https://psmag.com/environment/17-to -1-reproductive-success

(((forgetting about the 16 other men)))

>>138309858
>paradise
>17 wives

I have just one and yet I cannot understand muslims, let alone some stone age patriarch who willingly put up with all that hysterics, even though we all descend from said patriarchs. he had to keep them pregnant or nursing all the time. also, your odds of having satisfying sex in your life == 1/17, fuck that shit.

File: OP.png (21KB, 263x200px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 263x200px

>>138309858

>>138309858
Wow yeah that sounds like fun for men:

Option 1)
>Be born.
>Slave away at bone crushing manual labour as soon as you're strong enough to lift tools.
>Die a virgin.
>95% chance of this happening.

Option 2:
>Be born.
>Slave away at bone crushing manual labour as soon as you're strong enough to lift tools.
>Live long enough to be successful and get the girls.
>Have to deal with 17 wives, 17 mother in laws and 70 children.

>>138309858
>1 man
>17 wives

You mean 17 qweenz for every kang.

>>138309858
Except Egyptians didn't have seventeen wives. They had two at the most. The only ones with that many were the jews.

>>138310282
>17 submissive women

There's your answer

>>138310608
submissive is good, but I just can't see it happening mere centuries into the agricultural revolution. also, what happened with the 16 other men? agriculture made it possible to feed more people from the same plot of land, so they were superfluous, and I don't think the society back then condoned killing 16 of your rivals, nor could it effectively force 16/17th of the male population into permanent celibacy.

most likely they died in wars before procreating. must have been a rough time, don't you think?

>>138309858
wow, talk about male privilege.

>>138310608
>>17 submissive blob of fat

>>138310282
What hysterics? Wives are a good thing. They cook, clean and give you a warm welcome when you're back home after work. Explain how multiple aren't better, since they can help rear each other's children and you have some variety in your life. If I told you you can only eat one dish for the rest of your life, would you not just jump off a cliff?

>>138309858
So 16 men went without wives?

Or do they go for their friends daughters?

Yes. And people were mudhut african tier.

>>138310056
And this is why nature invented homosexuality. The most productive, strongest, and prettiest fags would be added to the alpha's harem. Essentially they would be his body guards.

>>138311449
horrifying scenes of jealousy, of course.

>>138309858
That was probably some warlord, monarch or (((successful grain merchant))) who had both the power and wealth for that. The average dude was probably happy to have a wife.

This is why marriage as a social contract needs to be monogamous. It's a mutually benefitial contract that ensures that available women are spread out more and the chance to produce offspring for the majority of the population is maximized.

>>138311735
NAZI!

>>138311449
Trying marrying a feminist, Ahmed. Women here are "empowered", "strong", "self-realizing" (ie. entitled, selfish, narcissists living in their bubble of feminist propaganda). You are lucky to get a decent woman who is obedient, this quality has been almost eradicated from women.

>>138311677
This, we're talking averages here. Most men died of violence, disease and hardship before they got to reproduce, most others had kids with one or two women, the leaders of men had kids with many women. And what is that about wives? The moment we invented marriage, that ratio came much closer to equity, that was the whole damned point of the exercise.

>>138310401
Polygamy just doesn't seem sustainable assuming equal gender ratio. More likely it was implemented because loads of men died off in combat and someone had to keep the local women in check before society went batshit crazy.

>>138311084
simple, a theoretical society of 100 men and 100 capable of reproducing women exists.
99 men die off to war or disease, so that one guy is going to have to get real buisy with women and the population is saved in a generation.

now imagine if some sickness kills off their women or they send them off to war stupidly, leaving only one.
Unless they get more women the society is doomed, and now you know why warrior women where very rare.

File: IMG_1770.jpg (204KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 600x455px

>>138309858
Hmmm

>>138311449
yeah 17 muslim wives sounds enticing since you can actually control them
imagine 17 entitled bratty strong independent american women

>>138310056
That's before monogamy became a thing. 1/17 is literally the natural order. Beta males don't get to reproduce.

>>138309858
Sensationalist. What it's actually saying is that male mutations have had much harsher selection that female. It's not that 1 in 17 men failed to reproduce, it's that 1 in 17 men failed to reproduce on the scale necessary for their progeny to survive thousands of years, compared to the odds of women doing the same.

This is reflected in the fact that mitochondrial eve is estimated to be 250k years old, but y- chromosomal Adam is around 60k years old (if you exclude the most remote jungle niggers in the A clade)

Men have murder, cuckoldry, starvation, warfare, testicular injury, and just plain shitty wives to confound their reproductive success, while women just need to be alive and someone will probably knock them up by silver tongue, silver pockets, or the silver of a knife, whether the woman wants to or not.

>>138310056
You don't seem to understand men dying in wars
It's the greatest thing
If you are the lucky one to make it home you get 17 bitches because you saw 20 of your friends die

File: 1500448860246.png (3MB, 1469x1323px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1469x1323px

>>138309858
Basically this:

>>138312912
>silver tongue, silver pockets, or the silver of a knife
ha, clever

>>138311623
There is nothing natural about faggotry, sodomite. Hang yourself, or just wait for your inevitable death from AIDS

>>138312912
So basically everyone posting in the thread including OP is an idiot that never read the article.

No wonder clickbait works. Most people don't want to read anymore than the title and than immediately pass judgment

>>138310401
Men didn't have to put up with all that shit then because they all fucked off and died by 40.

>>138313277
>hurr no one read the article hurr they are idiots hurr
>doesnt provide examples

>>138313461
Just look at OP any everyone below him. It's all talking about wives when that's the sensationalism angle.

Did you even read OP's text? Or do you have the memory of a goldfish

>>138313277
>>138313854
>read the article!
>make sure you give it clicks
Cat shit, you fucking shill.

>more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man

I would love to organize a group of men to protest against low reproduction rates, I mean it should be 1:1, isn't that what feminists want? 100% equality?

If you want to piss them off then campaign for sexual rights for those not in the game

>>138313854
im not reading that bullshit im only here to shitpost

>>138309858
>NOT BEING AT WAR
This is the true red pill. CONSTANT WAR.

File: sample_ed184f5a0a12174b4de18dbe92cb6de3.jpg (176KB, 850x1200px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 850x1200px

>/pol/ now thinks monogamy is bad

>>138310282
keep your bitch in check and you won't have uppity women problems

>>138309858
REPRODUCE WHERE???

I DOUBT IT WAS THE SAME IN EVERY SINGLE PART OF THE WORLD, THAT SEEMS LIKE A SENSATIONALIST ARTICLE TO ME

>>138313040
>make it home

you mean be a part of the ruling class and send all the dumb shit peons to die while you fuck all the women

>>138311623
If nature invented homosexuality, it also invented the automobile.

>>138309858

we go full circle

>>138313065
This is a really good post. Thanks for sharing. However, the question that comes to my mind is, why do some betas support and encourage the destruction of civilisation?