In ancient time, sex outside life long legally binding marriage is illegal. That effectively rations females in equal share for everyone. The justification is no woman want to share anyway. Not true.

Prostitution is prohibited because no women want to be prostitute anyway. Not true. To the opposite, being a prostitute often pays much more for women with equal beauty than being a wife. Having a right to be a prostitute will give women some bargaining position that ensures that when they do choose to get married, they are reasonably monetarily compensated for their sexual service.

Yes many women want to be prostitute. Many of them have tasted marriage where the males just leave living them with obligation to finance their kids through college on their own. What job do you think would work? The real reason behind anti prostitution law is to ensure that such irresponsible males get a wife anyway.

Rather than prohibiting porn and prostitution because it hurts women (which women?), what’s more likely is that it’s prohibited to prevent competition. The law may be there to eliminate women’s alternative to marriage, hence making all marriage forced marriage. It’s also there to protect ugly women from competing with higher quality porn goddesses.

What about humans’ trafficking that turn women from poor countries into sexual workers in rich countries? Well, many argued that it should be prohibited because all women would rather stay in some messed up country where their clits got clipped rather than serving richer males in more affluent countries with high pay and hence all such trafficking must be non consensual and should be prohibited. Not true. The real reason is probably that ugly women in affluent countries do not want to compete with cheaper prettier higher quality babes from poorer countries.

When laws are there against mutually consensual deals between humans, beware, most likely, its insidious lies. That’s the kind of lies that witch hunters, Nazi, inquisitors, and the rest use.

People say that homosexuality can cause extinction. How can there are still gay people in the world?

According to http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html, Dr. Francis S. Collins support the idea that homosexuality is not hard wired.

The heritability of homosexuality is “only” 20%. That is, the probability that an identical twin raised independently will be homosexual if the other one is will be 20%.

First of all, that is much higher than the “normal” probability of 2-3%.

Hence, while homosexuality is obviously inheritable, it is not hardwired.

That raises a lot of question.

Let’s back to our first question. How can there still be gay people in the world.

It turns out that being homosexual does not decrease your gene pool survival rate as seriously as people have thought. What kicks you out of the gene pool is lack of success in mating with the opposite sex, not strong desire for to mate with the same sex.

In other word, impotence will kick you out of the gene pool way faster than bisexuality.

However, for most males, homosexuality is either a yes or no. While many women are bisexual, men are either homosexual or heterosexual with few between. At least according to Kinsey’s in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports.

Still according to Francis statement, heritability of homosexuality is only 20%. So whatever genes that “cause” homosexuality will only kick you out of the gene pool 20% of the time, at most. That gene may come in package with other edge, like better male bonding skills, or better artistic skills, etc.

All in all, we have impotence, suicidal, and poor males. It’s not strange to see gay people as a normal variation. In fact, homosexuality won’t hurt your gene pool survival much more than say, monogamy. The former will simply reduce the number of your potential mate from 1 to 0, rather than the normal number of 1000.

What truly surprises me is why so many religious bigots oppose homosexuality so much?

I’ve never heard religions condemn impotence, or lack of money making skills, or lack of promiscuity.

So many people believe that porn is immoral while war is holy. So many others believe that war is immoral while porn is fine.

Interestingly, people sense of morality, in regards to porn and war, tend to be negatively correlated. Peace protestors are often naked, which would offend highly (self declared) righteous people like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

The religious militants, on the other hand, would often kill a lot of civilians, which would offend civilians a lot.

So, which one is right?

Perhaps, rather than trying to decide which one is right or wrong, it’s better to just observe and understand how different humans’ interests motivate different algorithms to classify right from wrong. (more…)

Science, as we know, is answering many questions religion and philosophy used to answer. While scientists are typically honest and objectives, religious leaders often have some points to make that are subjective and arguably manipulative.

Scientific theories are designed to be tested with evidence. Theories that we have now are theories that, at least in the past, survive the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. Understanding scientific natures, for example, will help us understand theories that will correctly predict reality more.

For example, a religious sermons might advice, “Men should not aim for pretty women, and women shouldn’t look for wealth.” It’ll usually followed by messages that humans will achieve more happiness if they follow that advice.

While the world “should” is not disprovable, science can predict whether you will indeed be happier by following religious doctrines.

According to gene centered view of evolution, the sort of genes that survive in the gene pool nowadays are the sort of genes that are doing well in the gene pool. The sort of humans that survive in the gene pool, are the sort of humans with the winning genes.

Our genes affect our preference and behavior. Our genes decide the sort of conditions that’ll make us feel happy, sad, pain, or pleasure. The sort of genes that we have are the genes that correctly tunes our preferences toward gene pool survival.

Hence, we can rationally predict, that males, with their smaller gametes will prefer to mate with as many females as possible. Females, with larger gametes will prefer to pick the highest quality male.

Preferences that are common nowadays are preferences that are proven to work in the past. For males, being rich is obviously an advantage. Rich males can bribe more women for sex. Also women that pick richer males will inherit sons with money making talent and extra wealth. Hence, we will naturally predict that:

1. Males are greedy for wealth and women.
2. Females like rich males.

Fertile and fecund females and unfertile females consume the same food. Hence, we would predict that a male that aim for a fertile female will survive better in the gene pool for the same amount of money spent. We would expect males to prefer small waist, big hips, unblemished skin, straight teeth, tada tada tada… females. In other words:

1. Males look for pretty women.
2. Women want to be as pretty as possible to signal offspring making capability.

Because our preferences are essentially pursuing happiness, we would expect the genes we have are the genes that make us happier when we commit acts that lead to gene pool survival.

So yes, men will be happier to get pretty women. Women will be happier to get rich males.

Now, if women will be happier to get rich men, the other men will be out of the gene pool. So, we would predict that the less attractive competitors will entertain beliefs that the opposites are true. And that naturally explain the religious teaching that we see.

There’s much more like this.

The Jews and Palestinians have killed each other over land for thousands of years.

I was wondering. The Palestinians have controlled the land for more than 1200 years. Would the Jews mind allowing them to have the land for 60 years if that means peace? Probably not.

Some are assholes and will fight. However, most Jews are known for being good capitalists. Why fight if they can earn something peacefully even if that means it’ll take 60 years longer.

And what about the other way around? What about if the Jews say, “Look, I want the land for 60 years. After that, it’s yours.” Will Hamas choose to fight?

Well, they’re willing to fight for the land even if that means fighting for 300 years. Would they settle for peace if all they need to do is waiting for the next 60 years to get the land?

The answer is yes for some because some people are total assholes that just want to fight. The meek do inherit the earth though. Most will say no.

Would people kill each other for a 60 years lease of land? Probably not.

You see our basic instincts are designed when we’re evolving. When we’re evolving, there is no such thing as 60 years lease. So we do not get emotional about that.

What’s the point?

Do you know how much does it cost to lease a land for 60 years? About the same with the price of the land.

Think it this way. How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 year? Probably not much different than the interest rate for the value of the land, assuming the price of the land is constant. If not, it’ll be about the same with the difference between interest rate and the price increase of the land.

If it’s higher, people will borrow infinite money from banks, buy land, and rent it away. I know people do and make money doing it. However, let’s ignore this arbitrage for a while. Their profit really comes from taking calculated risk and work required to settle the deal. That’s why they can’t do that infinitely.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 2 years? Obviously more than it would cost to rent a land for 1 year. However, the present value of the second years rent is less than the first year rent. That’s because the money will grow in the bank first for 1 year and then used to pay the rent.

How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 billion years? You guess it. Buying a land is equivalent with renting it forever. However, most of the value is in the next 60 years.

Assuming the price different between interest rate and land price increase is 5%, rent cost of 60 years of land should worth 94.64% of the land price. If the rate difference is 10%, the 60 years rent cost should worth 99.67%.
You see why the British eventually return Hong Kong to Chinese? So they can get something as good as owning the land while letting the Chinese government, weak at that time, to safe face.

People kill each other because they think they can get the land permanently. However, they will not kill each other for a 60 years lease of the land. It’s kind of strange isn’t it? Could this be a solution for peace?

Imagine if UN or somebody told the Jews and Palestinians. Look, one of you will own the land for 60 years; the other will own it after ward. Both will jump wanting the second option, which worth only .33% of the economic value.

Things get better when we see that capitalists often earn way higher than interest rate.

I was driving home from a marriage party. My girlfriend is driving because I can’t drive. Suddenly someone yell swear words at us. Then that guy stops in front of us. We apologize not understanding what’s wrong. They claimed that my gf hit brake suddenly. They look like they want to fight and keep yelling at us telling us to get out.

So I thought may be I should bluff them out. I yell at them to come if they want to fight. They call my bluff.

Then they start banging on the window. I was quite scared. However, I sort of knew that if I look scared, I am death. They talked about all this that we’re the one that’s wrong but we’re the one that get mad.

I sort of know that morality, right and wrong is all bull shit. We strong we win, we win we’re right and that’s all there is to it.

When we’re weak, the smallest mistake, even no mistake, can be used as justification for the greatest prosecution.

History is filled with strong forces slaughtering the weak and than latter blames the weak with unverifiable vague accusations. If there is any curve that fits the dot is that people will kill and rob when they see it is profitable to do so. And that explains virtually all war.

The only thing that’ll stop them from fighting with me is a deterrence, or implied possibility that I can cause much harm to them.

And the process work double against me too. I may win if I fought them. If there is a 10% chance I lost, that’s not worth the risk. I got nothing to gain from this fight.

I always want to test my judo somewhere outside soft mattresses against someone that don’t know how to fall properly. One of them looks like he’s over 50 years old and look light weight enough. I can do more than slamming him with imbalance causing technique. I can actually lift him out and slam his head ground first for maximum hit point crunching with asphalt flooring, I can score an instant kill or permanent injury. Easy frag.

Then, I can bite of the face of the other one Hannibal Lecter style.

However, I don’t know how to grab someone without Judo clothes. What about if they bring knifes. What about if they know Judo, or Karate too?

So I tied to speak calmly. So I told them that I don’t want to fight and want to apologize. I told them that I want to make peace. I told them that they don’t seem to be appeasable so I have no choice but to play tough. However, I need to ensure that I don’t look like I am giving an unconditional surrender mode. Suddenly my gf is already out of the car. Oh shit… She apologized but speaks sternly.

I was concern with her safety. I tried to calm them down and get out of the car. If I get out too early I may provoke unnecessary fight. So I get out of the car while watching their hand for instant grab in case things go wrong.

To my surprise, they praised me. They said that it’s the proper way to apologize, getting out of the car first rather than hiding behind. Sensing that the tenses are lower I shake their hand and explain the situation. Than someone from the crowd told them that we got to move because we make traffic jam. The hotheads seem to get offended and then have arguments with the crowd member. I was happy that they had other fights. We use that opportunity to calmly leave.

I think they have the same problem with me. They want to bully around anyone they can. However, if there is a 10% chance they may lose, it’s not worth their time. So they pick on other victims. The reason why they don’t choose to fight me is not because I properly apologized, of course. This guy gets so mad over hitting a brake. My apologizing simply allows them to avoid fighting without losing face. Perhaps they saw that I am taller than them. Perhaps they saw that there is significant probability that someone that bark back may have something on them.

Latter my gf told me that she dares to get out because of the crowds. She knows no body is going to beat women up in front of crowds. I realized that she’s could have been save all along.

If I just keep yielding they’ll think I am weak and I’ll be in a fight. If I just keep barking, I would end up in a fight and I could have died. Somehow we did a right combination of yielding and playing tough. I was lucky. I could have died.

All my life I prepare for every possibility that can happen in my business. I could lose it all for not doing the right thing at some critical moment.

Maybe I should have been braver in my business. Looks like my gf is better at negotiating in tough circumstances.

When I got home, my dad taught me to grab people skin and ear if they don’t wear something we can grab. Also an unblock-able elbow strike before seoi nage throw can be effective. I wonder if I can remember that the next time I am in similar circumstances again.

Many told us to play rational. That we must held back our feeling so we don’t fight. However, our feeling is a fine tuned algorithm that sort of work for billions of years of evolution. Just playing nice to people that are hostile can actually lead to even more extreme hostility. In complicated cases like that, I think how we feel to act is our best chance.

I guess different people just have different level of guts. Me, I just strike if I am 99% sure I’ll win. Others would do that for 60%. Perhaps we need to take into account profit gained. If not fighting means a fight and a lost anyway, fighting should be good.

Moral of the story is that most conflicts don’t end up in fight. People just bark at each other while trying to judge each other’s relative strength. When intensive to fight is small, they usually make peace.

Most war happens due to incorrect perception of power. Also, art of war in 13 chapters say that those who are arrogant are the one less likely wanting to fight.

Of course, sometimes both sides call the bark and voila.

Peace, is not something within our control. In fact, excessive effort to achieve peace can lead to illusion of weakness and more fight. And this sort of thing is the sort of thing we should do to know rather than learn through theory.

Unconditional surrender and yielding can be far more dangerous than fighting, as the Banu Nadir must have lately realized as told in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir & http://genetips.com/2006/06/26/main-use-of-religion/

What do you think?

Is marriage good for women?

Many people want to prohibit prostitution and porn. They said those are so bad that they have to be prohibited.

So, if a woman wants to have sex, what’s the alternative for that? Marriage.

By prohibiting the alternatives, societies pretty much push people into marriage.

However, is marriage that good? I mean compared to porn and prostitution?

For example, I have a maid. His father wants to remarry. Well, if the father is rich, who care?

However, the father is poor. He wants to remarry and he demands my maid to supply him money.

What a jerk. However, no religious fundamentalists would condemn such acts as immoral.

I know other pretty women that want a divorce. However, it’s difficult to get a divorce.

The rule says that the man has to make a mistake first.

When we go to a restaurant, and we prefer another restaurant, do we need to proof that the restaurant has to make a mistake first?

Isn’t lack of desirability not a mistake?

We all try to maximize our profit. It’s simply natural that those who can give better offer get more in return.

Why marriage laws do not allow lack of wealth as justification for divorce?

Surely marriage can be a really bad deal for women.

Quite understandably, many women do not want to get married. Quite understandably, many women prefer to just be mistresses or porn star.

It’s very natural that pretty women want to flaunt their assets. It’s what advertising is all about.

However, prostitution, porn, and public nudity are prohibited. Why marriage is not?

People act that within marriage a couple own each other. Well, owning other people is slavery. Don’t we have slavery already?

Prostitution and porn have many obvious advantages over marriage. Pretty women in Indonesia, a relatively poor country, can $20,000 per year.

A porn star can earn much more.

It’s very natural then that women choose porn and prostitution over marriage.

But not all women are pretty enough to earn that kind of money in porn. Well, yea. So?

So what? Not everyone is able to become engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, or even brick layers.

Do we prohibit engineering, science, and entrepreneurship simply because some people are not capable to do so?

The real reason why many women want porn and prostitution prohibited is because they are envy and want to get rid superior competitors from the gene pool.

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. Some people do not want to compete. Freedom means competition. So they oppose freedom and choose slavery.

What happens to society that stifles competition? Well, check out North Korea and see for yourself if free fair competition is really that bad.

Society’s pressures for marriage and against many consensual acts are unlikely there to protect the interests of the consenting parties.

It’s there to protect the interests of disgruntled competitors. Such disgruntled competitors are the one truly immoral and dangerous for society.

Of course, the envy bigots will claim the opposite.

I like Math.

Unlike Math, life is confusing. So many things are suspicious. Moreover, unlike Math, people don’t seem to see the difficulty.

When I have problems with Math, people tend to understand that this stuff is tough and explain it to me kindly.

Yet, so many things in life are suspicious. When I question it, people would say that I was the most stupid people on earth that don’t even know stuffs.

Why people defend truth by censorship and violence?

That doesn’t seem like the way to find truth. Imagine if you’re a judge. Some witness come and say that the defendants are guilty. But other witnesses belief the defendants are not guilty.

So you ask the prosecutors’ witness. Where are the defendants’ witness? The prosecutors say that he killed all the defendants witness to defend truth and justice.

He also said that he destroy all evidences that may deceive you as the judge, from concluding heretical opinions that the defendants are innocent.

There is a reason why we don’t have that case around. What would you do to that kind of prosecutors?

What about the other way around. Many defendants want to kill key witnesses. Do you think defendants that do that are innocents?

But that’s what organized religions do. There are many versions of Bible and books. Catholic churches burn them all. The church also slaughtered the gnostic.

There are many version of Quran, and Ali burn most of them.

Can you trust modern religious interpretors? Can you trust conclusions made by destroying evidences and killing those with different beliefs?

To me, why people defend truth with violence is not obvious. Most apologetic explanation raises even more confusion an suspicion.

However, we have the Math of life. We have something like math that can consistently explain life’s phenomena in ways that make sense.

It’s called science. The math of inanimate object is Physics, which you’re all familiar with.

The math of life is evolution theory. That one is heavily censored.

It’ll be too long to explain, how it works. You can check it in my website at http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com

I’ll give a brief explanation to the question I was asking.

Why people defend truth by censorship and violence? They don’t defend truth. They defend opinions that serve their interests. Moreover, such opinions are usually false. Real truths don’t need that kind of protection.

If some people draw offending caricature against globalization or capitalism, how many businessmen like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, will get offended and demand restriction of freedom of speech against such cartoons?

Free market works. There is no need to defend it with violence.

Speak in Jesus era that the Pharisees are hypocrites. Speak in middle age Europe that the Pope is wrong in thinking that the sun circle the earth. Speak in Tokugawa era Japan that Amaterasu Omikami don’t even exist, let along have descendants.

Speak in Russia during Lenin that communism doesn’t work. Tell Indonesian during Suharto era that Suharto is a dictator. Or draw any cartoons, or make any movies suggesting that the founder of Muslim religions might have something to do with suicide bombing, freedom oppression, and women subjugation. Chance is you’ll die.

Of course, those who defend their opinions through violence will not going to honestly say that they do so out of selfish interests. To gain credibility they’re going to say that they defend truth.

How can what they defend is true? Faith. Discussion end.

I like Math.

Unlike Math, life is confusing. So many things are suspicious. Moreover, unlike Math, people don’t seem to see the difficulty.

When I have problems with Math, people tend to understand that this stuff is tough and explain it to me kindly.

Yet, so many things in life are suspicious. When I question it, people would say that I was the most stupid people on earth that don’t even know stuffs.

Why people fight over differences of religious doctrines?

I mean there are so many evil people in the earth. There are thieves. There are robbers. There are burglars. There are fraudsters. But why we fight those with different beliefs?

To me, why people fight heresy is not obvious. Most apologetic explanation raises even more confusions and suspicions.

However, we have the Math of life. We have something like math that can consistently explain life’s phenomena in ways that make sense.

It’s called science. The math of inanimate object is Physics, which you’re all familiar with.

The math of life is evolution theory. That one is heavily censored.

It’ll be too long to explain, how it works. You can check it in my website at http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com

I’ll give a brief explanation to the question I was asking.

And why people fight over difference of religious doctrines

The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. People want to knock down those who run the fastest. When envy bigots can do so effectively, how to be successful then

Before free market, the most successful people in the earth are not businessmen.

At that time, we didn’t have Bill Gates streamlining operating system to the whole world.

We didn’t have Warren Buffet buying stocks and commodity when everyone wants to sell and supplying commodities when everyone wants to buy.

Nor did we have Thomas Edison that invents so many useful goods for society.

Why? That’s because in countries with plenty of envy bigots, you can’t be successful honestly. No matter how honest, fair, and productive the way you make your money, you’re still hated. When the bigots are the one influential, which means you’re still death.

So how do successful kings, emperors, and dictators maintain their success They do so by showing people that they’re not competitors. How? By ensuring that we’re not in competition. So what’s the alternative War…

So that people don’t fight their king, a wise king will come up with some common enemies the people should kill and fight to unite the people.

When Frederick from Holy Roman Empire attack the Pope, the Pope wisely told all those excess hot heads to attack the Muslims in another crusade.

When a Sultan have full harem, how can he prevent those who don’t get any women from rebelling By encouraging the non alpha males to commit Jihad. So that they die. Gee, and all this time we are taught that prostitution is inhuman.

That’s why Saladin didn’t destroy all Christian cities. He left some. Saladin knew that once common enemies are gone, the Muslims will fight against each other.

He could also be quite compassionate. However, any preferences must have some selfish motive too right. That’s the fundamental assumptions behind selfish genes theory. And that’s an assumption that has correctly predict plenty of phenomena.

Of course, it won’t be fair to pick only Christians and Muslims as samples. The truth is all societies have their fair share of war that’s unworthy to fight.

Some wars are necessary. When US don’t have nukes aimed at China, they’re dust, literally. The same way when China don’t have nukes aimed at US, we’re dust literally too.

When we’re not at war, we’re in a race. Some people are not competitive, so they want war. The underlying structure of life is a virtual latent gun fight.

If we do not want to die, we either have to kill or make a credible threat that we are able and willing to kill when things go too far against our interests.

The way to make that credible threat is by actually killing on some small scales. So some war is necessary.

That’s why I support Death Penalty. I also suggest that we should do it once in a while to those who really ask for it. That’s how we create a credible threat against murders, and robbers. In doing so, we protect the innocents.

However, most of the time, the other side do not attack us. We can make money honestly and productively. Many times, there is simply no good reason for war.

So why war? What’s the justification for that war? Guess what Fairy tales like religions of course.

Religions can justify anything. Faith does not require evidences. Hence, it’s a perfect justification for those who want to pit people against each other.

We see that countries that fail to embrace freedom and meritocracy are countries plagued with religious prosecution and war over differences of faith. That’s simply how to be successful in such countries. Pit people against each other.

It’s so easy to downplay and exaggerate an aspect of life. Punishing thieves will put power in the hand of weak but productive individuals. Punishing the innocents will put power in the hand of politicians. Of course, politicians prefer the latter.

They said that it’s to protect morality.

However, that’s just pretexts. Pretexts, while contain some truth in it, are filled with incoherency and will often fail to predict people’s behavior.

A governments official may talk at length the virtue of prohibiting factories with high labors’ productivity. Their real motives are to get bribe from factories that cannot compete with the prohibited factories.

Understanding the real motives will help us solve the problem. We can choose to bribe more money or tell the truth to population depending on whether the deceived people are committed to freedom of speech or not.

We need science to probe real reasons behind those pretexts. Understanding the true reasons will give us advantages over those who do not.

Now, to understand why people oppose porn, prostitution, and homosexuality, we need to understand the mother of all sex laws against victimless consensual sex, anti polygamy laws.

The reasons, as you can find in http://GeneTips.com with plenty of scientific explanations, are to ration females in equal share for everyone.

Moreover, humans tend to be dysgenic because they want to get rid superior competitors. When we’re not at war, we’re in a race. That’s simply the way we evolve. Freedom means competition. Some people are not competitive. So they oppose freedom.

Free sex means free competition in desirability. This will wipe out unsexy people out of the gene pool.

So, becoming sexy and advertising sexual desirability will motivate others to kill you.

For example, because women prefer the rich, rich means sexy for males. So when one man gets rich the other will get in the way. Hence we have communism.

Males prefer the pretty, hence pretty means sexy for women. Of course, beauty is not just outside but also inside clothes. So when a woman advertises her beauty in porn, the other women will oppose it. Hence we have anti porn laws.

That’s why most humans belong in either liberal communist party or religious fascist conservative party.

The liberal want to prevent you from getting rich. The conservatives want to ration females in equal share for everyone to the unsexy so even if you do get rich, you can’t just easily and consensually make thousands of kids.

It starts of with the democratic Greece. Democracy means one man one vote. Natural resources get divided proportional with men’s bargaining power. One men one vote soon leads to one men one wife.

But the true reason behind anti prostitution and anti homosexuality goes beyond that. Not all males mind that some males get more females. Some males are poor and would rather have more money. Some males are happy because they have prostitution. Some males are homosexual and really don’t care. All those males either don’t mind or easy to appease.

What happened when Titus sieged Jerusalem on 70 AD? The Zealots terrorist groups burn the Jews’ food supply to ensure no peace agreement.

Porn, prostitution, welfare, and homosexuality are, in a sense, food supplies that’ll provide an alternative to marriage. When all those are legal, those who want to wipe out the best and brightest males from the gene pool will not have enough supporters.

The non alpha males will think, “All right, Bill Gates get so many females, but he’s rich, and he pays tax. We got richer because of him and can use the money to get rich too and attract females or hire prostitutes. He’s useful enough for the society we should just let him be.”

Prohibition of porn, prostitution, welfare, and homosexuality will put all non alpha males in a situation where they can either get married or live a shagless life. Given those alternatives, most non alpha males will insist on prohibiting polygamy.

And that’s the real reason why.

Moreover, of course, those who do not enjoy prostitution and porn are more easily persuaded to join an army or even a suicide bombing squad.