Posts Tagged Consensual Sex

A Better Way to Introduce MySelf

Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save money. 

YOU can EASILY Get girls/guys you want if you understand

Why rich smart males do not want to get married and why do unattractive people want everybody to get married?

or you can grab

Gene Pool Survival Guide with How to Learn Math e-Book for Maximum Saving

Written by world's #1 life guru. Also a mensa member that won international math competitions. There are ways to get what you want effectively. The most effective ways are almost always politically incorrect yet done by every winners. Math and common sense can see through important obviously true laws of life that most people will simply deny.

Knows the truth. The truth will, besides getting you laid and rich, set you free.

Would be on these few sentences
1. Every kid deserves a rich smart BIOLOGICAL dad.
2. If women prefer the rich, how can there be many kids with poor dad?
3. If it’s your money, and women prefer you, why should it be someone else’ cock?

I learn game theory and evolutionary psychology a lot to see answers to these 3 truth riddles. The answers are obvious but incomplete.

I went from forum to forum and am surprised by people’s response to my statements. It’s as if everyone else is under some powerful spell that they don’t see the obvious.

Some for example think that women may not prefer the rich, even though I never make claims that all do and that those claims are necessary. Some said that rich men don’t want to make kids, even though any males with that kind of choices (emperors) will almost always do that.

Notice that’s not even the problem. Even if women prefer the rich and rich males want many women statement is only 10% true, it should be enough to eliminate poverty if prostitution is legal. My estimate is more like 90%.

Most think that government should change marital laws to be something that’s more fair, not realizing that the issue is not whether the terms are good or not, but who decide.

Many of what I learn is very surprising.

Am I a christian? In a sense that most christian would disagree, I think I am.

For example, I learn that many of what Jesus said is surprisingly right. Faith does move mountain. Check truth riddle number 2 if you don’t believe me. A better proof will be a concept called focal Nash equilibrium. I can explain all that in detail.

Jesus did have good advices. Love your enemies could simply mean being a little merciful and some carefully selected strategic appeasement to them. Of course, he never said to love our enemies and parasites more than we love ourselves, which is what the liberal and christians demand everyone else to do.

Hitler killed jews and hence didn’t have nukes. Then he slaughtered serbs and hence didn’t have grain. Then he lost big and we wonder why racism is the most politically incorrect traits nowadays. The same way, libertarians propose that we should let the poor starve and hence don’t get many votes.

Hitler’s ally, the japs, claimed to be Asian’s “big brother” and pretty much capture the whole south east asia without war. Perhaps a little compassion to others did the trick.

Rather than dropping more bombs to Middle East, why not drop happiness? Drop porn. Drop ecstasy. And the only losers will be that khomeini guy.

However it’s kind of tricky to do so if even in the land of the pee, those 2 are politically incorrect. As Jesus said, we should remove the block in our eyes first before bombing blocks on middle east.

The same demon that turn nazis into exterminators, and muslim youths into suicide bombers is most likely the same one that turn christians in US to prohibit drugs and prostitution. They’re even most likely encoded by the same genes. That kind of demon can only be exorcised with heavy dose of porn or perhaps evolutionary psychology explanations.

Then I learn that the greatest human is Tao and the greatest Tao is just a normal typical human being. That explains why most people have self delusional faith. It works, at least partially, and in many cases. Observing chimps also help understanding our true natures.

After all, humans need to reconcile their false politically correct fairy tales they consciously aware with the politically incorrect but factually proven algorithm their instincts know. Of course they bullshit themselves. What else could they have done?

Dawkins say that that our selfish genes are on the driver seats. Then he extended that idea to memes. By another small extension, our traits are our true self. Just like a country consists of a lot of people, the same way one man consists of a lot of traits and preference.

Just like some country are free market democracy and follow the will of all their people, quite literally, the same way some man listen to their emotion. The latter are more successful.

The idea that traits are “selfish” or a true self is buddhist.

For example, this is a buddhist strategy that would work. Love sinners hate sin. The same way, don’t hate terrorists. Hate their anti freedom traits by dropping more and more porn and we would have killed our true enemies living the innocence intact.

Now that would be a true weapon of moral destruction. Any kind of moral that opposes free fair competition should be destroyed anyway.

So, in a sense, I am an amateur evolutionary psychologists, game theorists, NLPist, christian, taoist, and buddhist.

Am I a satanist? Well, in atheistic sense, I could be. I am closer to deist or agnostic actually. However, who is Satan and who is God is very flexible, if you’re an atheist.

I can start seeing God (=free market?) telling all of us, “Have any consensual sex all you want, just don’t get married. The day you’re married will be the day you’ll die.” Then I see Satan, (=government?) telling, “Didn’t God tell you that all sex are prohibited, except if you exalt me to be the pimp and sign a legally binding life time monogamous government enforced contract where you can lose more than half your wealth?” God never told that!

I see many people are deceived, get married, sign a demonic pact called civil marriage, and ended up paying a lifetime alimony to girls that are already riding someone else’ cock. In a sense, that man is already death the day he’s married.

Doing so is worse than death. Rewarding those that screw you will exterminate not just your life, but all that are like you, your traits, your true self.

That’s hell. They’ll never get out of it. Not unless they went berserk and kill their ex and the judge and the bastard kid or themselves, which will lead them to an even deeper hell. Or they can embrace globalization and escape to another country. Salvation is near thanks to free market, even on those who are in alimony or marital hell.

Prohibitions of a more sensible arrangement like prostitution are simply genocide against capitalists.

It just reminds me of Jesus words: Don’t make a vow (including marital vow) because you don’t even know whether your hair can fall or not, let alone whether your kids will be yours if you’re married, unless you write and study your own marriage contract first. Who does?

Jesus also told us to know the truth, and the truth will set you free. How do we know the truth? Wikileaks is one thing. Paternity test is another. That one should have replaced marriage a long time ago. Porn is another. Just look at what Satan tried to censor and we’ll be on some right path on seeing God’s true plan: abundant free market that brings prosperity to all.

Well, if Jesus is right on some aspects of life, maybe he’s right on others.

“What would Jesus do?” ask most Christian. Very well, on this one aspect I think I am going to follow him.

Legalization of prostitution or drug will be a victory for all capitalists. If those 2 are legal, the most successful variant among humans’ species will be those providing the best service to the most customers. Victory for capitalists will be victory of all men.

If that’s the goal, then porn will be the gospel. Now, spread the gospel, make everyone my disciple (except for my spelling and grammar). If any country would reject that gospel, just leave (but spam their forum anyway). On the day of judgment that country will suffer more than north Korea.

Incoming search terms:

  • better way to introduce myself

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are Muslim Countries 100 Years Behind

[quote=zingo;1063150]Iran woman with stoning sentence shown on state TV – Yahoo! News

No wonder these cavemen are are so hard to deal with, they are about 100 yrs behind civilized society.[/quote]

More like 10 years behind, if you compare Indonesia to US. We’re catching up to you. Don’t worry. The Japs are already ahead of you. They’re not Muslim, but not west either. We keep running and catch up each other okay?

Speaking of marriage. It seems to me there are several ideas on what the best consensual sex relationship should be.
There is bdsm where you also beat up your mate
There is extremist muslim marriage where you beat your wife
There is moderate muslim marriage where you don’t beat your wife.
There is old testament marriage where you stoned your wife to death for cheating on you and that she’ll fuck your brother if you’re death (maybe this one should be illegal)
There is western marriage, where you keep paying your wife after she rides someone else cocks’ and are responsible for her bastard child (another unconscionable nonsense)
There is my marriage, where I keep persuading my wife to be more “active” while she keep getting mad at me.
There is free sex, where girls are doing it for free.
There is polygamy.
There is monogamy.
There is orgy.
There is polyandry.
There is group marriage.
There is prostitution, where you pay to get laid
There is contract marriage.
There is concubinage.
There is cohabitation contract.
There is abstinance
There is suicide hara kiri mutual.
There is welfare marriage, where they expect government to pay up for all the kids made (the only one I think should be illegal)

I would say the issue is not which one is right. The issue is why does it have to be government deciding which one is best?

If government can prohibit some, for example, then it’s easy to see how government can effectively force some. Just prohibits all popular alternatives.

Why not keep everything legal, and let the market decide who decide which?

As for women getting stoned, or males paying alimony for life. Would they agree to it if alternatives were legal? I don’t think so. If they do, well, they agreed right. However, it’s stupid to say they agree where virtually all alternatives are illegal.

In Taliban, for example, the only alternative for women besides marriage is begging or starving. That’s effectively forced marriage.

In US, prostitution is illegal.The alternatives for hot cunts are not that hot either. Abstinence, free sex, or be engineers and compete with males (usually becoming an old virgin hag in the process because Bosses can’t solicit sex). Monogamy means it’ll be more difficult for girls to aim for males far richer than her, which could be what she really wants. Life long alimonies means most males with decent income won’t even bother getting married. There goes the most productive members of our society into extinction.

Here in my country, the only way a girl will work for me is if she’s hot, and allow me to grab her all over. We don’t have stupid anti discrimination laws like US. Doesn’t like that? Go work somewhere else.

Incoming search terms:

  • mattiage to a moderate muslim

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s libertarian position on child support?

My educated guess is parents need to support their child. So government can declare, for example, that each kid deserve $5k year. Anyone that don’t make $5k/year must not make kids (possibly with vasectomy penalty). If parents want to invest more, it’s up to parent. Also women should be able to negotiate child support before hand with men and that should be enforceable in court.

Think about it. With no fault marriage many complaint that couples can no longer make marriage commitment. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of other reasonable, arguably more “fair” commitment people cannot legally make with each other outside marriage.

Why not let people make their own contract? Isn’t this the heart of libertarian feminist? Not a rhetorical question but you disagree with my explanation anyway.

Imagine a male saying to a woman, if you agree to have sex with me any time I want you got $10k/year. Also you’ll earn $5k/year for each of my biological children you give birth too. In addition the following are my reasonable exit clauses, pension plan, severance pay, etc.

In a sense, a whore is actually free while a wife is a whore that agree to let government be the pimp. Yet every time I promote legalization of various consensual sex for money arrangement people would knee jerkly say I demean women. At the end, I kind got a kick off in actually offending the feminist :)

Why not use that instead of marriage? That way no body have to bitch that marriage law is unfair right? Just make their own contract that they think is fair and let the woman decide. Is the contract more fair? Is it a good deal for woman? Why not let the woman decide? Basically illegal last time I check. Not a rhetorical question like usual Wink In fact this is what motivates me to write my e-book. I wanted to have a purpose in life. Something with meaning. I want to make thousands of kids and I am very surprised that there is simply no normal way you can do that legally no matter how rich and attractive you are.

Of course, it’s pretty useless trying to understand others’ argument that’s based on prejudice anyway. But let’s check.

One argument is that there is the “child”‘s interest. It’s kind of funny. There are plenty of child that is born into poverty and still cost huge amount of taxpayer money. Yet government simply criminalize a billionaire that pay say, 10k per year for his wife and child. Somehow government set that wife and child deserve money proportional to a man’s wealth rather than letting supply and demand relationship decide “price” like usual. It’s like price control. Yea the kids’ interest is problematic but parents’ interest typically coincide with their blood line far more than government right? Sounds a lot like price control there.

Seems to me there is no easy way an American male can mate and reproduce without significantly risk ALL his wealth isn’t it?

Here, in my country, there are plenty of kids in the street that are sodomized, forced to beg, or whatever. People don’t care. Yet if you put your kids to programming school at age 6 people will say you “abuse” your child. Also people keep saying that porn is dangerous for minor. Yet giving birth of kids into poverty is not a crime, despite obvious adverse effect to the kid. Hmmmm… What kind of utility function the law makers really have? Any guess??

But curiously. Maybe you disagree a lot with me with many area. What’s your idea of child support should be? Should parent be able to decide before hand the amount of support they want to make before conception. Of course within reasonable limit. Say, $5k/year Smiley

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Opposition of Consensual Acts often Have Hidden Motives

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?

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.
How would you happen to know what any one woman, much less ALL ugly (subjective in itself) women fears?
The answer is, you don’t. You are not psychic, so you don’t know what a single other person fears, whether they are ugly or not.

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some Confusion

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,