To everyone congratulating this guy: think about marrying the same person as a same sex sibling of yours. Seriously. Spending the rest of your life screwing someone knowing your bother (or sister) had been there the night before.

Now thinking about spending your life married to two people who are willing to do that.

duggieb63: Not "Romney's" world. Different church. If you married more than one person in the LDS church, you get excommunicated. "mormon" wedding in your home? Sorry. "mormon" wedding is in the temple. Not allowed in if you aren't a member of the LDS church. The bishop can do a civil union, but if the guy was married in Utah, or any of the other 50 states, marrying more than one wife is also illegal. If the guy is a member of some off shoot, whatever, but it isn't the same church. Polygamy hasn't been allowed in the LDS church for over 100 years. This is as officially "mormon" as marrying a goat.

//welcome to the stereotype and ignorance
//do you feel the bliss?

So you're saying that 100 years ago Morons could marry goats? Does marrying multiple goats count as polygamy? What happens if you were married when they banned it? Do you have to choose between the goat and your wife?

Morpheses: I sincerely hope you're right...Oh, wait...there's someone at the door. Two someones. Holding some damn book again...

Well, that's also nothing new. The Saints have been pedaling around New Mexico and Colorado and Idaho and Wyoming and (Utah) and Montana and California and Arizona and Nevada peddling their religion since long before you and I were born, and somehow the Western States have by-and-large resisted their blandishments for the last, oh, 150 years. Trust me: This is not a new thing. Something tells me that the Intermountain West long ago reached Peak Mormonism. Even their prolific breeding hasn't changed the equation very much in the face of the massive influx of infidels, or whatever the rest of us might be called. If anything, the available information suggests they are losing ground at an accelerating pace.

You know, Hare Krishnas buttonhole people in airports, too. I'm sure there's some analog to Salt Lake City in the Hare Krishna universe (probably Oxnard CA or some sh*t like that), and likewise I'm sure they're losing ground in their stronghold. All of this religious and political tub-thumping is nothing more than an ancient form of trolling. Most people are either resistant to it or don't have long enough attention spans to be truly susceptible. Look, a pancake! Whatever happened to Anubis???

I regard Mormons as just another part of the landscape out here - no more significant in the long run than Hopis or Apaches or Navajos or the flagellant Penitentes of the Upper Rio Grande Valley or Baptists or any of the other multitude of religious kooks in the Southwest (and America at large). There's a real Zen Temple on the edge of the Pajarito Plateau NW of Albuquerque. Who knew?

Did I mention that I found a pretty cool rock art panel last month?

Oogabooga.

Morpheses: canyoneer: Morpheses: In other words: STOP NOT LIKING THE THINGS THAT I LIKE!!! Face it dude... some people just don't like Utah. Even people who live here, like me. The mountains are nice, but the people and the laws suck so much ass that it's not even funny anymore.

What are you doing there? if you hate it so much, why don't you move? Are you a masochist?

Eh, for me, SLC is irrelevant. I like the canyon country, and there's no other place on Earth with the sheer density and intensity of incredible landscapes as Southern Utah. So I spend quite a bit of time there. I have never been hassled by anyone over anything in Utah. But I'm at peace with the world, and the assholes in Utah don't bother me any more than the assholes in California, or anywhere else for that matter. Assholes are assholes, no matter their particular brand of assholery, and they are everywhere.

Oh, the old Mormon apologist "If you don't like it, leave" derp. Ok, are you gonna get me a job in another state in a down economy? Or buy my house? Please. That is so much crap.

Southern Utah rocks, and frankly, Northern Utah rocks too... for the rocks. The people are ALL assholes. I know what you're saying about the landscape. You obviously have never really lived in Mormonville... Southern Utah ain't it.

But they DO like it, so why.should they change to accomodate you?

And back in the day they.didnt like it and did leave, we followed.them.

Only one picture of hot twins in a thread which practically sucks your cock for them.

There is literally no one on Fark I don't hate right now.

Jesus Farking Christ: Only one picture of hot twins in a thread which practically sucks your cock for them. There is literally no one on Fark I don't hate right now.

Here's a picture of a random girl at Lake Powell drinking Tecates, in the horrible repressive police state called Utah. Better?

Exception Collection: I know identical twins that grew up Mormon, so I'm getting a kick out of this thread...

Did you..."KNOW"...them?

canyoneer: Strategeryz0r: Outdated information from July of last year Stiff drinks and doubles are illegal in Utah. Bars and restaurants must use meters on their liquor bottles to make sure they do not pour more than 1.5 ounces at a time. Other liquors can be added to cocktails in lesser amounts, not to exceed 2.5 ounces of liquor in a drink, as long as they are poured from bottles clearly marked "flavoring." fark you Utah. I know of no other state with idiocy like this. Regardless of wineries, breweries, or distilleries. Utah can go away. Now if you can show me that things have relaxed I will retract my hatred. But I have never visited a state so dead set on ensuring the populace is not allowed to live their life as they see fit. And the alcohol laws are just one part of a laundry list of absurdities.

You are filled with hatred because you cannot get a double in a bar? Sounds like you need to relax, or maybe join AA. When I'm in Utah, I live my life as I see fit and no one has ever oppressed me. But I don't spend much time in bars or around barflies, so I don't give a sh*t about that stuff. But like I said: it's a free country. You are free to avoid Utah to your heart's content.

Why do you enjoy limiting others?

Sounds like you have a problem controlling yourself.

machoprogrammer: John Napkintosh: Why is polygamy illegal again?

Really?

There are several problems with it...

The first being that, as someone stated above, it really farks with the gene pool (polygamist sects often are isolated and thus a very shallow gene pool -- see FLDS). Same reason incest is illegal.

Second, and the main issue, is that in theory, it would be ok, if women would marry multiple men as well as men marrying multiple women. However, historically, that never, ever happens and you end up with a few men with many wives. This leads to young men, at the very least, being frustrated at the lack of women and often times excommunicated from their sects. It also leads to abuse as young women are forced into marriages with older men and often times raped.

Polygamy is bad, mmk?

It's great for war making.

Why do you hate America?

Hmmmmmmm, let's see:

Two gays want to get married-----just an alternative lifestyle, nothing wrong with that;

One straight wants to marry three women--------- OMFG! Lock up the children, incest and child molesting and David Koresh all over again!

Double standard as usual?

Would this guy have a problem if an 18 year old guy started banging 3 of his daughters (assuming they are all of age)?

blazemongr: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x403]

Why do the girls all look happy, but the boys all look uniformly creepy?

Because the boys are all gonna be kicked to the curb when they're 16. Checkout the oldest dude. He KNOWS his time is short.

The girls all know that they're gonna be horse-traded to some old dude that will take care of them.

TWX: joyride75: Oh, so I can hear three times the nagging? No thanks.

HARCOURT!!!

/better not be obscure

About as clear as mudd.

Tommy Moo: You're funny. You imagine that humans aren't members of the animal kingdom? Your views lead me to believe you are a theist.

In a society with relative resource parity, yes, women will sort themselves out among men with a thin distribution. However, in a society where 10% of the population possesses 90% of all wealth (such as the United States), then it becomes evolutionarily advantageous for women to stack up on the haves. Even sharing his resources with his competing partners, a woman's offspring is more likely to survive with a rich man than with the full attention of a poor man. I didn't invent this theory; it is well established sociology/genetics.


Actually, no. I'm not religious. However I do most certainly believe there's a really big step between the rest of the animal kingdom and us, the ontological discontinuity I remember it being called. We're animals, yes, but not mere animals. All the stuff we've inherited from half a billion years' worth of ancestors might express itself as measurable tendencies once in a while but no way in hell do I believe it's our doom.

We're humans. We transcend that lizard brain shiat all the time. Most of us, anyway. My opinion, the primitive animal behavior/gene spreading stuff sort of explains vague general things, like why men apparently enjoy the Godfather movies more than women, but from personal observation of the world around me I don't believe the facts support going much further than that.

If we were mere Chimps, you'd expect to observe that a huge majority of human females are on the edge of the slippery slope about to become golddiggers at the slightest push. Or most men would be violent and cruel. Or maybe we'd all be constantly having sex as the central organizing principle of society, if we followed the Bonobo model.

All those behaviors that we share with our cousins do exist - war hasn't disappeared, we all personally know a few wealth-craving women and violent or sociopath dickhead men, war hasn't disappeared, plenty of people use sex as a manipulative tool - but it's all just a small part of what we are. It's not all we are.

quantum_jellyroll: Jubeebee:
That guy has the same smug smile in every picture in TFA.

Hell, wouldn't you??

Not like that guy's. Some people don't smile with their whole face







...and the result is kind of creepy and wrong-looking. The guy in tfa is one of those.

Jesus Farking Christ: Only one picture of hot twins in a thread which practically sucks your cock for them.

There is literally no one on Fark I don't hate right now.

I never understood posting girls in a fark thread. Some people read the comments at work, and if you really want to see hot girls, try google image search.

machoprogrammer: John Napkintosh: Why is polygamy illegal again?

Really?

There are several problems with it...

The first being that, as someone stated above, it really farks with the gene pool (polygamist sects often are isolated and thus a very shallow gene pool -- see FLDS). Same reason incest is illegal.

Second, and the main issue, is that in theory, it would be ok, if women would marry multiple men as well as men marrying multiple women. However, historically, that never, ever happens and you end up with a few men with many wives. This leads to young men, at the very least, being frustrated at the lack of women and often times excommunicated from their sects. It also leads to abuse as young women are forced into marriages with older men and often times raped.

Polygamy is bad, mmk?

I don't see any of these as major stumbling blocks. We already do have laws against incest to combat the genetic problems you mention (although I suspect it is more due to christian morals than science). Coerced marriages and rape are likewise illegal and should remain so. Most women probably wouldn't marry multiple men - at least not simultaneously but likewise very few women would consent to sharing a man with other wives.

Culturally most Americans are not in favor of polygamy nor are we prone to incestual marriages although it is legal to marry cousins in some states I believe studies have shown this isn't a great risk for genetic defects. Many (perhaps not most anymore) Americans are not in favor of gay marriage either but I see nothing wrong with it as long as they are 2 (or more) consenting adults.

I'm okay with polygamy as long as all involved are consenting adults and this extends to the consent of the first wife (or husband just in case a woman does want multiple men).

The sound of one hand clapping: TFA says that he rotates which one of the 3 wives he sleeps with each night. What's the point of having the twin fantasy if you don't sleep with them together. I've never really been much into the twin fantasy myself but I always thought that the whole idea was having both twins at the same time.

/Realize that the guy probably didn't just do it for the twin fantasy
//Still thinks he oughta be coaching them into sharing a bed

Well, maybe Sunday's "foursome" night?

1. Just think what a dude with hair could pull in that religion!

2. How does this religion work on a macro scale? Assuming a roughly 50/50 male/female birthrate, at some point there's either a helluva lot of homosexual dudes running around, a lot of adultery, or a lot of violent young males.

Families like this one and the Duggers seriously make me mad. We're dealing with a planet that is already overpopulated and there is no excuse for this type of mass breeding Idiocracy style.

John Napkintosh: Why is polygamy illegal again?

For every man with 3 wives there are 2 men who won't be able to marry. Young men with no marriage prospects can make society a little unstable. Plus its just god damn selfish.

Nick Nostril: 1. Just think what a dude with hair could pull in that religion!

2. How does this religion work on a macro scale? Assuming a roughly 50/50 male/female birthrate, at some point there's either a helluva lot of homosexual dudes running around, a lot of adultery, or a lot of violent young males.

As for your second point, you are exactly correct, polygamy does NOT promote stable societies and is inherently inequitable.

gotdang this is so hot i just fapped myself raw

phaseolus: Tommy Moo: You're funny. You imagine that humans aren't members of the animal kingdom? Your views lead me to believe you are a theist.

In a society with relative resource parity, yes, women will sort themselves out among men with a thin distribution. However, in a society where 10% of the population possesses 90% of all wealth (such as the United States), then it becomes evolutionarily advantageous for women to stack up on the haves. Even sharing his resources with his competing partners, a woman's offspring is more likely to survive with a rich man than with the full attention of a poor man. I didn't invent this theory; it is well established sociology/genetics.


Actually, no. I'm not religious. However I do most certainly believe there's a really big step between the rest of the animal kingdom and us, the ontological discontinuity I remember it being called. We're animals, yes, but not mere animals. All the stuff we've inherited from half a billion years' worth of ancestors might express itself as measurable tendencies once in a while but no way in hell do I believe it's our doom.

We're humans. We transcend that lizard brain shiat all the time. Most of us, anyway. My opinion, the primitive animal behavior/gene spreading stuff sort of explains vague general things, like why men apparently enjoy the Godfather movies more than women, but from personal observation of the world around me I don't believe the facts support going much further than that.

If we were mere Chimps, you'd expect to observe that a huge majority of human females are on the edge of the slippery slope about to become golddiggers at the slightest push. Or most men would be violent and cruel. Or maybe we'd all be constantly having sex as the central organizing principle of society, if we followed the Bonobo model.

All those behaviors that we share with our cousins do exist - war hasn't disappeared, we all personally know a few wealth-craving women and violent or sociopath dickhead men, war hasn' ...

One real world example I have is that Osama bin Laden's father had 22 wives.

Sonja: "Father, Boris is trying to commit suicide.Last week he contemplated killing himself by inhaling next to an Armenian."

Old priest: Tell Boris this. I have lived many years and, after many trials and tribulations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing is...

Sonja: Yes?

Old priest: .blonde, -year-old girls.

Sonja: Father!

Old priest: Two of them, whenever possible.

Happy Hours: I don't see any of these as major stumbling blocks. We already do have laws against incest to combat the genetic problems you mention (although I suspect it is more due to christian morals than science). Coerced marriages and rape are likewise illegal and should remain so. Most women probably wouldn't marry multiple men - at least not simultaneously but likewise very few women would consent to sharing a man with other wives.

Culturally most Americans are not in favor of polygamy nor are we prone to incestual marriages although it is legal to marry cousins in some states I believe studies have shown this isn't a great risk for genetic defects. Many (perhaps not most anymore) Americans are not in favor of gay marriage either but I see nothing wrong with it as long as they are 2 (or more) consenting adults.

I'm okay with polygamy as long as all involved are consenting adults and this extends to the consent of the first wife (or husband just in case a woman does want multiple men).

The problem is that many familys would "enforce" the polygamy rule (like the FLDS does), and thus, many would be coerced into it. This creates a bad situation where it leads to many single, frustrated men, which is bad for society. And the laws don't really do much to protect the victims, since they are forced into it and they would be afraid to go to the authorities.

I have no problem with gay marriage, either.

I've always been unsure why we should get all worked up about this. As long as none of them were child brides or something then go ahead.

That man has a true shiat-eating grin.

^{The Dargers, who are fundamentalist Mormons from Salt Lake City, Utah, live together in a large family home and have 24 children between them.}

It's not the 3 wives that is bugging the shiat out of me...
It's the 24 pieces of waste that came from it.

/Limit four. Bank some for a death replacement and cut your balls.
/Do it now before we have to do what China does.
//Yeah, sometimes I can be stern.

machoprogrammer: Happy Hours: I don't see any of these as major stumbling blocks. We already do have laws against incest to combat the genetic problems you mention (although I suspect it is more due to christian morals than science). Coerced marriages and rape are likewise illegal and should remain so. Most women probably wouldn't marry multiple men - at least not simultaneously but likewise very few women would consent to sharing a man with other wives.

Culturally most Americans are not in favor of polygamy nor are we prone to incestual marriages although it is legal to marry cousins in some states I believe studies have shown this isn't a great risk for genetic defects. Many (perhaps not most anymore) Americans are not in favor of gay marriage either but I see nothing wrong with it as long as they are 2 (or more) consenting adults.

I'm okay with polygamy as long as all involved are consenting adults and this extends to the consent of the first wife (or husband just in case a woman does want multiple men).

The problem is that many familys would "enforce" the polygamy rule (like the FLDS does), and thus, many would be coerced into it. This creates a bad situation where it leads to many single, frustrated men, which is bad for society. And the laws don't really do much to protect the victims, since they are forced into it and they would be afraid to go to the authorities.

I have no problem with gay marriage, either.

Arranged marriages are also coerced in some cultures as well. It seems more of a cultural problem than anything else. I'm not really sure how this is all that different just because multiple spouses are involved. Even without coerced marriages there is often pressure to marry within the same faith or race in certain families.

It seems that a problem does unfortunately exist even if monogamy is enforced. I don't see any solution that can fix all the problems of the world.qwe

Stoker: The Dargers, who are fundamentalist Mormons from Salt Lake City, Utah, live together in a large family home and have 24 children between them.

It's not the 3 wives that is bugging the shiat out of me...
It's the 24 pieces of waste that came from it.

/Limit four. Bank some for a death replacement and cut your balls.
/Do it now before we have to do what China does.
//Yeah, sometimes I can be stern.

You know who else could be stern?

The twins are doing it wrong. What's the point of pulling a secret switcheroo on the guy? "Hee hee hee! I fooled you! You had sex with me thinking I was your wife when...ta da! I'm really...your other wife!"

I don't see this guy getting three times the nagging. I see him getting almost no nagging. If they all live in the same house, there's no point in nagging him and no need to nag him.

The benefit of polygamy for the women---if the guy can keep up with their sexual needs---is that they can split the chores up and nobody's overwhelmed.

Seriously, if there are two or three of us, even if each of us has her own batch of kids, we've got that domestic bullshiat nailed. It's fairly easy to cooperate and split stuff up and get it all done without too much trouble, and it's fairly easy to corral the kidlets and put them to work doing whatever useful chores they're capable of doing---even if it's only playing with the littler ones and helping keep them out from underfoot.

Getting us to live together without catfights, that's another matter. But when we can do that, it works out great.

Infinite Entropy: John Napkintosh: Why is polygamy illegal again?

For every man with 3 wives there are 2 men who won't be able to marry. Young men with no marriage prospects can make society a little unstable. Plus its just god damn selfish.

Point 1) Women are people, not lawnmowers. Nobody is entitled to have one. Nobody is "stealing" if two or more people choose to be with him.

Point 2) There's no enforceable law in our society that says two or more men and one woman can't choose to be together. If you're the odd man out, get a good buddy and find a girl who likes barbecue.

canyoneer: Jesus Farking Christ: Only one picture of hot twins in a thread which practically sucks your cock for them. There is literally no one on Fark I don't hate right now.

Here's a picture of a random girl at Lake Powell drinking Tecates, in the horrible repressive police state called Utah. Better?

[farm3.static.flickr.com image 500x375]

I hope they clean their trash and fix that pit...leave no trace.

Julie Cochrane: The twins are doing it wrong. What's the point of pulling a secret switcheroo on the guy? "Hee hee hee! I fooled you! You had sex with me thinking I was your wife when...ta da! I'm really...your other wife!"

I don't see this guy getting three times the nagging. I see him getting almost no nagging. If they all live in the same house, there's no point in nagging him and no need to nag him.

The benefit of polygamy for the women---if the guy can keep up with their sexual needs---is that they can split the chores up and nobody's overwhelmed.

Seriously, if there are two or three of us, even if each of us has her own batch of kids, we've got that domestic bullshiat nailed. It's fairly easy to cooperate and split stuff up and get it all done without too much trouble, and it's fairly easy to corral the kidlets and put them to work doing whatever useful chores they're capable of doing---even if it's only playing with the littler ones and helping keep them out from underfoot.

Getting us to live together without catfights, that's another matter. But when we can do that, it works out great.

i was thinking about this the other day. i love my wife like no other woman I have ever loved, and she has a sister a few years younger. sis is getting married soon to her fiance. it struck me that in a crazy world that allowed my wife and her sis to live under the same roof as sister wives that our life would actually improve quite a bit. They already get along. step 2 i suppose is gettin rid of sis's fiance, becoming mormon, brainwashing the women and moving to utah but it is just crazy enough to work....


/brainwashing would never work. i think you probably have to raise the women from birth to believe this shiat is cool.

Infinite Entropy: Nick Nostril: 1. Just think what a dude with hair could pull in that religion!

2. How does this religion work on a macro scale? Assuming a roughly 50/50 male/female birthrate, at some point there's either a helluva lot of homosexual dudes running around, a lot of adultery, or a lot of violent young males.

As for your second point, you are exactly correct, polygamy does NOT promote stable societies and is inherently inequitable.

Screw "inequitable."

Women are not cows or goats. We are not property. Neither you nor anyone else is born entitled to one.

Everybody has marriage prospects. Rule One would be don't be the wrong kind of colossal dork. Rule Two for guys is unfortunately something the guy can't help: don't be short. If a guy is beyond a certain level of short, it's enough of a built in "bad genes" flag that almost nothing a woman intellectually knows about the guy as a person will override it when she looks for a mate.

If a guy is beyond a certain level of short, he can be in the friend zone, but he won't be a prospect for a mate. Just like there are some things that just disqualify women as mates. We could be in the friend zone, but we won't be mate candidates if we have those attributes.

Mother Nature and Darwin are not "equitable." They never were. They were never meant to be. Being "fair" isn't last on life's To Do list. It didn't make the list at all.

Every generation, there are single women nobody else wants, who are lonely and want a relationship. Your rejected and dejected "single men with no marriage prospects" don't want those single women either. And those single women don't want your "single men with no marriage prospects."

At some level, people stop being willing to date and marry the other people within their own league. People stop being willing to face reality about what "their league" is. They take it as a personal insult or as "low self-esteem" to recognize and acknowledge reality of where they are on the dating totem pole and are unwilling to date the members of the opposite sex who are at their own level. They are convinced that part of their progress as human beings is repeating to themselves what a "catch" they are and that they shouldn't "settle" and that they are really great and "deserve" someone "worthy of the great person they are."

These guys do have marriage prospects. They're just unwilling to face the reality of where they are on the dating totem pole and date and marry at their own level. They've got their noses stuck in the air and are "too good for" the women who would marry them.

I'm not talking about China or the middle east or places where you'd have to move across a national border because there's an actual imbalance of women. In the case of discarded Mormon boys, all they'd have to do is marry non-Mormon fat chicks. Possibly non-Mormon, middle-aged, divorced, poor, fat chicks with kids. There are a gracious plenty of those available.

These young men don't lack women because there aren't women. They lack women because they don't want the women there are.

Julie Cochrane: Infinite Entropy: Nick Nostril: 1. Just think what a dude with hair could pull in that religion!

2. How does this religion work on a macro scale? Assuming a roughly 50/50 male/female birthrate, at some point there's either a helluva lot of homosexual dudes running around, a lot of adultery, or a lot of violent young males.

As for your second point, you are exactly correct, polygamy does NOT promote stable societies and is inherently inequitable.

Screw "inequitable."

Women are not cows or goats. We are not property. Neither you nor anyone else is born entitled to one.

Everybody has marriage prospects. Rule One would be don't be the wrong kind of colossal dork. Rule Two for guys is unfortunately something the guy can't help: don't be short. If a guy is beyond a certain level of short, it's enough of a built in "bad genes" flag that almost nothing a woman intellectually knows about the guy as a person will override it when she looks for a mate.

If a guy is beyond a certain level of short, he can be in the friend zone, but he won't be a prospect for a mate. Just like there are some things that just disqualify women as mates. We could be in the friend zone, but we won't be mate candidates if we have those attributes.

Mother Nature and Darwin are not "equitable." They never were. They were never meant to be. Being "fair" isn't last on life's To Do list. It didn't make the list at all.

Every generation, there are single women nobody else wants, who are lonely and want a relationship. Your rejected and dejected "single men with no marriage prospects" don't want those single women either. And those single women don't want your "single men with no marriage prospects."

At some level, people stop being willing to date and marry the other people within their own league. People stop being willing to face reality about what "their league" is. They take it as a personal insult or as "low self-esteem" to recognize and acknowledge reality of where they are on the dating tot ...

even unattractive men don't want fat or ugly women, just as women don't want poor short men. wow, what a concept. perhaps if so many couples weren't "ugly\old dude - attractive woman" convincing so many men that if they just wait around, a good lookin' woman will eventually come along they would be more willing to settle for a fun but unattractive mate. and maybe if more women were ok with settling with a short broke dude.... but that shiat just isn't reality.

men that are unattractive physically have seen that looks don't mean much if they can make up for it in other areas. women on the other hand know that their value is often tied to how they physically look. double standard i suppose, but accurate. this means that there will ALWAYS be women that NO ONE wants and men that can't get ahead because they either have no better earning potential or are just so short-changed genetically that there is no hope.

at least the men can buy hookers. the women tend to either go lesbian or die bitter and alone in their hoard with their cats.

Thac0isWhac0: Families like this one and the Duggers seriously make me mad. We're dealing with a planet that is already overpopulated and there is no excuse for this type of mass breeding Idiocracy style.


BULLSHIAT.

The planet has more than enough capacity for everything living on it. The problem is distribution. Sam Kinison had it right.

And if you truly believe that, convince everyone you know to stop sending donations to every poor Sally Struthers village or earthquake/tsunami zone. We're "overpopulated" because we don't let natural disasters and the ignorance of poverty take their historical tolls on humans.

frepnog: /brainwashing would never work. i think you probably have to raise the women from birth to believe this shiat is cool.

Not necessarily. Three's good any way you count it, really--provided you remember to talk to each other and not through each other.

frepnog: men that are unattractive physically have seen that looks don't mean much if they can make up for it in other areas. women on the other hand know that their value is often tied to how they physically look. double standard i suppose, but accurate. this means that there will ALWAYS be women that NO ONE wants and men that can't get ahead because they either have no better earning potential or are just so short-changed genetically that there is no hope.

at least the men can buy hookers. the women tend to either go lesbian or die bitter and alone in their hoard with their cats.

And that's the tragedy. Short-changed men with no better earning potential and fat/ugly women each decide that being alone actually is better than being with someone who's as low on the mating totem pole as they are.

In the case of the women rejecting the men, it's because the men's undesirability has to do with what a pain in the ass it is to take care of them and pick up after them.

In the case of the men rejecting the women, a lot of these women aren't just fat or ugly, they're crazy, clingy, and needy. Their undesirability has to do with the difficulty of a man who can't cope with life, himself, well enough to hold down a decent job (has poor social, communication, and coping skills) also not being able to manage or cope with living with a crazy, clingy, needy chick.

I know in the case of the women we're talking about people just barely short of being institutionalized. The crazy lady with the hoard and the cats is usually on disability because she's crazy, and it's cheaper to leave her in her hoard and send her a monthly check for her Cheerios and cat food than to stick her in an institution.

You say at least the men can buy hookers. I guess I'd counter that the women can buy a hitachi to address one need, a rubber grippy thing to open jar lids, and a cat or two for warmth, snuggles, to lay on the couch and make grumbling noises, wander into the kitchen and whine for food, and make smelly messes to be cleaned up after. And the cat doesn't drop dirty socks and underwear on the bedroom floor.

It is, of course, not the same. But neither is a hooker.

As to switching away from stick shift, well, that's an option, too. I think it's less a matter of "going lesbian" than "going bi" and they just happen to find a girlfriend they click with, instead of a boyfriend, and they're old enough not to care anymore what anybody thinks.

But yes, there are women who have tragic enough experiences with men that they just give up on the whole lot of you. Usually there's some kind of post-traumatic reaction going on there. Whether that's to sexual assault or to some particularly cruel and uncalled for bullying about their appearance, it happens.

Not that misandry is justified, mind you. Men are half the human race and most of you are decent people, just like most of us. Just--trauma damages people. People at the bottom of the pile are frequently damaged.

I have trouble pleasing one wife and one kid. I don't envy this guy one bit.