (polygamy) to maybe feel better about your desires or to get validated in some way? could be wrong but that's what im interpreting.

>>3965
Oh boy that was embarrassing to read.

Also leave.

>>3969
Can you in any way make me?

>>3965
Leave

>>3965
Would be great if you'd leave

>>3965
Leave.

>>3975
So, what does it say about them that for years after the fact they're still trying to get me to take them back?

>>3968 im >>3913 and i absolutely did not agree with you, just so you know. my comment proceeded to list reasons why i disagree. i didnt plan on commenting further (but continued reading bc this is entertain) but felt the need to clarify considering you wildly misinterpreted me.

>>3977
entertaining* my bad

>>3856
This might just be the most /sty/ thread to ever exist, a total shit show from the very start

>>3965
>>3976
>>3974
>>3970
>>3968
>>3963
>>3960
>>3957
>>3955
>>3954
>>3953
>>3951
>>3933
>>3930
>>3928
>>3925
>>3922
>>3920
>>3918
>>3916
>>3914
>>3911
>>3909
>>3908
>>3902
>>3900
>>3896
>>3892
>>3891
>>3884
>>3874
>>3872
>>3863
>>3857
>>3856
(you)

>>3976
Oh yes, I'm sure that they have been waiting soley on you on hands and knees for years and none of them has had any form of sexual contact with any other males because they are apparently so into you..

>>3981
>>3982
I didn't suggest they were, I asked why they'd keep trying to get back together years after the fact.

You hate this thread because you find it personally threatening, but it's a reality you've created.

>>3983
> You hate this thread because you find it personally threatening, but it's a reality you've created.

That is some next level projecting boyo

>>3984
Explain why you're saging and dislike this thread without the use of personal insults.

>>3983
>>3986
>>3965
>>3976
>>3974
>>3970
>>3968
>>3963
>>3960
>>3957
>>3955
>>3954
>>3953
>>3951
>>3933
>>3930
>>3928
>>3925
>>3922
>>3920
>>3918
>>3916
>>3914
>>3911
>>3909
>>3908
>>3902
>>3900
>>3896
>>3892
>>3891
>>3884
>>3874
>>3872
>>3863
>>3857
>>3856
(you)

>>3987
>You're basically like a spare tire, they just want to string you along just in case. You did say you stuck with them until the two year mark or so right?
You misunderstood. As soon as they cheat the relationship is over. Usually contact ends right then and there, but they'll keep following me for years after the fact. Calling once in a while to see if I want to get back together. I deleted my OKCupid profile some years back because a few of them were using it to monitor when I became single. Like clockwork the second my status said single, they'd all start sending me messages asking how I was doing.

>>3856
Why are you still here? You asked for brutally honest responses to a (stupid) scenario, and clearly didn't like the responses you got. Even changing the scenario to 'option 1, or 2, or if you don't pick you get gangraped' and still nobody here has given the answer you are SO fucking desperate to hear.

You've got your many beautiful, submissive, dick-hungry women to deal with, should you really be wasting your precious time arguing with anons online? Pretty suspicious…

>>3992
>Why are you still here?
Better question, why are you posting in this thread? Isn't that kind of retarded? Just obsessively posting in a thread you don't like and demanding it's creator leave instead of scrolling down to another you find more enjoyable?

And I already answered silly, can't you read? >>3965

>>3991
I've had girls cheat on me and it's horrible what it can do to your self-esteem and mental well being. You seem to not have had much alone time in between your relationships and maybe it'll be an okay idea to just fool around until you find someone that fits whatever standard it is you're looking for. Why bother being with anyone who you aren't completely attracted to to the point that you have to see other people to fill that in? Anyways, I hope you find someone who will be genuine in their feelings for you and hopefully in time you can forget about all the bad things that happened with your past relationships.

>>3994
>Just obsessively posting
errr, I'm a different anon to whoever you think I am? Anyway, the only person who thinks you're coming across smart, calm or mature is you. Like the smell of your own farts? Not one other person in this thread has respected anything you've said, because you're a joke.

I like scrawny nerds shorter than me with qt feminine faces

I don't think there's such a big demand for such guys that I'd need to share one with 4 other women

>>3997
Would you take the opportunity to have multiple scrawny nerds for marriage if possible?

>>3998
Yes, actually
If I could I'd date all of my beta orbiters at once.

I didn't realize what a steaming pile of shit this thread was until after I posted that, though. I thought it'd be your usual robot "AWALT" bullshit but it's actually about onision?

>>3999
An onision wannabe

And I like the fantasy of multiple husbands but I lack the energy to maintain even one relationship steadily, multiple would be a total shit show :|

>>3953
>In some of the countries where it's legal, as many as 55% of the women are in polygamous relationships.

And tell me, what status do these women have? Are they able to actually choose the same way we can in the west?

>Another logical fallacy, attacking the source rather than the claim.

Calling out a source for being unreliable is not a fallacy, are you retarded?

>Meaning you have no counter argument

I pretty clearly said "again".

>I've outlined how the law is not allowing men and women to explore this option for fear of jail time

In what western country is having two partners illegal?

>These women choosing to be in polygamist relationships even though it's illegal directly proves every single word you've said wrong.


I'm convinced you're literally delusional at this point. You get I could use your logic to claim that all people are gay, right? Or into hardcore BDSM?

Just because a subset of people are interested in those things doesn't mean that the majority are.

>"You're totally married, you just have no legal rights, have to live in secret and the state won't acknowledge your love as being the same as everyone else's."

First thing, no, you don't have to live in secret, the fact that the relationship you linked has such publicity is proof of that, and secondly, if you think love is only valid when recognised by the state, then I have no idea what to say.

>Apply your argument to these circumstances, that's the point.

I really see no reason to. Even if your anecdote is true, one person wanting something isn't proof that everyone does.

That's kind of the whole point I'm making here actually.

>But WHY are they polygamists despite it being illegal?

Why were gay people gay despite it being illegal? No-one chooses their sexuality.

>Then you support it's legalization and are merely kinkshaming me personally.

As I said, it already is legal, there's just not recognised polygamous marriages. Being gay wasn't illegal before they recognised gay marriage as a legal thing, and there was still heaps of gay people out there who just didn't get legally married.

>Which like your "you'd be an attentionwhore if you posted a bunch of selfies!" claim, I haven't done.

Wasn't me, and you very blatantly have.

>Would it be billions if they could legally be polygamists

They already can.

>Me wanting to commit to them? OUTRAGEOUS! HOW DARE YOU! Grow up.

Don't think I've ever said this actually.

>In the most recent studies, marriage has become 37% more important to women and 29% less important to men

Please, link them. I'd prefer a meta-analysis of studies though, not just a single cherrypicked example if you could.

>Stop it. Research your opinions and present facts, or shut your stupid mouth the fuck up.

Go take a walk onision.

>You don't get to dismiss sources off hand,if you can specifically refute them by all means

I think you'll find I actually did refute the sources later on, maybe read my posts instead of just cherrypicking out parts to get mad about?

>According to you, all that's required by the definition is that he only have "a single mate during a period of time" he was never with two partners

I don't think you understand what a single partner means. If you are still in a relationship with someone, that person is still your partner.

Absolutely no-one thinks that it just refers to whoever you're currently having sex with, and it's pretty pathetic you're trying so hard to twist the definition.

>>3954
>You want proof?

Yes, please do post some, I'm sure we could all do with a laugh.

> Also, again, you speak only for yourself.

If you honestly think people in this thread think you have 20 partners and aren't just jerking off to the idea of it, I don't know what to tell you anon, people have made it pretty obvious.

>How many times must you prove you can't read?

You directly said this here, don't try to dodge it
>she's had a stable boyfriend since high school who wants to marry her, but he's been her only partner up until me -and yes, that she would pursue me when she has this guy who by all accounts is genuinely a catch and fits the definition of a 'chad'

>et me give you an analogy -which in itself you'll say is narcissistic despite that being the entire point of the example because you're autistic, and that's your go-to accusation and it doesn't matter to you how little sense it makes when you say it.

Nah, I'll say it's a retarded strawman that misses the whole point of what I'm saying. No-one would call you a narcissist for just saying you were a polygamist, it's how much you're gone on about how attractive your partners are, and how many irrelevant great traits you have that makes it the case.

>Go read up on Dan Billzarean or Patrice O'Neal or something. Plenty of guys are capable of this for one reason or another. My bad, I just didn't realize how much of a total loser you were.

Are you 12? Seriously, is "haha you're a loser" the best you've got?

And from my understanding, both of those guys are stupidly rich and have a habit of paying people to be around them.

Are you rich anon? Are you really just calling sex workers your girlfriends?

>Telling the creator of a thread what is and isn't relevant to their thread? Incredibly narcissistic. Claiming to speak for every other person on an anonymous website? Hugely narcissistic. You are a massive autistic narcissist.

Oh boy, you sure got me with that great "no u" argument.



>>3955
If you post proof, please make sure it's more than just some random edited conversations, some evidence they're all to you specifically would be nice, as well as within the same time period.

Either way though, what do you want here? You're just sperging out trying to prove that everyone actually likes your specific fetish at this point, and getting mad over shit.

Surely you don't have the time to be wasting here arguing with strangers online when you've got such a busy and fulfilled romantic life, right?

>>3999
About a robot who wishes he was onision it seems.

>>3923
the only worth post of this shitshow

The influx of robots and faggots killed this site

When I first read the original post I thought the OP was hoping women would choose the ugly loser over the Chad character in the polygamist scenario. It's obvious OP fits into the loser NEET category and is not the ideal dream man. See: walls of boring ass text he keeps spewing ONLINE. No one who is a "catch" is going to go on an image board and argue about this shit for 5 days straight. Only a beta loser would do this.

OP, if you read this, you are not good enough to be the man with 20 wives. You should be grateful you have one woman who will give you the time of day (unless that's a lie, which it probably is). You are too beta for your fantasy scenario and you are embarrassing yourself if you think you otherwise.

OP, you write like a virgin who's never been near a woman in his entire life. I don't understand why you felt the need to force your embarrassing fantasies on us, but maybe try picking up another hobby. Leechblock lolcow.farm and go back to wherever you came from.

Ahhhh, I think I have an hour or so to drain projection, anonymous butthurt and self-loathing out of the small gaggle of sociopaths replying here.

And it is most definitely projection. We've established that pretty thoroughly. You don't want to believe I have what I have because it's what you want, and I guess it's out of your reach?

>>3997
>>3998
>>3999
>>4000
>I like scrawny nerds shorter than me with qt feminine faces
>Would you take the opportunity to have multiple scrawny nerds for marriage if possible?
>Yes, actually
>If I could I'd date all of my beta orbiters at once.

It's so disgusting if a guy does it though, right? It was obvious it was projection before, I know the board's hypocritical history with shit like shota.

>>3996
>Not one other person in this thread has respected anything you've said, because you're a joke.
Let me try to put the "appeal to popularity fallacy" in terms you can understand. If we go to r9k or wizardchan and ask them their opinion on women, does it make what they say about you true because they all agree with eachother? Consensus is worthless on most forums, but even moreso on anonymous ones because it could be four people replying here or two. For all you know I've argued with myself to spur your triggered asses on.

>>4003
>The influx of robots and faggots killed this site
Then why are you here?

>>4004
>No one who is a "catch" is going to go on an image board and argue about this shit for 5 days straight. Only a beta loser would do this.
What an awful thing to say about yourself and every poster in this thread. I know, "I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT WAS MY VERY FIRST POST!" but it's clearly projection because your standard for insults is something you're actively doing, so that's how you see yourself. "Only losers breathe air!" Swinging at clouds.

>>4007
>OP, you write like a virgin
How does a virgin write exactly, since you're apparently an expert? And where is this place you've hung out that's full of them?

>go back to wherever you came from.
What motivation do I have to do so when I can just sit here and with minimal effort watch you say exactly what you think about yourselves, and then go back to what I was doing with this tab open in the background popping in from time to time to laugh and milk the lot of you a bit more?

>>4001
>what status do these women have?
Depends on the country, you'll have to be more specific.

>Calling out a source for being unreliable is not a fallacy, are you retarded?
Clearly, you are. Of course it's a logical fallacy, you're attacking the source rather than the argument made. Take your fucking pick:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Attack the specific claims made, dispute the evidence. Saying "This is a tabloid!" isn't an argument. Or to dumb this down for you, 2+2 doesn't stop equalling 4 if someone you don't like or someone you find "unreliable" says it. You haven't refuted the argument itself at all, dumbass. That's why it's a fallacy.

>In what western country is having two partners illegal?
All of them. Marrying multiple people is illegal in pretty much every western country, every single word you're saying is word for word the argument against gay marriage. "Listen, no one's stopping you from being fags in private, why does it matter whether or not the state acknowledges your relationship? Who cares about that! God! Just go be butt-buddies!"

>You get I could use your logic to claim that all people are gay, right? Or into hardcore BDSM?
I mean, if you're retarded and don't know how to read I guess, since that's not what I said. You originally claimed "no woman would want this" but I can point to tons of couples living in secret who sought these relationships out of their own free will despite having to keep it secret for fear of prosecution by the law. That's why they prove you wrong, and you keep avoiding answering when I ask you why these women choose to be polygamists.

>no, you don't have to live in secret, the fact that the relationship you linked has such publicity is proof of that
Good god you really are retarded. I can site recent examples of families which were torn apart because it got out they were polygamists and the father was imprisoned. They're forced to live in what they perceive as sin because they want to all be married, but the state will only allow one marriage. Thus the state is forcing the other wives to be kept at a lower status. I know you're not this retarded. I know you're just pretending not to understand this because it proves you wrong and makes you look like a massive asshole

>I really see no reason to. Even if your anecdote is true, one person wanting something isn't proof that everyone does.
I'm asking you directly, is the girl in the anecdote unreasonable to want a church wedding instead of a state one? If you'll acknowledge it's valid to want to be publicly recognized, you're admitting you're wrong to assert they should just be happy having to live in secret and not being allowed to marry. Which is why you're avoiding directly responding and acting way more retarded than you actually are.

>Why were gay people gay despite it being illegal?
That's the point, you fucking retard. You said no woman would want it, SO WHY DO THESE WOMEN RISK JAIL TIME TO LIVE IN THIS LIFESTYLE YOU CLAIM NO WOMAN WOULD WANT YOU FUCKING RETARD? Why do they CHOOSE to be polygamists if you claim no woman would want it? Face it, you're owned. Keep avoiding answering fuckwit, you fucking lost. Which is why you triggered twats are just repeating bland ad hominems and saying "leave" over and over. Utter defeat.

>As I said, it already is legal, there's just not recognised polygamous marriages. Being gay wasn't illegal before they recognised gay marriage as a legal thing,
You seriously are making that as an argument and oblivious to what you're saying. "Hey, no one's saying it's illegal to be gay, you just can't get married. Shut up, you're not being discriminated, you just have no legal rights." Eat shit.

>you very blatantly have.
Where in the fuck have I posted a selfie, retard?

>They already can.
They can legally be married to multiple people in western countries? Because that's what POLYGAMY fucking means. MARRIED. If you cannot legally marry multiple women in the west, then no, they can't. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out.

>Please, link them.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2012/04/26/young-men-and-women-differ-on-the-importance-of-a-successful-marriage/

>I actually did refute the sources later on
Saying "That's just a tabloid" or "clickbait" isn't refuting the arguments made within, it's dismissing them.

>Absolutely no-one thinks that it just refers to whoever you're currently having sex with
You just love those appeal to popularity fallacies. Well, guess what, everyone disagrees with you. I said it, must be true right? No further argument needed.

No fuckwit, what you say isn't in the text of the definition. That was your original standard, it has to be in the text of the definition. As it's not, you're adding to it to make it fit your own definition, but if we do as you suggested and only stick to the text, then you can't add your special conditions. If you can add your interpretation I can add mine, and all you have to disagree is empty appeal to popularity fallacies that mean nothing and prove nothing.

>Yes, please do post some
Alright, coming right up.

>don't try to dodge it
It's hilarious you say this, and then cut out the end of the sentence that SPECIFICALLY FUCKING SAYS "this is a huge red flag" the entire fucking point was "her behavior is not normal" but she has a sexual fantasy she wants to pursue.

>it's how much you're gone on about how attractive your partners are,
Why in the fuck would I pursue someone I didn't find attractive? Think for a moment retard, your entire basis for saying I'm a narcissist is that a large number of women I find attractive also find me attractive. I haven't so much as complimented myself, and if you knew anything about- oh, that's what you're talking about next, I'll address it there.

>And from my understanding, both of those guys are stupidly rich and have a habit of paying people to be around them.

Patrice O'Neal is dead. He was a large, obese black guy with a high-pitched voice, a small dick and an ass his main woman described as "tragic". However, he was funny as fuck. He knew how to talk to women, he was clever. He understood you can lack all of those things and still be successful with the opposite sex. Dan's the exact opposite meanwhile. He's surrounded by women because he's buff, extremely high testosterone and rich. I named the two of them because they're polar opposites, yet both were quite successful with women. It's attitude. Again, you're inferring incorrect meaning. My entire point was "There's nothing special about me, 90% of guys can do this." You look at Rodgers, yes he wasn't the most handsome guy but was his problem physical? No, it was his attitude, and the fact that he couldn't even fucking talk to girls. My entire point is this isn't fucking hard.

>Oh boy, you sure got me with that great "no u" argument.
Pointing out that you're projecting.

>what do you want here?

To do as I please, where I please for as long as I please. To make you feel stupid for your numerous errors and milk every idiot projecting stupidity or demanding I leave in this thread.

>trying to prove that everyone actually likes your specific fetish at this point
No, I never used an appeal to popularity fallacy, you claimed no woman would want this, my point was that obviously there are plenty that do.

>Surely you don't have the time to be wasting here arguing with strangers online when you've got such a busy and fulfilled romantic life, right?
You tell me, how are you managing to find the time? Because it would be equally strenuous for the two of us.

Anonymous shitposting can be a lot of fun.

>>4009
Looks like I hit a nerve again.

>>4012
>writes novels in response to everyone else pointing out (true) things about him
>thinks he's the one who hit a nerve
kek

As far as proof, I'll start with screenshots of some random conversations. I have this big collage with pictures of all of them I usually post that conceals their faces, but I'm hesitant to post it here because I remember what utterly catty cunts you can be. I mean, it shouldn't bother me because you say it about every girl. You say girls who are actually paid models are fat and ugly, I'm specifically recalling some mod you chased off whose pictures get posted on other sites because physically she looks decent, and however retarded she might be there's that screenshot of you guys saying she's got saggy tits, and she definitely doesn't.

I'm not relishing the thought of opening my girls up to ridicule for their appearance, even though it'll be projection and won't effect their actual beauty.

>>4021
But nobody asked for this

Now to wait for the flood of shitty armchair psychology half-assed analysis, projection and assertions based on an incomplete picture generally starting with "You sound like such a" "You type like a total" and so on.

>>4022
>But nobody asked for this

See, this is what happens when you reply to threads you didn't read:

>>4001
>Yes, please do post some, I'm sure we could all do with a laugh.
>If you post proof, please make sure it's more than just some random edited conversations, some evidence they're all to you specifically would be nice, as well as within the same time period.

>>4021
>being this assblasted over this
Just go get your harem if you have so many girls willing to be in it and enough money to attend to them. Why are you even here? Why do you want approval from randos that badly if you're so sure of yourself?

>>4025
Much better question, why do any of you post on a forum if not a one of you can read? I've answered these same pitiful, utterly defeated questions over and over and over. I'm just going to start quoting earlier posts you retards repeat yourselves so much.

>Just go get your harem
Is typing on an anonymous image board some massive, time-consuming endeavor to you? This take little time and little effort.

>Why are you even here?
Why do you browse /pt/? The amount of rage and bile, all the projection, the swirling hypocritical hatred, and for what? "You mentioned a girl was attractive and said you fed strays when you were little!" The sheer venom over someone describing their lifestyle, the puritanical handwringing and assrage. You're here to entertain me.

>Why do you want approval
When did I request it? Posters on the board made stupid, inaccurate claims and childish insults. I'm here to discuss the topic I wish to, dismantle any idiotic bullshit posted, and smugly mock any of you deserving it.

>>4026
Can I be in your harem? Gimme your Skype xoxoxo

>>4014
>>4015
>>4016
>>4017
>>4018
>>4019
>>4020
>>4021
You talking to girls who are babbling about haircuts and getting their nails done isn't relevant to your argument.

You're just shit posting to bump your own thread. I can't wait for the mods to come back.

>>4015
It seems like you just built up an internet harem with girls stranded across the world, which makes it a hell of a lot more likely that this thread is recruitment.

In any case, enjoy your self hating college girls with BPD before they meet you in person. They'll probably get bored of you when they realize sexual fantasies get old sooner or later.

>>4029
>You talking to girls who are babbling about haircuts and getting their nails done isn't relevant to your argument.

>One girl mentions painting her nails.
>In the midst of a conversation about collaring her and dressing her up like a slut.
>Every single other conversation is about sex, kidnapping, being a sex slave, etc.

You're remarkable at selectively reading things.

>>4030
Pure projection with a dash of sour grapes. I'm just showing early conversations with a few of them, I've gone and met them of course. Hell, if I posted the big college you'd probably notice my jizz in scattered among a few of the pictures.

>this thread is recruitment.
It's not. If you believe nothing else I say, for the love of god believe me when I say this is not fucking recruitment. I'm not even trying to be a dick about this, girls from chan sites tend to be total garbage. Why would I want the female version of a wizard in my house? I dated one once, years ago. One of the absolute worst relationships I was ever in. She was smart and I had excellent conversations with her, but her hygiene was the stuff of nightmares and despite being ridiculously intelligent emotionally she revealed herself to be less and less mature as time went on. Never again.

You think this is being smug or narcissistic or whatever when I say this, but 20's already too many for many, what need do I have of more? And if I wanted them I'd go out in public somewhere. Even if I was looking online, I'd go to fetlife or freaking omegle before I'd consider a chan site.

Half of the "girls" here have dicks, the vast majority of you have severe personality disorders, autism, and terrible taste in virtually everything.

Honestly, when I think of you I picture an amalgamation of that last girl I mentioned and a specific ex I dated on and off that several years ago I linked to this site because I thought the way you guys typed was so incredibly similar, and she did fit in here. Hell, she might still post here, I know she contributed to the Onision threads when I linked her. Let me just tell you a bit about her bad side, you tell me honestly if this sounds like any of you at all. While in college she systematically chased all three of her dorm mates out one by one. She hated them, and when I'd ask why it would boil down to "She's just such a bitch." She complained about them being fat, or flat and skinny, or alcoholics, or giant sluts, or some combination thereof. She did disgusting things to them to make them miserable, like shaving her pubes and putting them under their bedsheets so they'd itch at night, peeing in their shampoo, running their toothbrush between her ass cheeks. The third girl was quite religious, she convinced her the dorm was haunted and the ghost wanted to kill her. Nearly gave the girl a nervous breakdown using her phone to play weird noises in her room remotely, tying her scarves into nooses and so on. She went on endlessly about the various male actors she found attractive, pretty typical choices really. Liam Neeson, Johnny Depp, Munroe Chambers, Batman, the beatnik from Iron Giant. I mention this because while she told me her list in insane detail and I never felt threatened by it, she flew into a rage of jealousy at any girl I'd have a passing mention of being attractive, asserting they were ugly whores with ugly noses and bad teeth. Despite herself being busty she hated any media with busty actresses in it, and was fixated on pedo shit. I remember at one point we had this huge argument because she was asking for anime recommendations because she wanted to get into it, and she was considering Magi until she saw Aladdin motorboat some random girls and then she said it was disgusting perverted trash. This after she got me to sit through the entirety of Koi Kaze with her. After disgustedly sitting through Pretty Baby, Lolita and Girly never passing judgment on her demented DDLG fetish despite not particularly sharing it. She was the sort of girl who'd put someone like Jennifer Anniston as "most beautiful" and say "She seems nice" because she didn't feel threatened by her since she had a smaller chest and a fairly plain face. The sort who constantly insulted everyone around her and thought it was endearing. Years ago I suggested she post here because even then you seemed exactly the same as her.

>So why would you date such a total cunt?
I was young, she was attractive when she was young, she put on weight and all these negative personality traits weren't apparent for roughly the first year. Pretty decent pair of tits, and her one strength was her enthusiasm at sucking dick. I think because the position made her feel smaller and thus played into her "little" shit.

>Wow, omg, overshare much? Why would you even tell us that?
To insult you. That's what you look like to me. Fat, bitter cocksuckers.

This is the last place I'd "recruit" if I was suddenly desperate enough to recruit from a chan site. Was it this place or staminarose that would actually ban people for questioning feminism? How many of you are Hillary voters? How many of you have tumblrs, use the term "fuccboi" believe there are more than two genders, consider "shipping" something other than the process of mailing something or get off to yaoi or shota?

No thanks, I haven't been to halfchan in a while, doesn't /soc/ still exist? Or /x/? Those would be better bets. Maybe /pol/ some years back, board's kind of shit now.

There's nothing attractive about any of you. Objectively speaking, as human beings, you're ugly people. You obsess over greasy dweebs like Onision because you're the kind of airheads that once subscribed to him because you thought the creep was attractive and he told you what you wanted to hear. You obsess with PixiTeri because deep down you fear that's how you really look to others. Your history with mod and admin drama is nearly as much a farce as that of /cow/, and where in their case they turn out to be just like the retarded people they post, you're just like the shitty dramawhores you post.

>>4026
OP, why are you sharing this much with us? It seems like you're expecting praise for how many girls you have in your "harem".

>>4033
>why are you sharing this much with us?
When someone is smug in their ignorance it's quite compelling to prove them wrong.

Also I overshare in anonymous settings.

>It seems like you're expecting praise for how many girls you have in your "harem".

Let's say a guy puts up an ad, "I got too many cars! My garage can only old so many. I really like this one, but if I keep it I don't have room for all the others. What should I do? How do I keep all these cars safe?" Would it be a normal response to assume the guy just wants to brag about how many cars he has?

Besides, who has them? What's my name? What do I look like? No one who knows me personally knows about any of this. Honestly, that's part of why I like to make threads and talk about it. I can't tell any of my friends or family about it, my mother's just happy her son has all these different cute girls he's dating, even then her feedback's generally useless suggesting any girl I date is "too old" for me if they're over 19 and complaining I need to get a redhead with blue eyes so she can have blue-eyed redhead grandchildren. It's rarely something I can vent about.

There's no information about it on any of my public forum accounts, on any of my social media accounts. 99% of my posts on chan sites don't reference it at all.

if this is really you, you're absolutely fucking insufferable.

>>4034
Can you post your voice, please? Read off your favourite book.

>>4010
>Depends on the country, you'll have to be more specific.

You mentioned the countries, you need to be more specific.

>Clearly, you are. Of course it's a logical fallacy, you're attacking the source rather than the argument made. Take your fucking pick:

You get you can't just name fallacies, right? That in itself is a fallacy, because you're dismissing my argument without addressing it.

I went on later to say why your sources were bullshit, which you proceeded to ignore to sperg about fallacies.


Oh, and insulting you is not ad hominem.

>All of them. Marrying multiple people is illegal in pretty much every western country,

You're moving the goalposts. In which western country is having two partners illegal? Not in which western country can you legally marry two people, but in what country is it illegal to date two people?

>You originally claimed "no woman would want this"

Did I?

>but I can point to tons of couples living in secret who sought these relationships out of their own free will despite having to keep it secret for fear of prosecution by the law

No, you absolutely cannot, because it's not illegal to do. You're making shit up to try to paint yourself as some victim.

>I can site recent examples of families which were torn apart because it got out they were polygamists and the father was imprisoned.

Please do.

>I'm asking you directly, is the girl in the anecdote unreasonable to want a church wedding instead of a state one?

Is she Christian? If not, then yeah, she's being pretty materialistic and stupid about her wedding.

>Why do they CHOOSE to be polygamists if you claim no woman would want it

I really don't remember claiming anywhere that polygamy didn't exist or that no women wanted it.

>You seriously are making that as an argument and oblivious to what you're saying. "Hey, no one's saying it's illegal to be gay, you just can't get married. Shut up, you're not being discriminated, you just have no legal rights." Eat shit.

So, you admit that it's not illegal to be in a poly relationship?

>Where in the fuck have I posted a selfie, retard?

Ironic you're trying to attack me for reading comprehension when yours is so poor.

>http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2012/04/26/young-men-and-women-differ-on-the-importance-of-a-successful-marriage/

Holy shit you seriously can't read, can you?

>The share of women ages 18 to 34 who say that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives has risen nine percentage points since 1997, from 28% to 37%.

>On the other hand, the share of young men ages 18 to 34 who say that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things has dropped from 35% in 1997 to 29% now


That's a 9% and 6% change, not fucking 37% and 29%

People are also getting married much later, and put way more significance on their careers than they used to, something that shows that women really aren't as obsessed with marriage as you think.

>
No fuckwit, what you say isn't in the text of the definition. That was your original standard, it has to be in the text of the definition. As it's not, you're adding to it to make it fit your own definition, but if we do as you suggested and only stick to the text, then you can't add your special conditions.

You get how weak your argument is here, right? You're trying so hard to twist definitions to the point they make no sense, while ignoring the entire basis of what being in a relationship is.

You seriously are sad.

>It's hilarious you say this, and then cut out the end of the sentence that SPECIFICALLY FUCKING SAYS "this is a huge red flag" the entire fucking point was "her behavior is not normal" but she has a sexual fantasy she wants to pursue.

Because it's irrelevant. We're talking about how you're boasting about how good looking she is, same as you did with your ex.

>I haven't so much as complimented myself,

wew lad

>Patrice O'Neal is dead. He was a large, obese black guy with a high-pitched voice, a small dick and an ass his main woman described as "tragic"

Patrice O'neal was also an extremely successful comedian. Are you?

>Dan's the exact opposite meanwhile. He's surrounded by women because he's buff, extremely high testosterone and rich.

It's well known that Dan pays people to be around him.

>My entire point was "There's nothing special about me, 90% of guys can do this."

He says while pointing out that an obscenely rich guy and an extremely successful comedian have been successful with women. Which is it anon? Are you just a normal guy, or are you on the same level as those two?

>To do as I please, where I please for as long as I please. To make you feel stupid for your numerous errors and milk every idiot projecting stupidity or demanding I leave in this thread.

I mean, you're the one providing milk for everyone here, I'm just not sure what you think you're getting out of this.

>You tell me, how are you managing to find the time?

Because I'm not in twenty relationships and uni session is over?

You're not answering my question. If you have so many active relationships, how do you have the free time to just sit here all day?

>>4023
I love how you call someone out for not reading, and then proceeded to just post random edited conversations.

Provide proof these women are even real, or are talking to you within the same time period, because what you've posted doesn't in any way count as proof.

If you're not willing to provide proof, don't make bullshit claims.

>>4032
This person thinks that when people stop replying to them they've won an argument.

i love him calling us ugly when 90% of the girls pictures/icons in his screenshot are below average / average at best. why would you brag about having mediocre looking mentally ill girls at your "beck and call"? you were less pathetic before showing "proof". you came here asking a question, got your answer, and cried when it wasn't what you wanted - but WERE the ones in the wrong.

>>4037
POST YOUR VOICE

>>4040
Think you quoted the wrong person.

>>4035
Really who?

>>4036
>>4040
Naaaahhh, then it would feel like I was "recruiting". Also there's a small risk it could be recognized from another chan. I've done vocaroos in a few threads on other sites filling requests.

>>4038
I think when someone's been making a specific charge, but then that charge is refuted and they keep replying but no longer mention it then yeah, I've won that particular argument.

>>4039
>i love him
Shush, you.

>calling us ugly
I don't know what you look like, nor do I want to. I said that's what I picture when I think of you. A drug addled skeletal tranny with thinning hair and problem glasses, a fat Australian brunette with terrible, small tits. A girl who wears a wig on camera because she didn't feel like washing her hair. This is the mental image I see reading your posts, and it's specifically because you say shit like:

>90% of the girls pictures/icons in his screenshot are below average / average at best. why would you brag about having mediocre looking mentally ill girls at your "beck and call"?
I never used the phrase "beck and call" and you can see like, two pixel high icons of like, two of their faces. Their identities needn't be known. And like I said, I knew you'd talk shit on their appearance, that's what this site is infamous for. It's why the insults come across as projection and carry so little weight. Like, I find the Hunger Games chick decidedly average, but this nutso mod you had? If that's saggy then you girls are living in reverse gravity and have some horrendous tits.

>>4042
No one's going to recognize your voice, do you know how many people there are in this world? Just post it.

>>4037
>You mentioned the countries, you need to be more specific.

Benin is an African country best known for being where Djimon Hounsou is from. The official language is French, it's currently a Republic and the largest religion is Catholic. 55% of the women are sisterwives in polygamist marriages. At a cursory glance there's little to suggest any gender politics one way or another, but I did notice pictures of girls attending school, so at the minimum they're afforded the same opportunity.

>You get you can't just name fallacies, right? That in itself is a fallacy, because you're dismissing my argument without addressing it.

Oh anon, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You're just repeating back what I say to me and ignoring how little since it makes. Pointing out that you're using logical fallacies isn't a logical fallacy because the entire point is you're not making an argument, you're just saying "this is a tabloid/clickbait" I'm saying, address the specific claims within rather than attacking the sites publishing them. That's damning the well, guilt by association, etc.

>Oh, and insulting you is not ad hominem.
I was referring to you insulting the websites, but yes insulting someone in place of an argument is an ad hominem.

>You're moving the goalposts. In which western country is having two partners illegal? Not in which western country can you legally marry two people, but in what country is it illegal to date two people?

Oh my god, fuck you. I'm moving goal posts? Are you fucking serious? Let's revisit history.

>>3918
This post contains a map of which countries allow and do not allow polyamy.
>>3909
This one's all about how polygamy is the only incentive to make marriage appealing to men again, and how through the state unwed mothers are essentially married to every man in their country who pays taxes.
>>3908
This one has a picture of the show referred to that specifically says in giant fucking letters sisterWIVES

>>3856
From the very first fucking post:
>He has three to five other wives you would be sharing him with.

This discussion has been about the right to MARRY multiple people the entire fucking post you disingenuous fuckwit. YOU are trying to move goalposts because once again you fucking lost the argument. Now I ask you thunderthighs, why in the fuck do the women in polygamist relationships in western countries that outlaws plural marriage pursue them? You tapdance around this, but I'm repeating it until you just acknowledge it and concede obviously it appeals to some women a great deal, a great enough deal that they risk imprisonment (like THIS before you claim it doesn't happen you complete and utter fucking retard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/utahs-latest-fight-over-polygamy-explained/ )

>Is she Christian?
…Probably? I don't know her personally, her mother is. Either way, the point is I think she's being reasonable in not wanting to hide her relationship, when I was told about it I asked whether or not he could afford that kind of wedding and was told he could, and that leaves me to conclude he didn't want his marriage publicized, though in fairness she didn't sound like much of a catch from what I was told.

>So, you admit that it's not illegal to be in a poly relationship?
Polygamy, we're talking about plural marriage. As have we from the very first post.

>That's a 9% and 6% change
Right, but to the same numbers mentioned. More important to women, less important to men.

>You get how weak your argument is here, right? You're trying so hard to twist definitions to the point they make no sense, while ignoring the entire basis of what being in a relationship is.

That's not at all what I'm doing. I told you what you defined as monogamy was not monogamy. You then asserted the text of the definition didn't specifically mention what I said, so I shot back and pointed out if we only stick to the text technically cheating is monogamous so long as you aren't with your partner at the same time. The text doesn't say anything to conform to your definition, so what makes you think it can't conform to mine? You must either concede the definition is open to interpretation, or else you're claiming infidelity does not effect monogamy. Pick one.

>Because it's irrelevant.
No, because if you include it, it changes the entire point of the message. She's Lavender, incidentally if you're curious of what she actually looks like.

>Which is it anon? Are you just a normal guy, or are you on the same level as those two?
If I answered that, you'd claim it was bragging, and it would also be revealing personal information which I have plenty of motivation not to do. Suffice to say, I do okay with women. I'd say I'm just genetically lucky is all.

>you're the one providing milk for everyone here
"no u"

>uni session is over?
And so you have nothing to do? No vacation plan? No friends or family to hang out with? Or you're just relaxing and killing time shitposting on the internet?

>If you have so many active relationships, how do you have the free time to just sit here all day?
I don't sit here all day. I keep it open in a tab and go do other shit, then click if I see a little number next to the tag.

>Provide proof these women are even real
What the fuck, how do you expect me to do that without revealing their identities? Come up with something simple that doesn't involve revealing their faces or screen names and doesn't specifically reference posting images on a forum and I'll consider it. The amount of effort I'd have to go to in order to fake them is beyond me.

>or are talking to you within the same time period
Well the kik screenshot shows them all as messaging me within minutes of one another, and two of them in a shared conversation with me even. So, there you go.

>what you've posted doesn't in any way count as proof.
Pictures of various girls specifically describing their fantasies and the nature of my relationship with them along with nudes isn't proof… Right.

>>4044
>At a cursory glance there's little to suggest any gender politics one way or another, but I did notice pictures of girls attending school, so at the minimum they're afforded the same opportunity.

That's not at all a statement on the freedoms of women in the country.

>address the specific claims within rather than attacking the sites publishing them.

Which I did, by pointing out that one had absolutely no sources for the claims it was making that didn't link back to the site itself, and that the other was irrelevant to your claim.

I pointed out that they're dogshit sources that shouldn't be taken seriously and then went on to continue to explain why, that their claims were not supported by evidence.

>but yes insulting someone in place of an argument is an ad hominem.

No, it's not, it's an insult. An ad hom is when you use an insult as an argument.

It's the difference between saying "You're stupid, and you are also wrong" and going "You're wrong because you're stupid".

Don't throw around words you don't understand the meanings of.

>This post contains a map of which countries allow and do not allow polyamy.

Except it's fucking wrong, because I'm Australian and it's absolutely legal to have two partners in the situation.

I'm not bothering to address your discussion of marriage, because you don't need to be married to be in a relationship, which you've seen with gay people for decades. If people desired to be in relationship with more than one partner, they already would be.

If anything I've been making your argument seem less fucking ridiculous by talking about it in the context of polyamory instead of polygamy.

>Right, but to the same numbers mentioned. More important to women, less important to men.

Yeah, nice backpedalling mate. You flat out lied about the numbers involved, and didn't explain the context around it or how having a successful marriage is rated as one of the most important thing in their lives almost equally by bother genders, with the exact numbers being 84% for women and 83% for men.

It's also more important in men above age 34, with it being almost equal to women.

You can't lie about a piece of data you've taken out of context, and then act like you were right all along when you get called on it.

>You then asserted the text of the definition didn't specifically mention what I said, so I shot back and pointed out if we only stick to the text technically cheating is monogamous so long as you aren't with your partner at the same time.

Your definition makes no sense, because just not being physically with that person in the moment doesn't change the fact that you are still in a dedicated relationship with them.

The period of time line is there to explain the difference between life bonding and monogamy.

>She's Lavender, incidentally if you're curious of what she actually looks like.

Nice to know you lied about her looks to make yourself seem better I guess.

>Suffice to say, I do okay with women. I'd say I'm just genetically lucky is all.

That's got to be the most thinly veiled boast I've ever seen.

>And so you have nothing to do? No vacation plan? No friends or family to hang out with?

Nah, got plans for tonight but am just wasting time online in the meantime.

Why not answer the question about how you're in a relationship with 20 women, yet still have the free time to come online for hours every day and insult strangers?

Or are you counting just sleeping with some random 5/10's from online dating services or online flirting as a relationship?

>Well the kik screenshot shows them all as messaging me within minutes of one another, and two of them in a shared conversation with me even. So, there you go.

The kik screenshot shows you messaging those people within a short period of time, nothing else. One of them is just an automated message.

>Pictures of various girls specifically describing their fantasies and the nature of my relationship with them along with nudes isn't proof… Right.

It's about as much proof that they're all in a relationship with you as it is that they're all in a relationship with me.

Not hard to copy some chat logs off the internet, and it honestly just seems like you're counting talking about sex with someone as a relationship, even if it is true.

>>4045
>That's not at all a statement on the freedoms of women in the country.
Are you one of those "equal outcomes" people? Like I said, they're afforded the same opportunities. Considering where they're located I think it's fairly compelling the place is so much more stable, wealthy and -relatively speaking- modern when compared to so much of the rest of Africa, and seemingly the main difference seems to be legalized polygamy. It's almost like allowing the "top" most successful men with the biggest sense of commitment and responsibility to publicly spread their genes to multiple women results in more successful, productive children or something. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison to any of the surrounding countries, Liberia for example. Maybe I'll do that.

>one had absolutely no sources for the claims it was making that didn't link back to the site itself
You'd have to go through the chain of links, but you never said anything about the WashingtonPost or HuffingtonPost articles, I guess because you accept those as valid sources you just pretend they don't exist…?

>the other was irrelevant to your claim.
This isn't refutation, it's dismissal. "Hillary Clinton is president of the United States." "…But Donald Trump won the election." "DONALD TRUMP IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON."

>pointed out that they're dogshit sources that shouldn't be taken seriously
Which is a logical fallacy. To put it in context, it would be like me going "Hitler was against polygamy! Yeah, that's right! No polygamists in Nazi Germany! How do you like that, Nazi? You side with Hitler!" Just saying the source is "dog shit" isn't refuting it's arguments. Who makes an argument has no effect on the argument itself. Does Chris-Chan's full-throated endorsement of "women's rights" and "lgbt rights" mean the issues themselves are retarded since the person advocating them is? This is why it's a fallacy.

>It's the difference between saying "You're stupid, and you are also wrong" and going "You're wrong because you're stupid".
Hence "This source is dog shit" as the entirety of your argument.

>Except it's fucking wrong, because I'm Australian and it's absolutely legal to have two partners in the situation.
I fucking knew you were Australian. Not just because of "mate" and "uni" you have such predictable typing patterns and personalities. And no, I'm not insulting Australians, though there's plenty there to pick at, just saying you personally are very transparent.

>I'm not bothering to address your discussion of marriage, because you don't need to be married to be in a relationship, which you've seen with gay people for decades. If people desired to be in relationship with more than one partner, they already would be.

The discussion was ALWAYS about the right to marry multiple people. You're trying to move goalposts and make it just about the right to be in some gross orgy pile ala sense8. I'm talking about commitment. That's been the discussion all along. Would you tell those gay people they're silly for wanting gay marriage because they can just fuck eachother's asses without that label from the state? Because that's what you're saying about polygamists. All they want is to be able to make their relationship official, to be officially recognized as a single cohesive family unit, to be able to go out in public without being labeled sinners or sex fiends because the state says their relationship isn't valid. To be certain all their wives and children are included and provided for in the will and in case of medical emergency. Suppose one of the first wife's kids is in the hospital, but only the third wife can get there in time to sign the papers required for some life-saving procedure, but because the state won't acknowledge them as family she can't even visit her.

>If anything I've been making your argument seem less fucking ridiculous by talking about it in the context of polyamory instead of polygamy.
"Can't we talk about this other thing instead?" To quote you, polyamory is irrelevant to this discussion.

>You flat out lied about the numbers involved
So the numbers aren't 29% for men and 37% for women just like I said?

>Your definition makes no sense
I feel the same way about the definition you provided. That's my entire point here. You tried to argue that someone who sleeps around, hops from partner to partner having one night stands is monogamous, I believe monogamy requires commitment, you asserted it didn't, so I pointed out the specific text of the definition would also mean cheating counts as monogamous since you're still only with one person at a time.

>you lied about her looks
Did you see her pictures? >>4016
Blonde, blue eyed, lovely light skin, huge natural breasts. She's like 5'6 and DD with an hourglass figure. Easily a 9/10 physically. But hey, beauty is subjective. I've become particularly smitten with Black Cherry, she's the one I'm focused on, she's considerably less busty than what I usually go for but I adore her body, and her smile is just… Anyway, her breasts are fairly perky and seem to have gone up a cup size in the last month for some reason. And I'm not complaining.

>That's got to be the most thinly veiled boast I've ever seen.
Because if I described myself it would sound narcissistic. I mean I've got plenty of flaws, but if I pointed them out every subsequent post attacking me would refer to those flaws, and why would I give you ammo? So all that's left is to mention what I'm most often complimented on, and even after being specifically asked what these girls see in me and if I think I'm so special, specifically because I gave the contrasting examples of Patrice O'Neal and Dan Belzarian as guys very successful with women who have completely opposite advantages going for them.

Patrice physically has very little going for him, but he was a charming motherfucker. Utterly hilarious, very clever, kind of psychologically manipulative honestly. Dan meanwhile has all the physical advantages a guy could have as well as a shitload of money, but I've listened to interviews with him and frankly, there's not much there. I mean everyone says he's a nice guy, but he just seems so uncomfortable and inauthentic, yet both were extremely successful with women. My point was it isn't one single thing. There isn't one single formula every single girl responds to. I just… know my demographic, and what my strengths are.

>Why not answer the question about how you're in a relationship with 20 women, yet still have the free time to come online for hours every day and insult strangers?
My point was the same way you are. This doesn't take much time. If you're asking how I divide my time among them, it varies. Usually at any one time I focus primarily on four or five, then go off for a day or two to do my own thing, working and such. I'll be honest, I do disconnect entirely probably a day a week. Usually that day's all me time. Working out, playing video games, playing with my dog. I mean, as far as that last ex, yes it did take a long time to get over her, I was utterly miserable for months afterwards, and it's true, no amount of sex made it better. But what really got me over her frankly was my dog. This puppy I found in the junkyard over a year ago. So I spoil her rotten because she's done more for my psyche than any girl or pill has. Honestly, I was waiting for an opportunity to say like "Let me show you my top bitch, she's a total dog but this is who shared my bed last night" and post a picture of my dog.

>The kik screenshot shows you messaging those people within a short period of time
Well actually the little arrow means it's a message from their end. The little blue circle means I haven't read it yet. Three of them were last messages from me. The one with Angel where her phone was off, and the one that has a D next to it and at the very bottom one with an R, those are all from me, but I posted conversations with several of them as well.

>It's about as much proof that they're all in a relationship with you as it is that they're all in a relationship with me.
You have screenshots of them saying they want you to put a collar on them, or they had a fun time last night? You have pictures of them with your ejaculate on them or in them?

>Not hard to copy some chat logs off the internet, and it honestly just seems like you're counting talking about sex with someone as a relationship, even if it is true.

Because honestly it feels less personal. I could post this morning's messages from Black Cherry as they're all lovey dovey back and forth, but that'd sort of feel like I was mocking her or something. Also the shit I'm saying back is downright embarrassing. I've connected with her like I haven't with anyone since that ex. Which is the entire reason this thread exists to begin with.

I literally googled "How to convince a girl to accept polygamy" because I sat up panic-stricken that this girl was particularly important to me, and I was going to be letting down these other girls expecting me to go get them and keep them with me permanently in as little as a couple months. And like I said, one of this one's big kinks is hypnosis. She wants me to hypnotize her and transform her into whatever my fantasy is, so in theory I should just be able to hypnotize her to want sisterwives, right? Even if she didn't, she'd have to accept it as not to break character, but I want her to actually be happy about it.

And seeing all the same results that always come up (some of which were linked in this thread, actually) I tried to remember if there were any predominantly female chans. I remembered staminarose first, and then this place. I self-posted to sty not to ruffle any feathers.

I just figured those of you who said "Obviously I'd rather share someone I'm attracted to than have the undivided attention of someone I'm not" could then be questioned on your decision and give me answers I could use to make a more appealing case to her.

>>4044
>>4045
>>4046
I have no idea what the fuck you people are talking about because I can't be bothered to read all that shit but I'm sure that whatever it is, it's not worth such long ass posts

Jesus Christ OP if you're still around read Lacan, that domestication shit is hardcore jouissance.

I'd much rather choose a reverse harem tbh.

gg