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 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

The first and most straight forward way is to rape. That is politically incorrect now.

The second way is to consensually persuade the woman to mate with you. The problem is the world are filled with so many other males. Many are richer, smarter, taller, and more handsome.

Well but Tom Cruise, Bill Gates, and Kobe aim for someone higher than our typical target market. Not really. How do you know they want only one? Chinese emperor got 10k chicks and he didn’t even have flat TV and flush toilet.

The market does give more absolute wealth and prosperity to virtually everyone. If there is one thing the market don’t give to those politically powerful is relative wealth and power. The thing is, that’s what gets men laid.

Another problem is that consensually attracting women are often politically incorrect too. Most societies have so many norms prohibiting so many consensual acts for reasons that will be obvious shortly.

So consensually attracting hot babes is not the only thing most males count on.

The third way is then the most common way, namely to separate target market from competitors.

If target prefer Bob, it’s wrong because it’s not love. If target pick Hasan then it’s wrong because polygamy is bad. If target pick Liu Chan, then it’s wrong because prostitution is immoral. If target pick Mr. Tanaka then it’s wrong because hentai demean women. If target pick Jean Claude then it’s wrong because inter religious marriage is bad.

The list goes on and on. Women trafficking is illegal despite consent. No sex outside marriage. No sex for cash (but chocolate and flower is okay because it can signal wealth nevertheless in a spendthrift way). No contract marriage, no polyandry, no bullshit. If the male is honest then he’s arrogant.

Each kid need daddy to spend at least 8 hours a day and 20% of his income no matter how wealthy daddy is to ensure rich dad don’t have 1000 kids. No this. No that.

The limit is just imagination. The proof is faith. It’s useless trying to argue with bigots or working too much to comply with all the norms that any competitors would come up. It just won’t work.

Finally, unless you’re really bad, eventually the girl picks you. Then it’s sacred and a big OK.

Is prostitution victimless? What about sex outside heavily regulated life long monogamous marriage governments prescribe? Despite various institutional advantage for married couple, 50% of kids born in US are born out of wedlock suggesting that sex outside marriage surely have its attraction over marriage.

But is it victimless?

Well, in a sense yes, in a sense no. Depends on how you define “victim”.

Say cheap product comes from China. The product is cheaper and is in better quality. Then many people buy the product. Is it victimless? No force involved. No fraud involved. It’s consensual. In fact, it’s more than consensual, it’s a good deal. Is it victimless? Well, does everyone support globalization and free trade?

No. There are disgruntled envy competitors that just do not want to see YOU enjoying better deals. If better deals are available from you then you don’t need to buy from them. Those bigots then demand heavy punishments against acts that do not involve fraud or force. Often things are prohibited not because it’s bad, but because it’s TOO GOOD.

So good, it drives out governments’ endorsed alternative of competition. If government do nothing, there will be little intensive for lobbyist to spend millions of dollars to buy law makers. If you’re a law maker, what would you do?

The same way with free sex, though I won’t elaborate. I mean if the cause why people hate free trade is because of competition, it’s a very natural guess to think that people hate free sex out of the same reason too.

However, to prohibit something you need a reason. You need to convince others that somehow the prohibited things are so bad. You need to convince others. Unfortunately, wrong things cannot be proofed, by definition of proof. So you need something that makes people believe anyway DESPITE lack of evidence.

That is called faith.

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.

Obviously marriage can be very problematic as

http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758

shows.

Yet information promoting marriage like romance were legal and information promoting free sex like porn is illegal for minor. Also many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage is illegal, like prostitution, contract marriage, concubinage and so on.

I know a beautiful female friend that wants a divorce. She can’t unless her husband has a mistake first. Not being rich enough to the next best competitor is not a mistake. Being able to attract other mates however are. Of course this rules favor the less competitive partner of the marriage. This is the most stupid non meritocratic rules I’ve ever seen in any contract.

We are told that when we get married we agreed to be loyal till death due us part. How do they know? Were they there when we write the contract? No. They know because that’s the only kind of contract people can make when get married.

I can spam thousands of forums. I can promote any petition. I can do anything I can help to end or at least discourage marriage ALL over the world.

Of course I know the real reason why religious bigots demand marriage institution is because they cannot get any mate if humans are free to choose their mates AND the terms of their mating.
I bet all those feminists that demand that women should fight as soldiers in front lines are ugly. I partially agree with them. If they’re ugly why not? But why prevent the pretty from being porn star?
Who’s with me?

Anything endorsed by government outside prohibition of fraud and force is most likely obsolete, from traditional market to public education and to marriage. If it’s not obsolete, government does not need to endorse it. The market would promote whatever system that would provide the best option for the market player.

In detail:

In ancient time marriage serves some legitimate market purpose. Rich males want to inherit their wealth. They need to know which kid is his biological child. Of course. I wouldn’t want to work hard all my life if I ended up giving money to someone else’ kids.

In ancient time, there is only one way for a male to know for sure whether the kid is his. He can only knows that by ensuring that the kids’ mother mate only with him. That then becomes marriage.

Society also has legitimate interests. Imagine if we have a child with no known father. Are we going to let the kid starve to death? I wouldn’t do it to a kitten. But if we help the kid that’s not victimless. Tax payer ended up paying. Also it encourages some males (if not eventually most) to just make kids and don’t bother supporting it. So in ancient time, requiring marriage does have a reasonable cause.

Now, those purposes mean less.

1. We can always know who the kid is by blood or DNA testing. Far more practical than say stoning wifes that mate with other man.
2. Marriage increase, rather than decrease, a male chance from having his wealth ended up supporting others’ kid. If you are not married and your mate produce a kid, you are not responsible for the child support. However, if you are married and your wife commits adultery, you are still responsible for child support. Also huge amount of socialism in all countries means that most of your earning will end up supporting those who make many kids anyway in the form of free education, free healthcare, free whatever.

Marriage also has one important aspect. This aspect will never get obsoletes. Life long monogamous marriage pretty much ration females (or males) in equal share for everyone. Hence we would expect many people that can’t get a high quality mate, will do their best to ensure that marriage is the norm.

As countries get richer, the males in those countries will have easier time to attract a mate. Those males tend to be more liberal and let the women choose, like in French or Japan, where women can walk naked on the street. The more a country is poor, the more restriction that their government will need to keep the peace. In Afgan, women can’t even work. In many poor countries women clits are cut of.

Imagine if women are as free in Afgan as they are in Japan, for example. All those women would have flaunted their naked tits openly and ended up marrying American tourists rather than local males. Quite predictably, most Afganistan males would condemn that.

If any of you want to help eliminating all governments endorsement for marriage institution (and hence making marriage truly obsolete), let me know how. I am all for it. Or please point me to a right forum. Let’s not bitch about the world. Either change our self to match the world or change the world to be a better place for us. Whichever is easier.