Which is why I never got why women agree to being part of a harem if they have a choice. The more wives, the less dick there is to go around, and the more sexually neglected each wife becomes. What's the upside if you're part of a guy's harem? For a community of coomers, it sounds like hell.
Eh, maybe not. One of the most common complaints of men regarding marriage is sexy times become scarce or even stopping completely. I'm sure a lot of married men would complain about not having sex as much as they would like. Having more than one woman to "share the load", even just a second wife, might actually mitigate that.
Being the wife of a rich asshole, even when the wives are horrible gold diggers like you, is better than being a single poor woman or married to a poor guy.
A literal powerpoint presentation that even someone in HR would embarrassed to use in order to explain the ground rules and situation revolving around a bunch of troons awkwardly trying to fuck each other is maybe the most autistic thing I've seen in this thread in quite some time. It just sums up polyfaggotry in a way that words can't quite.
If I were to join a polycule, its because I'm a filthy degenerate, not because I want to reenact every awful corporate meeting ever.
There were free love movements in the late 19th century and they imploded just as spectacularly as the average polycule.
Honestly I can't really complain about transbians choosing to only fuck each other in one big polycule and leaving lesbian women alone. It may be deranged but it's pretty convenient.
Historically the upside was that the men who had them were rich and also usually political leaders. Women want high-status men, and being able to share one high-status man seems on the face of it to be a good prospect for them.
Daddy issues can do awful things to the human mind.
Being a poor single woman is better than putting up with some guy's nonsense.
Plus it's also hilarious!
This is how normal women who aren’t gold diggers think.
Historically, women couldn't work (except in prostitution). A woman's place was in the home, as the saying goes. So she either got married or went to the streets.
I think the soulless vampires seem more numerous than they are because the zeitgeist is evil.
"Historically" when? Where? Wtf are you talking about? When women were working as nurses and teachers and librarians and dressmakers? When they were fishwives and bakers and selling produce and goods in booths and at markets as depicted in medieval drawings? Lmfao what are you even on about?
They were married to the fisherman, they were married to the baker (or his children). Nurses, teachers , librarians- at earliest was maybe 1700’s. Most teachers before that were men. And then it depends on culture as to whether they were allowed. A peasant woman could get a job (and even then it was questionable about whether she was a whore or not unless she had a husband), but a gentry woman would likely be cut off from her family and shunned if she did the same.
This is much newer than you think and very much the exception to history and human culture. There were female business owners in ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures. If you didn't work you died.
Yeah I don't think you majored in Incel Revisionist History, where women joined the workforce in the 1940s and nobody ever got any tendies again.
i think people who say stuff like that conflate "work" with the fairly modern idea of corporate employment and pursuing some kind of career as the main goal in life. when looking at it through that lens, it is true that women were excluded from these things until fairly recently.
