Give me one LOGICAL reason I can't have several wives

its hard in times of no war, correlates to this fucking autism and other mental illness spike shit like gender identity disorder because for most of human history there has been excess females per male because of the whole war and dieing thing thats done exclusively by men

No. No it's not. If you put a little bit of effort into maintaining your body, say 30 pushups, 60 situps per day, you can look good. You have to be comically ugly in the face to not be considered attractive based on your body if you just take care of it. Then all you have to do is go out with friends occasionally and not be a fucking sperglord when girls approach you. Assuming you're around 20 at uni. If you're a highschooler then my only advice is that you wait until everyone sluts up in uni.

t. chad

The idea that there's a silent majority of suffering men who can't get laid is a myth. In fact, this problem is local to you and your friends at /r9k/. Most people have sex and relationships, if you aren't you probably just don't approach girls.

Reminds me of Elliott Rodger, who expected women to just walk up to him and offer to be his GF. I doubt he made one significant attempt to be social or outgoing.

>say 30 pushups, 60 situps per day

Veeky Forums here, lmaoing at your life

You talk like that's a hard thing

Men these days are so pussified you can get laid just from walking up to a woman and TALKING NORMALLY

Also, 95% of girls are okay with you sleeping around as long as you're honest
So WHY can't I have 3 girlfriends, who all know about each other, and eventually move them into my apartment?

Where did this rule come from?

not him, but what would you recommend in place of op, mr Veeky Forums
t. pillsbury doughbear

Lift heavy weights up and down

Yeah I don't have time for more than that, but it's just maintenance, not building anything (I prefer to stay lean anyway, I don't enjoy gymming much, but actually enjoy running so that's the build I aim for). I also left off the rest of the yoga shit because I figured OP was a fat fuck who needed to be eased into it.

/r9k/ was a mistake, all it does is create a place where people make each other sad and angry for no reason.

Have you had ONE girlfriend dude? You need to put in fucking work for one relationship. I ain't got time for 2. Also jealousy between girls will cause strife.

You literally can though. Like in all literal seriousness no one will stop you. It's just a matter of you getting the chicks to agree. But according to you the vast majority of women are whores who would be okay with it so I guess all that's left to do is go out there and test your theory. And as said, why would you want more than one girlfriend anyway? Sex is pretty easy to acquire, so all that's special about a girlfriend is the comfiness and the cuddliness.

How the fuck do I talk to girls

Same way you talk to dudes, but think of them sucking your dick as you do it

You already KNOW how to talk to girls
The problem is just that you're too SCARED to DO IT

So stop asking for ADVICE and go OUTSIDE to talk to them

>people make each other sad and angry for no reason
asspergers

Not everyone's trying to get fuckin ripped a really simple bodyweight routine like that is enough to keep most people from being horrible skinnyfats as long as they don't eat shit.

This. You can also push them but they must be heavy.

This is a masterwork.

The subtle "just b urself", the bonhomme attitude, the stress capitalization, the summer camp teacher style; all blend in together to create the perfect /r9k/ bait post.

To you and your creativity; I say bravo, user

>redpill shit

a u t i s m

It's true tho /r9k/ doesn't like that answer because the responsibility for their bitter loneliness lies squarely on them instead of some genetic determinism or broader societal change. Robots would rather entertain the notion that they just can't get laid rather than make any effort to improve or change.

you lie to them
fake it to you make it
be clean, go to gym
ask for her number after establishing small chit chat from whats the time to what time do u finish work and wanna go hang out after and get a drink
make her laugh at least smile
skin contact if contextually appropriate, as soon as possible either first or second encounter

>people fucked over by unfortunate genes don't exist, everyone can attract a mate they just aren't trying hard enough
truly a privileged opinion to hold.

Unless you have treacher-collins you probably aren't a hopeless case. You know damn well that most of these guys aren't mutants they're just shy.

Wait are you asking him to...check his privilege?

>I'm lonely because pretty girls don't talk to me
>be ugly as fuck

No shit you're going to have problems trading a Ford Pinto for a Mercedes.

Maybe you should be less shallow.

Unless you have Downs syndrome or you're 4'5 you have no reason to complain, asswad

>Baaaw I'm not chad

life isn't a Disney movie. Only 40% of all males that ever lived managed to reproduce. At some points in human history women outbred men at a rate of 17 to 1.

Genetic determinism makes people very uncomfortable but it's certainly a thing. Humanity is not above its base animal foundation.

Well I can't verify the extremely vague statements you made about the past but today in the modern world I know it's not hard to get a girlfriend. Again, unless you have a severe birth defect the problem very likely lies within things you can control.

You don't have to be a golden skinned athlete dude bra with a lantern jaw or whatever the fuck robots think is the only type of guy that gets laid. Just talk to that cute girl in the library. You'll probably fuck up and look and feel like an asshole every once in a while but thems the breaks.

>the modern world I know it's not hard to get a girlfriend.
Again this is a very privileged position to take and is contradicted by the growing male virginity rate.

Yeah because there's a bunch of sadbrains motherfuckers who are too nervous to approach girls. Bad parenting or something, it's not that you weren't born with the "alpha" gene or whatever retarded bullshit and it's within your power to fix.

>genes like don't exist it's all environmental and shit like just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and shit
really what do you get out of denying that a sizeable portion of the male population is absolutely repulsive to women through no fault of their own?

...

That kind of attitude is exactly why you are repulsive to women. Nobody wants to be around a sad sack loser who blames his own faults on everyone else. Grow some fucking testicles dude

>Give me one LOGICAL reason I can't have several wives

This question has never been asked by anyone married more than 10 years.

girls dont want to be around failures fullstop
unless they actually love you

I guess you can chalk up all your success with women thanks to your hard work and super human strength of will to overcome. Same way Paris Hilton earned her billions :^)

You're more likely to get STD's

First post best post.

But this is true...

Are you retarded ? This is not because Feminist use this term of privilege that privilege people do not exist.

That's not how female sexuality works at all.

t. Cuck

>wanting more than one wife in our current era
>wanting a wife at all, even one in our current era

If this model of female sexuality is true, there should be no cucks, dumbass.

>80 % of males are beta male
>Considered as inferior people, inferior males
>Cannot even put their eye on a girl without being put in jail for rape

>Other 20 % of male fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck a girl by night with the pornographic model of sexual practices
>Girl are literally sex toy and disgusting whore

>Beta male watch porn of these girls fucked by these 20 % and masturbate
>Have to respect like princesses this war
>Go to jail for hate speech, intolerance for saying that girl are slut

I liked Greyskull LP when I was starying out, but since you said you're fat, I'd recommend cardio and watching your diet until you're a manageable weight and then start doing a strength training routine with running/cardio on your off days.

In other words, read the Veeky Forums sticky.

Because I don't think there's much truth to it and I think what's really important to you is that it remain no fault of your own.

This is flawed logic. And I'll tell you why.

If every person gets one partner and they have children, then the genepool stagnates, meaning otherwise successful traits are stifled and degenerative traits (no I don't mean /pol/ definition, but this is also why there are more homosexuals now) are allowed handicaps, or even forced to survive when otherwise they should die off naturally.

Breeding should be earned, not a right. If one of user's harem decides she's rather fuck you, there is, and should be, nothing stopping her, and like says, they surely will .

Also remember, that one thing that is more hopeless than an weak ugly man is a weak ugly woman.

>hopeless than an weak ugly man is a weak ugly woman.
Go do a comparison between who will have more trouble getting laid in a bar half an hour before closing.

Protip: it won't be the women

This is clearly not true however. I have no idea how people believe this at any level above exaggeration/satire, especially with the statistics.

this would end up in the top 1% alphas having 80% of women
KVs here would have even harder time finding a girl

Even more so given that there are tons of studies on this subject, all of which suggest the redpill 80/20 thing is utter BS, and if anything something closer to the reverse is true: there are relatively more women who are virgins or get very little sex, or who have lots and lots of sex, while men cluster closer to the mean.

Irrelevant. I was talking about in the long term and having children. Most men would seemingly rather not breed at all than breed with some obese butterface, even if they are both themselves.

I actually somewhat agree with the sentiment of the model (as in women are more likely to share one man than men are to share one woman), its just clearly not literally true.

But about what you said, I want to add bit of irony I've encountered.

Of the women I have known, the 5-6/10 were the one's who were getting laid, while the 7-8/10s (classically not personally before you say) were alone, and were never approached. And this was because all the men thought that the opposite was true and that they didn't have a chance.

No man can serve two masters.

Because marraige, as opposed to cohabitation, is a legal relationship, not an emotional one. It has consequences to things like tax and who can speak for you and immigration that go well beyond your emotional stance. Hypothetically, say you are a man with 4 wives.

Should you die intestate, which of them gets your estate? Do they divide it evenly? Does the relationship between the co-wives still endure without the husband?

If you're badly injured, incapable of making decisions, and in need of some medical decisions made about treatment, which of them gets the final say in what they do with you?

Suppose you get a divorce from one of your wives, who gets primary custody of your children together. You obviously have a parental interest in those kids. What about your co-wives? Would it make a difference if say, one of the remaining wives was the primary homemaker and caretaker of everyone's kids, not just her own? After all, legally, parenthood is not strictly a matter of biology, and taking a parental role obligates and empowers you as a legal parent.

>If every person gets one partner and they have children, then the genepool stagnates
Are you retarded?

It's the complete opposite.

If everyone flocks around the same male then his offspring will all share his genetic heritage.

Because then you aren't truly intimate with any of them.

This is what has historically been the case though.

psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d

Women being kept by wealthy harem owners has been the societal norm.

>I'll just ignore the enormous rates of death in childbirth, or more properly infections from tearing due to childbirth, and what it does to things like gender balance and reproductive roles.

Nice eurocentrism you racist shitbag. In other countries it's perfectly normal to have multiple wives.

>In shitty countries, shitty people do shitty things.

Fascinating.

>feminists don't actually have any arguments against polygamy so they resort to namecalling
wew. I look forward to the day when polygamy becomes the new progressive agenda and you'll be retroactively arrested for hate speech

This has absolutely nothing to do with that you moron. The point is that for every 17 females only one male successfully reproduced. The reason for that is likely that during the early days of human settlements it was rich land owners who held all the reproductive rights.

>This has absolutely nothing to do with that you moron.

Pot, meet kettle.

>The reason for that is likely that during the early days of human settlements it was rich land owners who held all the reproductive rights.

Or, you know, women would DIE all the time. And that when you don't have a lot of women to go around, the same men tend to serially marry, or at least reproductive. They weren't being "kept by wealthy harem owners" you daft retard. There just weren't that many to go around, relative to the number of men, so the same high status people kept "winning" over and over.

Plus, circa 6,000 B.C., there wasn't even that much in the way of agriculture, or settled societies. You had a few villages here and there, but that was it. It would more likely be warrior leaders, or people viewed to have connections to the gods, not wealthy landowners, who were the societal top dogs.

what in the actual living fuck did I just read

Let me give you an example, because you seem to have trouble with abstract concepts.

A man gets married.

His wife dies

He remarries

His second wife dies

He remarries

His third wife dies

He remarries

His fourth wife dies

He remarries

His fifth wife survives him.

All of his wives bore him at least one child. Is he a "wealthy harem owner"?

I can give you a good reason why you shouldn't.

menstruation.

I don't think that's the way it actually worked, genetic analysis confirms that only about 40% of all men that lived actually went on to reproduce. There's no way you get one man reproducing for every 17 women by having them all die like that. That implies an insane excess of women that would never occur.

Whether it happens in a simultaneous or serial fashion doesn't really matter: the point is that it was a small subset of the male population that got to reproduce.

> 40% of all men that lived actually went on to reproduce.

Which isn't exactly compatible with one man for every 17 women reproducing either. Births are more or less even for males and females. And at least some women are going to die before reproductive age. If you really think you have 17 times the number of women reproducing as you do men, that's more like 3-4% of the male population reproducing, not 40.

>That implies an insane excess of women that would never occur.

On the contrary, it implies an excess of men, only unclear as to the degree of that excess.

>Whether it happens in a simultaneous or serial fashion doesn't really matter:

Yes it does, as the statement was

>Women being kept by wealthy harem owners has been the societal norm.

Serial marriages aren't harems.

Are you retarded? Do you know what the word stagnate means? Did you not read the explanation in the next sentence?

Yes user, it would mean they'd have his offspring would have his genetic heritage. Not the same heritage mind you, like it would be with one woman, because the mothers' heritage would be different.

Oh wait, it was the same sentence.

This implies stagnation, since unlike a society where everyone reproduces (resulting in a more diversified genetic composition) you only carry on the traits of a few men, which might as well turn out detrimental in the long run.

No it doesn't. The word stagnate does not mean what you think it means.

You also clearly don't understand my post, go back and read it again.

The reply was directed at someone who said that only a tiny minority of men would be able to reproduce which was the central argument. The harem remark was a side-note. You can't derive with certainty whether it went on in serial or in a harem fashion, but I'd wager it was the latter.

If only a fraction of the males reproduce you'll end up with a more homogeneous genetic pool than if everyone reproduced. If this isn't what you mean by stagnation I recommend you consult a dictionary.

If 100% of the males and females reproduce then everything will be passed on. No trait would succeed on its own merits.

This is what I meant by stagnate, aka cease developing, aka no flow or movement, which is what the word means.

Daily reminder that talking about gender, sexuality and most other things on the internet is correlated with being an autist weirdo that everybody IRL secretly hates.

Only within a diversified genetic pool can significant movement happen. If you limit reproduction to a tiny subset of the individuals you're gradually going to navigate yourself into an incestuous corner.

Good job I didn't then. Why don't you try reading people's posts instead of just the first couple of words of the first sentence.

You were advocating in favour of exactly that.

No I wasn't. I expressively didn't want limitations. Why don't you learn to read.

You were advocating in favour of letting nature do as it pleases. But that might not necessarily result in something beneficial.

Just why do you think we have so many wars, homocides, other anti-male social developments and promote homosexuality so much?!

I'm not even one of the elites with dozens of (effectively) concubines. But I still got three preggers out of the program.

Yes that was what I was in favor of, and it certainly wouldn't be 'incestuous'.

>But that might not necessarily result in something beneficial.
And that isn't the point.

Just be yourself.

Hehe, you're a silly billy user. Here, you may have a (you) for making me chuckle a little!

That's not how it works you braindead imbecile.
The most succesful being more likely to reproduce, and as the rate of success decrease so does the reproduction chance.
Everyone reproducing would include negative traits and abject failures reproducing.

Look up how most genetic algorithms work for an understanding of what achieves the best reresults instead of spouting your ignorant crap.

It's lolbertarians that support polygamy. Consenting adults etc.