>The females serve the males, in exchange the males protect the pride.
'Serve' is probably the wrong word. 'Feed and let frick' is more accurate. The male is acutely aware that if he fails in his job the females will kick him out or kill him.
When and why did people start using moronic terms like polygamous to refer to animal behaviours? Polygamy exclusively refers to the marriage of more than two parties. The relationships between animals are not the same. Everyone used to simply say that the pair would mate for life or that the leader of a pack would mate with the females of the pack until ousted in competition by another male. Why do people insist on using terms like that when they bear no actual relation to the animals? It's not as if we'd just use polygamy to describe a human society where you have to fight a man to the death to frick all the women he used to frick.
I know that in all honesty, anon. The point of my post was more so homosexuals would come and defend their degenerate perversions of language and I could out them as freaks. I'm just sick of that shit and slippery slope doesn't begin to describe how low they're willing to stoop.
>tfw no lioness gf
There have been examples of a pride of lionesses killing their male after he failed to do his job properly.
>Come home to this everytime you get off work
Imagine haha
uhmm... can we go back to discussing how to naturally arouse lioness?
have a thick dark mane
I have long dark hair, does it work too?
>The females serve the males, in exchange the males protect the pride.
'Serve' is probably the wrong word. 'Feed and let frick' is more accurate. The male is acutely aware that if he fails in his job the females will kick him out or kill him.
The lead male has a monopoly on the females and also has gay sex with his brother on the side. Lions are degenerate.
When and why did people start using moronic terms like polygamous to refer to animal behaviours? Polygamy exclusively refers to the marriage of more than two parties. The relationships between animals are not the same. Everyone used to simply say that the pair would mate for life or that the leader of a pack would mate with the females of the pack until ousted in competition by another male. Why do people insist on using terms like that when they bear no actual relation to the animals? It's not as if we'd just use polygamy to describe a human society where you have to fight a man to the death to frick all the women he used to frick.
Because that enables gays to justify themselves by pointing at nature
Obviously thats the only real point
I know that in all honesty, anon. The point of my post was more so homosexuals would come and defend their degenerate perversions of language and I could out them as freaks. I'm just sick of that shit and slippery slope doesn't begin to describe how low they're willing to stoop.
Much like the “animals are homos too!” argument. Maybe we should also start being cannibals and rapists…
The japanese are homos too and achieved everything white nationalists dreamed of so
I think people get it confused with polygyny, something very common in mammals
no because they are the ones who go out to find the food while the patriarch sits in the tall grass and licks his balls all day
The males have to conserve their energy for fighting off other competitors so it makes sense
Dude could have broken something. Very scary.
seek jesus
seek therapy
Smash
Pass