Along time ago there was a general named Xiang Yu. He leads Chu’s army to attack Qin on late short lived Qin dynasty.

Xiang Yu then burned his ship. Then he fights the Qin army. Luck would have it, the prime minister of Qin has killed the Qin’s emperor. Hence the Qin’s general knows that he no longer has anyone to be loyal too.

Hence, the Qin gave up. Xiang Yu then easily slaughtered the prisoner of war.

Burning ships are common strategy we saw in many cultures. Sometimes it work. Sometimes it doesn’t. Zealots and Sicariis also burn ships. Here their ship was food of Jerusalem’s defender when they were under siege by Titus. The result was disastrous though.

Also for many technical reasons, the ships must be burned. Putting a small hole on that ship and let it sink slowly sometimes latter wouldn’t work.

Anyway, it’s effectively a 3 party game.

One of the parties is the general, which for “some reason” want to achieve a specific target.

The other party is the troops. While the troops may want to win the war too, they are not as determined. The troops would rather live, then risk life fighting to the death. Imagine if you’re an Iraqi troop fighting US. You probably don’t care if you win the war or not right.? You probably care more about your life and your families’ life.

The third party is the target, or victim, or enemies. We may choose not to count them as “player”. So it’s a 2 or 3 party game.

By burning the ships, Xiang Yu signals to his troops that the ONLY way to live, is to win the war. This is an important aspect of this strategy. If troops know that there are other ways, they would choose that other way than to fight. After all, killing a tough enemy will always require some strong determination.

Now, imagine. Say Xiang Yu doesn’t burn his ships. Then many of his troops may choose to desert rather than fighting the bigger Qin’s troops. That will also lessen the intensive for the Qin’s general to surrender.

Imagine if some of the troops then build their own ships and start fleeing. Then others would do the same too. This, in a sense, damage “moral”, or “morale” of the troops.

Hence, a determined politician, like Xiang Yu, would do well to block his own troops’ options besides fighting the Qin.

We see this in many political situations.

There are many other samples of burning ships effect. In Middle East, no Arab countries want to accept Palestinians’ refugee because they want to keep the conflict alive.

In German, for example, advertising that feature thin beautiful women are prohibited to force males to pick those (relatively) fat and ugly. After all options that we don’t see are options that “don’t exist” for immediate practical purpose. No wonder Europeans have declining birth rate. Being the richest civilization in the world, their males naturally aim for higher quality specimens when it comes to fucking.

Lack of porn stimulation and hope of getting hot babes combined with too much altruism propaganda would make all those males busy making money and paying taxes instead rather than fucking.

The essence is the same. A few determined individuals, say the (“generals”) would limit choices of other individuals (“troops”) to motivate everyone else to support their cause. Whether the cause is worth it, or noble, or not, is beyond the scope of this article.

Ever wonder why porn, commercialized sex, and consensual women’s trafficking are prohibited? Oh ya, most women’s trafficking is consensual by the way just to make that clear. Perhaps inter state sex worker is a more appropriate term.

Again, we have 2-3 parties.

One is people that are determined to prevent polygamy or any form of spouse sharing.

Why would they? Many reasons. I can name a few reasonable ones.

Just like not all shops will have the same number of customers, not all men and women will be able to attract the same number of spouses. Many humans would rather share a spouse with more attractive offers rather than being the only one for a spouse with less attractive offers.

Unfortunately, there is only one niche in gene pool survival. For every man that got many women, for example, there will be another man that doesn’t get any. This alone provides sufficient intensive for say 10-20% of humans’ population to prevent sex outside life long monogamous marriage.

However, most males and females are not that determined to fight for that cause. Xiang Yu’s troops are determined to live more than they are determined to win. The same way, most humans are more determined to get laid rather than determined to screw sexier people. We love sexy people after all right?

There are, after all many escape pods.

Males that couldn’t compete can share a woman. After all, a typical hot babe has 2 hands, 2 feets, 3 useable holes, and can do some tit job while at it. Most hot babes are under utilized anyway.

When I was poor, I am not interested in getting a wife. I’ll just work hard to get rich first so I can get plenty once I am rich. So whether I am rich or poor I am not interested in marriage.

We can watch porn till we’re rich enough to attract a hot babe. We can import women from China or Eastern Europe (consensually). There are many women that would rather be sex workers in rich countries rather than engaging a holy dignified marriage to some clit cutters.

Lists can go on and on. Some males are gay and don’t mind that another male mate with all hot babes. These males aim for different “niche”.

So how do determined bigots motivate everyone to vote against polygamy?

Simple. By prohibiting all alternatives.

That’s why, porn, prostitution, and interstate sex workers are prohibited. All is to full the bigoted morality cause against sexy people.

As for free market taking care of poverty, please read my e-book at http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com (free for you).

Poverty is CREATED by government.

If women prefer the rich why would any kids have poor dad?

Yea, there will be those that slips through the crack. There will be those that slips through the crack through any system. I can get my leg broken. But I can get shot by robbers too when parasites make too many kids. I’d take the chance of getting my leg broken by car rather than get shot by robbers.

Free market is too abundance that it wouldn’t hurt to help a little. However, the way government implement wealth redistribution increase rather than decrease poverty.

Governments punish hard working poor people (like I was) by income tax. Then government reward lazy poor people to make money.

Many capitalists start of poor too and I bet they can get rich because they have ways to reduce their tax. There is no way you pay 30% tax head on and still can get rich. Income tax hurt everyone, especially working class.

It’s an irony to me that in general free market capitalism is the most pro worker economic system in the world. Capital owners get less and less under capitalism. Interest rate, if adjusted to gold price, is actually negative.

I was poor (and still work hard). My biz went up and down. Now I am middle class. I target my self to earn save $50k by 6 months. All thanks to capitalism.

The next time government tell you that it needs your money to help the poor, tell them that here is a message from a poor worker. Fuck off government. I don’t need your blood money. I just need more market.

And that’s ladies and gentlemen, where internet marketing comes in. A place where there governments haven’t touch that.

Wrong policy? Communism is more than just wrong policy. It’s bigotic genocide. They slander capitalists. They promote hatred against the productive. Then ups, it’s a mistake. We didn’t know it didn’t work. And they just get away with it. Still becoming the ruling class. Still spreading venomous lies. Then we forgive them because capitalists are good. Then they do it again till all of us are in gas chamber out of envy.

I’d say we hit commies with the same rules they used against us. What ever option they use against us, terrorism, murders, lies, deceits, should also be an option on our table. Unfortunately unlike those lies, capitalism do not need to be defended with lies, given that it’s the light and the truth and the way anyway.

The story of Pandora is very similar with the story of Adam. Both want to know something and somehow their acts of inquiry leads to the source of “all evil”. Is it truly evil or perhaps, illusion of evil, or perhaps awareness of evil, to be more exact?

Many have suggested that the forbidden fruit is really “sex”. Why?

Sex is always a sacred topic. Why sacred? Well, that’s because we call it that way. Why do we call it that way? Because we don’t want others to question our stories.

But why sex? We don’t call stock market sacred. Well, we sometimes call power as sacred too actually claiming that God or something beyond our power, control and comprehension, decide things to be the way they are, if we like those things.

Sex is indeed special. All of us are essentially selling the same product. Those who fail to sell themselves as sex objects will go extinct while those who succeed will inherit the earth. There is no alternative. There is no substitute product. We can’t just back of from that market and sell something else.

We can fail to sell everything else but if we manage to breed like rabbits, our bloodlines will still be the one surviving in the gene pool and will inherit the world and all the contents.

The way we evolve, when we’re not at war we’re in a race. To avoid quick death we either agree to be partially enslaved. Once we got our chance, it’s our turn to impose our terms on others.

Humans are quite likely not created and definitely not equal. A few generations from now, all that we achieve, all that we have gained, all wealth we have accrued, will go to the descendants of whoever makes the most kids. Call it tax, socialist revolution, genocide, lawsuits, redistribution of wealth, public school or whatever, all the wealth of the rich will slowly or quickly dribble down to those who manage to make kids. Yes, most will go to our kids. However, what proportion of future kids’ genes will be our genes?

In survival for whoever can find something that works, a few will be winner and get a few most beautiful girls. Fewer still will be big winners and mate with thousands begetting thousands of kids. Some will never mate. The rest settle for a stalemate called monogamy.

All of us will then want to win as big as possible. Whoever win, especially win big, will then do it at the expense of others. Most of us will try to win as much as possible and that means screwing everyone else.

Humans then do many things to prevent others from winning. Most societies have various ways to prohibit various consensual sex acts. Hence whichever humans have power over others can increase their reproductive success by separating their target market from tougher competitors. Poor countries have laws against inter religious marriages. Democracies have laws against polygamy and prostitution.

Those who are in power decided morality. The powerful are also the one that can utilize force more. It’s not a coincidence that the more countries are harsh on consensual acts, the more that countries are lenient toward non consensual acts. Those are just samples of societies where forces prevail over competition.

But still the biggest weapon humans have against another is the belief that all these doesn’t matter. Who do not want to get all the chicks while the rest of the world work slavishly and earn money for them? As much as possible humans want to trick all other humans to get the shorter end of the stick.

Those who question can understand. Those who understand can change the world toward his interest, which often means our expense. We don’t want change. So we don’t like questions. Hence, we call sex sacred. We said God created marriage and define that marriage according to our interests.

That is why any knowledge that might enlighten us to what’s really going on will always be a forbidden fruit. Norms and laws tend to look down upon porn and commercialized sex. The former allow us to dream a better winning life’s purpose. The second establish market price clearly pointing the objective truth of what humans truly want in sex, what they’re willing to offer or accept in exchange of it, and how much.

On the other hand, fairy tales that help keep most humans in the dark will be treated as holies. Those stories that can convince as many as possible to be nice hard working celibate monks, will be exalted to the highest degree.

Now, why sex is sacred again? Well, if life is a running race, we want to trick others to walk or crawl slowly. That trick is called morality. We do not want those we trick to know too much or question the social structure we create for them. Lest their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing what’s truly behind all this morality and hence, pecking order and power structure that govern their lives.

Those who are enlightened will not be so docile in the future. Why should the king get all the babes? If God don’t make him a king, does that mean I can be a king too if I successfully rebel? They then become dangerous. That’s, in a sense, source of all evil isn’t it? We call it evil because those we tricked no longer do what we wish.

The key to world peace is better selection of scapegoats.

I propose we all should pick ugly bitches as scapegoats.

You see, ugly bitches would make much more suitable scapegoats.

1. Ugly bitches can’t fight back anyway. Jews are too powerful.

2. Ugly bitches control the media. That explains why romance got G rating and porn got XXX rating, limiting the audience scope. Most Jews live in countries with freedom of speech and hence can’t possibly control the media. The only censorship on those countries are mainly against porn.

3. Ugly bitches are undesirable. Jewish babes can be hot unless she’s ugly.

The next time ugly bitches bring us to war by promoting criminalization or taxation of peace catalysts, such as porn and commercialized sex, we should exterminate them.

I should post this in some skinhead forums I guess

[quote author=CB750 link=topic=6050.msg30328#msg30328 date=1255532407]
[quote]My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.[/quote]

Ok so then why would people oppose homosexuality? What does a heterosexual lose if a tiny portion of people are gay? I doubt its the loss of potential mating partners. What would be the competition here? I might also oppose bestiality even though I’m not worried about the love of my dog being lost to another. BTW I’m not comparing homosexuality and bestiality.
[/quote]

What I mean by the reason, is the real reason. Deep inside, hardcoded by genes. Not rational reason the actors are aware and definitely not discussed reason. People want to prohibit porn because they feel they need to do so. They feel that way because their genes hard wire them to feel that way. That’s an essence of selfish gene theory by the way. The genes, rather than individuals, are selfish.

As why people hate gay, I do not quite understand too my self. To me for every gay people there is one less competitor. Rather than opposing homosexuality, we should encourage it the way we should encourage abortion.

But there is a pattern. If one men get many the rest don’t get any. If it were like that (it’s not, but say it were), then it’s zero sum game. It’s like penalty kick. There will be no peace or honesty. The more we kick to the right the more we pretend that we kick to the left.

Turns out it’s not zero sum game. Women, or at least the joy of their beauty, can be “mass produced” via porn or more efficiently used via “prostitution”. Some males are homosexual so they don’t mind some males get plenty. Poorer males, would rather have more money rather than making more kids. And many people don’t put high dollar value in their gene pool survival that they want to abort their babies. All those are peaceful solution we should encourage. Guess what, why is it all those “peaceful” solution is politically incorrect?

Why every social norms against consensual sex tend to promote gene pool survival of the weakest, ugliest, and least competitive? Because norms are made by those with power, guts, and insanity to screw others and that kind of people are usually those who have little productivity to offer.

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Then I figured that out. Western men are rich. Women prefer the rich. Hence western men are competitive. Men, I hang around okay. I asked a native javanese girl to meet and she said that she only want to mate with white men. I did try to convince her that white men don’t necessarily have bigger cock, typically have lower IQ (I think I am wrong here), I were rich too, and Asian countries are getting prosper. Let’s just say it didn’t work ;D. Well, she’s not as pretty as my girl friend and I didn’t think it’s worth to pursue. But I do learn something.

Needless to say, in poor countries like mine, it’s the male that opposes free sex. Religious bigots that go from places to places wanting to guard morality are usually males, poor males. In poorer countries like Afghanistan, women can’t even work. The richer the country, the more liberal the men are. This you can verify.

Of course, being weaker, women don’t usually speak clearly on what they want. If women do speak, they usually just confirm whatever prevailing norm in that society so she can fit in. So everyone pretty much undermine women’s consent under the pretext of protecting women because ALL women want it anyway.

It seems to me what matter is not whether something benefits males or females but where you are in the gene pool relative to others. Those relatively competitive sexually will be liberal. Those who are competitive financially will be conservative. And those who are competitive at both will be libertarian. Those who are not competitive will be want bigger government. Like this: http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/RealityofHumanNature.gif

I mean it’s like arguments about socialized health care or income tax. People argue whether it’s good or bad, efficient, or not. That’s because they want as many votes as possible to their side. But let’s just face it. It’s not a cooperative game. If you’re healthy and rich you want privatization. If you’re poor and sick, you want socialization. The zero sum aspect is more influential than the cooperative one and understanding that will more accurately predict what people will vote.

Here is another way to see this.

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

Another easier way to see this:

Rape is like income tax. They’re both a form of slavery, which is a form of robbery. Damage done is then proportional to how valuable things that are being robbed. Which one fear income tax more? The high income or the low income? Which one fear jail more? Programmers, brick layers, doctors, ceos, billionaires, or some starving hoodlum that’ll do anything for free food? I think this will correctly predict people’s voting behavior.

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Just like a person will lay his life for 2 siblings, 4 cousins, or 8 nephews, the same way people would lie his life to exterminate those too antagonistic for their gene pool survival. Suicide bombers typically oppose free sex. At least, they’ll vote against it.

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing at least for males that carry her genes. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. Their friends and families are burglars and will die if you own gun.

Imagine a world without capitalism, which is what the most of the world is before Adam Smith. Those are millions of years are when our genes are fine tuned through evolution. Those whose preference do not lead to gene pool survival, like celibacy, has been wiped out by mother nature through evolution. In those world, we live in a zero sum game.

What would you do in zero sum game? You gang with evil you know against evil you don’t. Our world is NOT zero sum game. But may not be as different as you may think.

Here is another way to think about.

1 out of 4 Asian males carry the same Y chromosome mutation with Gengish Khan. So what kind of humans are around nowadays? Just look at the kind of humans successfully reproduce in the past. Cruel, cunning, insane, greedy, promiscuous, vengeful, and mean. Now, another good question. What kind of human you want to be? The one that stays in the gene pool or the kind that will get driven out?

My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.

Maybe it’s true that ugly women also fear rape. Fine. That still doesn’t justify opposition to porn and other consensual sex. If someone rape, punish the rapist. Simple. Why they hell they have to oppose consensual acts like porn and prostitution that actually reduce rape rather than increasing it.

The fact is most women that oppose porn are ugly. It’s as if they are soooooooooo afraid of rape that they want to prohibit porn because it may cause rape. This while the pretty often become porn star. Something is missing. I am saying that’s not true. The real issue is not because the ugly are more afraid of rape. The issue is because they got hidden motives.

The same goes for anti polygamy laws. It’s there to protect poor males. Of course there are males that have so many wives he cannot afford kids. Solution: Punish males that don’t support kids and set child support payment to be constant irrelevant of daddy’s wealth. But nooo… Can’t feed them, don’t breed them. That’s not the solution people pick don’t they?

EASY. This is the essence of evolutionary biology. In free market, what a person want is simple. What he chooses.

It’s not simple in non consensual act like rape. It’s also not simple when there are too many rules against consensual acts. So we need a third leg in the equation best interest=what he wants. The third equation is that both, in general, are most likely equal with gene pool survival.

According to evolution theory, people fear something if it reduces their gene pool survival. How do rape reduces women’s gene pool survival? It undermines women’s “choice” to mate with higher quality genes and her bargaining position to get resources in exchange of her sexual favor.

Say 2 women are equally pretty. One of them choose a mate and got a millionaire. The other get raped and mate with a hoodlum. That decrease her market value. So she ended up marrying someone poorer. See how rape sucks?

So the true cost is the lost of opportunity for the woman to mate with higher quality males or getting paid for the sexual service. It’s like software pirating. If people can pirate software why should they pay for it? So women also lost potential earning she could have gotten through the sexual service.

Let alone disease, etc.

Dignity is also an issue. If people hurt you and get away with it, it tells others that it’s okay to hit you. This is how the Jews got exterminated. They didn’t hit back hard enough that people start thinking that it’s okay to screw Jews. Eventually it leads to genocide. The same way unpunished rape means males can “use” the women without begging, buying chocolate, paying, caresing, bla bla bla, so why the hell should any male do all those to get her?

The prettier the woman the higher the cost, quite obviously. Pretty woman then lose more to rape than an ugly one. So I conclude that relative to prettier women, uglier women fear rape less.

Keep in mind that’s not really the point. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t punish rape against ugly women. I am arguing that all consensual sex, like porn, prostitution, and consensual women trafficking should all be legal.

Can we quantify damage? Well, to quantify damage we need market price. To know the market price, we need the market. Prostitution is illegal, so no market. But once it’s legal, you’ll see I am right.

Here is a simpler way to see it. Pretty women’s choice matter more. Males are willing to pay more to have prettier women choose him. In general. Rape take away women’s choice. So rape hurt the pretty more than the ugly.

I see your concern. I think choices of words are quite difficult here.

About open border and free immigration as a word, it’s tricky. Women cannot just immigrate to richer countries for being sex worker and while I think they should be allowed to, I am not aiming to promote open border for now. It will happen. Don’t worry. With globalization, job move overseas and soon salary differences will get reduced, reducing political will to prevent immigration. However, I must reluctantly admit that voters in rich countries did something right in making their country rich. Simply forcing voters in those countries to unconditionally accept immigration would undermine intensive for people in poor countries to vote for free market too. So I think a moderate slower approach to get that done through globalization is better than campaigning against truly open border.

About “marriage broker”, well, I don’t promote marriage. To me, marriage implies governments approval while I believe that all consensual sex should be equally approved.

The majority of women “trafficking traveling for mate to richer countries” is of course, consensual. I know that through reasoning. When market value difference is too high, it doesn’t make sense to force people. Much easier to trade consensually. You can see the report on the web easily. Yes traffic refers to commercial dealings. All sex is a commercial dealing. Commercial usually means consensual. Saying consensual women trafficking is like saying I just buy a bread consensually. Of course I buy the bread consensually. That’s what I want to promote. Consensual commercialized everything including sex.

I think I am the one that should be more of understanding rather than talking in my own lingo. Yea, trafficking has commercial connotation. I like to think that everything is a commercial trade. Maybe because I am a businessman.

I have nothing against German. EVERY people that I know of hate some more financially successful minority groups. I used German as a sample but really, seen from here, I think many people that oppose individual freedom is about as evil as Nazi. In a sense that if they have the same power with Nazi, they would have done the same or even worst, as we can see Lenin, Mao, and young Turks did.

Also, during 1930, German lose a lot of money in war. Also they couldn’t regain their wealth through trade because of protectionism practiced by the other countries. Here they were a country in the middle of assholes that make money through war rather than through productivity, what would you do? The true evil is those opposing globalization. With globalization, intensive to wage war will be much less.

To me, saying that porn, prostitution, cohabitation, foreign bride, should be prosecuted make as much sense (or non sense) as saying that Jews should be prosecuted. The statements are based on prejudices rather than proper understanding. Also bigots would embrace the belief anyway for the same reason that will take too long to explain.

Now, I am going to speak “YOUR language” as I have observed.

Ever heard the idea that men can never understand women? There are many jokes about it, like how books about “understanding women” is empty, etc. I think it’s a running gags.

The truth is men can understand EVERY OBJECT, including, if not especially, women namely through reason.

The problem is proper understanding of humans’ sexual selection can lead to really really politically incorrect conclusion. If we understand that men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich, for example, it would justify legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and consensual  (I can’t say trafficking, so ugh, traveling across country borders to find mate with help of people smugglers). All those are politically incorrect because it would drive many uncompetitive voters (poorer males, uglier females) out of the gene pool.

So males then pretend that they do not understand women so they can “protect” women against women’s own consent under the pretext that no women could possibly want that anyway. The truth is, the number of women that want to do consensual crimes, if it were legal, is TOO MANY, and that’s why it’s prohibited.

So, societies fed us with the wrong model to understand sex. Sex is then reduced to confusing “romance” that doesn’t make sense. If people want to be romantic, that’s fine. But we have strong imbalanced information. Cinderella’s stories are taught to children, perhaps as mandatory reading. Yet more straight forward porn where women are paid to get nekkid is declared “dangerous for minor” or even everyone.

Even on sanitized literature there are glimpse on humans’ sexual selection for those curious enough. Why do the pretty Cinderella and the rich prince happen to like each other anyway is not usually explained (hint: because the prince prefer the pretty and Cinderella prefer the rich). I once being reported to cops for being arrogant by an ex boy friend that bitch about how he truly loved the girl I walked with. Part of me was angry. He loved her, whatever that means, so what? But part of me see the confusion. Somehow many males think that women prefer males that love her, rather than a richer smarter males that do not even want to marry her. Many males of course have a really hard time to understand women as long as they use incorrect model.

So what’s the correct model? Simple. Go back to science. Evolutionary biology, game theory, and many other things tell us how to predict sexual selection on many creatures including human. Don’t trust me. Read “red queen”, “seflish gene”, “evolution of desire.” It’ll be too long to explain but here is what I think is the “basic” principle.

1. Peahen like peacock with longest tail. The peahen do not get any resources by mating with peacock with longest tail. However, those peahen would produce “sexier” sons and daughter with the same hardwired preference to longer tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
2. Humans do not grow elaborate tails. Human males, grow elaborate, guess what? Elaborate wealth. Just like I like pretty women even though I won’t get prettier by mating with them, women prefer the rich even if the rich pay her the same amount of money. In addition, richer males, are often willing to pay MORE, rather than LESS, money for pretty women.

Am I being too technical?

It doesn’t matter how true evolution theory and game theory is though on humans’ sexual selection. As I said, it’s politically incorrect. People would fight toes and nails, with religions.vague reasoning and censorship to prevent the idea from spreading. Beliefs tend to be self fulfilling when governments get involved. So, you still think we should leave black hat method out of the table despite what the other side will do? I’ll think about it. I am going white hat my self in my biz. Google search engine is too tough to trick nowadays. Maybe you’re right. But just to let you know what we’re up against.

Let’s ignore morality for a while.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/traffickingdebate.html

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.