Marriage « Free Market Forever

February 23, 2012

Why is Sugar Babies considered Prostitution, Illegal, and “Wrong” and Why Other Simmilar Arrangement is Not?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Beatty Chadwick, Breast, Buttocks, Definition Of Prostitution, Genitals, Legal Prostitution, Lewd Act, Lewd Acts, Marriage, Money, Prostitute, Sex Marriage, Sexual Gratification, Sexual Relations, Sexual Services, Sluts, Sugar Babies, Sugar Baby, Webster, Wikipedia — admin @ 11:12 pm

Definition on the webster says that prostitution is : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money

The word “especially” is vague so we can remove that from definition and comeback to that latter.

Sugar babies are not promiscuous. Also sluts are not usually considered prostitute. So why are sugar babies considered prostitution and sluts are not?

Wikipedia definition says: Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment.

Well, marriage does pay. Just ask ex wife of Beatty Chadwick http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/. So why marriage is not prostitution while being a sugar baby is?

Finally the legal definition of prostitution is: The law says prostitution is “a lewd act for money or other consideration” – http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html

This is a very broad definition. What kind of sex is there that’s done without “consideration”?

Also lewd is defined as “the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal.” Okay, let me try to understand here. If lewd acts are illegal, how do you guys have sex out there anyway? How do you get babies?

Why sex within marriage is not considered lewd?

More importantly, why is it wrong to have “consideration” when deciding to have sex with someone?

Incoming search terms:

market six free
Is sugar baby illegal
legal definition of prostitution vs sugar baby

Comments (0)

February 21, 2012

Truth vs Beliefs

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Ancient Time, Belief That, Clauses, Crazy Nuts, Defendant, Drugs, Imagine, Judge And Jury, Legal Marriage, Many Things, Marriage, Money, Proof, Prostitution Laws, Rape, Reason, Religions, T Pay, Truth, Women Trafficking — admin @ 10:34 pm

It’s easy for most of us to believe that truth is all that matters. It doesn’t matter what some crazy nuts believe. All that matter is truth.

Imagine if you’re a defendant in court. Which one matters more? The truth whether you indeed rape or murder the girl, or whatever the judge and jury believe?

Which one will land you in jail?

Now look at how politics work.

There is nothing in anti-drug laws that specify that prohibited drugs must be dangerous. There is nothing in anti-prostitution laws that specify that prostitution must be promiscuous or forced. Anti-women trafficking laws specifically add clauses that trafficking is still prohibited irrelevant of consent.

Yet most people believe that all prohibited drugs are more dangerous than the legal ones. People also believe that all prostitution and women trafficking are not consensual and hence less preferable than the legal marriage. Quite often their beliefs are what matters.

To further add complication, beliefs are often very useful for those who are in power. Those who are in power then have strong incentive to promote the beliefs irrelevant of truth. Take a look the belief that all humans are equal and have right to live for example. There is no proof for that. Yet, most of us, including me, would want to embrace that for obvious reason. We don’t want to die. Also if we end up killing each other we are all worst off.

This is too complicated. Few if any individuals in ancient time see that we will kill each other unless we recognize right not to be killed. Till today, most people don’t know. Most people are not aware that most people live, simply because it’s illegal to kill them.

Even if most of us do not want to kill for money, once we see too many people do it and get away with it, we too will do it. The main reason why we don’t kill is simply because we believe that killing doesn’t pay.

In ancient time, religions give reason to promote beliefs that simply don’t have proof but beneficial to many anyway.

Many things are not that benign.

We sort of think that most interaction are consensual. We sort of see that prohibition against consensual acts are the exception rather than the norm. Few of us see that’s it’s simply the interest of those who are in power, rather than the interest of the consenting parties, that are behind laws against consensual acts.

Put your self in the shoes of judges. Which way the judges care more? Truth or bribe? It’s easy for us to blame judges. But aren’t we like that? When we vote, do we care about justice or interests? Very often it’s simply our interests too, which we pretend to be justice.

It’s simply not to the best interest of religious leaders to let their followers to interpret their religions freely or change religion.

The same way it’s not to the best interests of those with less to offer to simply legalize all consensual transactions. Doing so would force them to compete viciously against those with far better offers than them. That often lead to extinction.

We don’t expect most voters to want free trades, which mean they are losing their job. We don’t expect poorer males would want sugar babies legalized, which mean the rich will just get all the girls. The same way we don’t expect ugly feminists to support legalization porn, in which prettier girls get all the attention. We also won’t expect the poor not to support nationalized health care or lower tax. It simply isn’t going to happen.

One solution is to embrace freedom all the way and fight for our freedom, or look at reality and adapt to it. That’s what tyrants and grafters do. They lied, they cheat, they enslave, but what’s the alternative? The alternative is to be lied to, to be cheated to, and to be non-consensually enslaved by the will of the ignorant majority.

To further add to the complexity, beliefs do change reality to the same, if not more degree, than the other way around. If people believe something, they bet on it, they count on it, then they want it, and they make that happens.

We believe that drugs are dangerous, so it becomes really dangerous with mafias, gangs, and cops shooting each other over it. Countries that legalize drugs will be vilified for the obvious reason. They show that drug is not dangerous and that means offending the beliefs of many with interests invested on drugs prohibition.

Many believe that God exist and is on their side, and the world behave as if God is really on the emperor’s side with everyone fears rebelling against emperors. We believe that prostitution can’t be consensual and what do you think a pimp will do if he knows that the punishment for him will be the same anyway whether the girls consent or not?

Because our beliefs, though false, are even useful to us, and because beliefs are self-fulfilling, we tend to maintain our beliefs irrelevant of anything.

Now, I wonder if I can learn more about it? NLP?

Incoming search terms:

www free market for ever com

Comments (0)

February 16, 2012

What People Think the Laws Prohibit, What the Laws Actually Said, and How it is Actually Enforced

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Accepting Money, Acts, Bastards, Consensual, Consensual Acts, Consensual Crime, Control, Coun, Criminalization, Dangerous Drug, Definition Of Prostitution, Different Things, Evil Pimp, Excuse, Fetish, Fo, Food Lodging, Gap, Germans, Girl Friend, Girlfriend, Girlfriends, Government Acts, Governments, Grey Area, Harbouring, High Potential, Hot Males, Html Definition, Incen, Irony, Jews, Judge And Jury, Lawyers, Legal Choices, Legal Question, Lewd Act, Many Things, Marriage, Massage, Mate, Mental Retardation, Money, Nazi, Participants, People, Philosophical Question, Programmer, Promiscuity, Proof, Prostitute, Prostitutes, Prostitution, Prostitution Laws, Receipt, Recruitment, Sleep, Themes, Traitors, Truth, Ugly Man, Ugly Men, United States, Unrelated Things, Use Of Force, Vagueness, Women Trafficking — admin @ 6:49 am

When government prohibit consensual acts, quite often there is a huge gap between what most people think is being prohibited, what the law actually said, and how it is actually implemented.

Governments try to maintain lies that it try to prohibit something, and then prohibit totally different unrelated things.

If you have a girl friend. Say you give her a gift. Does that make her prostitute? This is not a philosophical question. It’s a legal question actually. Most people would think not. However, if you read the law, she might. Both of you can get arrested.

What matter is what the judge and jury think. Most of the time, they are quite divided due to vagueness of the law and broadness of definition.

The root of the problem is allowing government to declare consensual crime illegal. What’s natural after that is that government will simply broaden the criminalization far beyond what most people think.

1. It’s far more broad than what most people think.

Anti prostitution is marketed to protect women from being forced by evil pimp to promiscuously have sex with really really ugly men with mental retardation problem and highly unusual violent fetish.

In fact, most people think that’s what prostitution is.

There is nothing in the law against prostitution that specify that prostitutes must be promiscuous, forced, or sleep with undesirable males. Quite the opposite, prostitution is often monogamous, consensual, with really really hot participants with plenty of other legal choices that simply choose better. There is nothing in anti prostitution laws that indicate that the johns must be unattractive.

Notice that marrying really really undesirable man is legal.

After all, marriage means government is the pimp. Government is simply the worst pimp. It’s so bad it has to keep so many things illegal just to stay competitive.

The law says prostitution is “a lewd act for money or other consideration,” http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html.

What makes an act a prostitution is not the undesirability of the mate or the forced nature of the act or even the promiscuity of the women. It’s the incentive, which doesn’t even have to be financial.

By that definition of prostitution, virtually all women can be convicted. I give a girl a massage, that’s consideration. I give a girl attention, that’s consideration. I make a girl happy that’s consideration. In fact, I wonder where I can get the list of all the consideration that’s legal or illegal. Who knows what the lists are.

I can only wonder why marriage doesn’t count as consideration. Government pretty much control what kind of consideration is legal or not legal based on anything they wish. Now it’s your life. Why should their wish matter?

Notice the law need to be broad. If the law only prohibit accepting cash, the girl will take credit. If the law only prohibit accepting money, the girl will exchange that for food, lodging.

Now take a look at drug laws again. Most of us think that it’s there to get rid of dangerous addictive drug.

That’s not what the law said. There is nothing in the law saying that the drug must be dangerous or significantly addictive. And it’s not how it works in practice either. I was very surprised when I found this out.

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” ^[23]

See? Watch the word “accepted safety”. That looks like it has something to do with dangerous. It’s so vague. Anyone that took any English language class will point out that it’s a passive sentence. Accepted by who? Passive sentences are inherently unclear. Many doctors know many ways to use marijuana safely. As long as you don’t drive, it’s save. No body died out of marijuana overdoses yet.

It has little to do with the drug being dangerous. It has a lot to do with preventing you from using the drug you want so you ended up using other drugs they want you to use instead.

It’s easy for government to argue that a drug has no legitimate accepted medical use. Government simply choose not to accept. Yes baby. Marijuana is NOT dangerous. Just look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Now take a look at women trafficking. Most of us think of women trafficking as those women in chain sent against their will kicking and screaming. The truth is the opposite. Those women quite often have a nice job or marriage offers in their country. Quite often they simply want to go to richer countries so they can meet even richer males. It’s like you having $10k per month and want $1 million per month instead. Such women compete with ugly women in rich countries and that’s why it’s prohibited.

Anti women trafficking laws actually have clauses saying that they include consenting women as “trafficked” if it’s done for sex.

Imagine if you are a jew during holocaust. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you got capital, you got to invest here. Oh you’re smart, see you got to work here. What would the jew did? Hope in. Unfortunately, during holocaust, very few countries wanted to accept jews. And that’s how Hitler can easily slaughter millions of them. Then every body blamed Hitler even though all of them sort of did it too. You see why jews don’t trust non jews? We messed up.

Quite often women are indeed forced to be trafficked, but not by the traffickers. Women are oppressed by the Taliban in some country. Imagine if you’re that women. Wouldn’t you want to get out anywhere? What about countries that accept you says, well, we can’t just let you in and feed you for free. Ah you’re hot. Some of our males want sugar babies, see if we can work something out. What would the woman do? Hope in still. Unfortunately, during prosecution of hot women all over the world, very few countries want to accept hot babes. And that’s how fascists can easily oppress womyn.

2. It’s vague.

Because it’s so broad every body will break it. So they need an excuse why they shouldn’t punish the acts they favor.

As for what “other consideration” is… the courts in California said that if someone “mows your lawn” that can be “other consideration.” – http://www.coyotela.org/getarrestedinfo.html

So it’s not okay to mow lawn for your girlfriend. That will make her a prostitute and both of you can get arrested. It’s okay to offer her marriage? What about if you give her a massage? Should you consult lawyers first?

There is one way to see that the definition is vague. Look at what people think http://sugarbabydaily.com/2011/10/07/high-class-hooke/#more-91

Some people think sugar baby is a prostitution, some people think differently. The law is vague. In fact, Matt Ridley simply points the obvious. Marriage is a form of prostitution. The difference is that government is the pimp and anti prostitution law is simply not enforced against married couple magically.

Look at laws against women trafficking. It’s there to prevent “exploitation”. What is exploitation? Anything. Coca cola companies, exploit me to make money, for example in pretty much the same sense Pepsi does. Government, can simply declare that selling Coca Cola is an exploitation and don’t enforce the same principle against Pepsi. If it’s exploitation, so what?

What is exploitation? If I hire a secretary is that exploitation? Why it’s an exploitation if I hire her to work hard but not an exploitation if I hire her for sex? Exploitation is not an objective word.

If exploitation is defined as taking advantage of others, isn’t that what all we do? When I go to a shop buying a gum, am I not exploiting the shop owners for my own interest of getting the gum? Isn’t the shop exploiting me to get money? So what? Exploitation is simply the basis of all human interaction, whether consensual or not. It’s simply too broad and hence can be used to condemn anything.

Allowing government to prohibit “exploitation” is like giving them blank cheque. It’s so easy to argue that anything is exploitation. What isn’t?

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

Check the law again. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum bla bla bla. Is there anything there that said what exploitation doesn’t include? How do you know, for example, that trafficking a woman for the purpose of getting her a better hair cut is not an exploitation? Why consensual commercial sex is an exploitation and often less consensual marriage is not? What’s the limit? Who knows.

Look at laws against drug. It’s there to prevent “abuse” of drugs. What is abuse of drugs? Anything. Any use can be argued as abuse.

3. It usually comes demonization of the consensual acts or people in negative light. Before nazi slaughtered the jews, they portrayed jews as backstabbing traitorous bastards. Most normal germans did not think they were being rascists. They thought they were getting rid traitors. The same way, most normal people actually believe that all prostitution are non consensual.

Most people do not know that some prostitutes are paid $5500 per hour. In fact, the biggest irony of anti prostitution law is that the very incentive used to define prostitution is the very proof that the acts are indeed consensual. What would you not consensually do for $5500 per hour? Srsly. Killing? Murdering? Robbing? Assassinating Presidents? Fighting Taliban?

What about fucking? You wouldn’t fuck for $5500? Who or what wouldn’t you fuck even if they pay $5500 per hour? Okay quite a lot. But many of those prostitute clients are quite often some handsome rich men. Nothing in the prostitution laws say that the client must be undesirable. Even if the client is Brad Pitt, or Tiger Wood, which would rather pay than get married, it’s still prostitution legally.

Yes there are women forced into prostitution. Just like there are men forced to be programmer, soldiers, etc. So what? Why not aim for those who coerced others?

4. They contain many redundant terms already prohibited by many other laws.

Women trafficking is defined

[...] the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

Now watch the definition carefully. Using threat, use of force, forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, and deception is already illegal. Why is it prohibited again in this new law? Now look at what they wrote latter. “Giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve consent.” What is wrong with that?

The purpose of anti women trafficking law is not to prevent force or fraud. The purpose is to prevent consensual women that do want to move in.

5. They have motives that are too politically incorrect to be stated in front.

The motives are not too hard to figure out.

In case of anti prostitution laws. The motive is to prohibit all sex outside marriage. To be frank, quite often husbands can’t compete with johns, so they prohibit johns. It’s simple. I know extremely beautiful girls that just want a divorce and be mistress instead. They can’t.

Yes women can still have sex outside marriage for free. However, it’s tough. In a sense, offering her to have sex for free doesn’t really give her much choice. If she has kids who would pay for it? Who will pay for her food when she’s pregnant? Government? That’s fascism. Even if she wants you, she can’t choose you unless you pay.

But why would government want to prohibit all sex outside marriage? That’s obvious. They want to be the pimp of all hoes so they can sell those hoes to voters that can’t compete with rich smart johns.

Why feminazis hate women trafficking? Not because of all the fraud and force involved. They simply don’t want competitors. Many feminazis are ugly women. Monogamy protect them from extinction. If they have to compete with influx of hot cheaper babes, they’ll be out of the gene pool in one generation.

Why government prohibits some safe drugs? Many reason. To prevent you from having fun is one thing. Another is so that more dangerous drugs that are paid by lobbyists can sell. If you look at all celebrities that use drugs, none of them die out of marijuana. All of them are death out of legal drugs that they have to use because the saver marijuana is illegal.

Wealth is a form of power and true wealth is simply power. When government have power to decide terms of your mating, and what kind of fun you can have, they can control you. That means you are their slave. Who wouldn’t want more slaves?

6. Conclusion

At the end whether prostitution should be legal or not, whether drug should be legal or not, and whether consensual women trafficking should be legal or not depends on one question. Do you want to be governed by free market or by government? It’s that simple.

Incoming search terms:

powered by phpBB collection laws
powered by phpBB beauty companies
hot prostitutes with ugly guy

Comments (0)

February 12, 2012

Freedom for Women in Afghanistan

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Afghan, Afghan Women, Canadian Males, Cave Dwelling, Coercion, Descendant, Dudes, Economic Competition, Exhibitionists, Fascism, Feminazis, Freedom, Girls, Hot Babes, Immigrants, Job, Jobs, Marriage, Millionaire, Moral Destruction, Non Consensual, Osama, Porn Star, Propaganda, Psychological War, Religions, Rhetoric, Salary, Science And Technology, Socialist Workers, Studying Science, Sugar Baby, Taliban, Terrorists, Virgins, Western Civilization, Wife Beating, Women Afghanistan, Women In Afghanistan — admin @ 4:55 am

I have another idea for oppressed girls from Afghanistan. All we need is a millionaire that want to sponsor that girl and gave her place and a normal job for a year. After 1 year, gave that women a choice. She can choose to

1. Go back to Afghan. We can apologize for wasting their time and replace their 1 year salary of $20.

2. Keep working on any normal job. If they pick this, there could be some “capacity problems” where socialist workers will start bitching about immigrant hot babes taking away all their jobs. Typical western anti immigrant rhetoric. Well, but I bet 99% of them would choose to:

3. Be a sugar baby/wife of some guy should any western males manage to woo them. I suggest becoming a sugar baby rather than becoming a wife because marriage is too infested with religions, state influence, and who knows what. But it’s up to them. We just need to make sure that she is not coerced, or look coerced in any way. We really do not need coercion when competing with poor unshaven cave dwelling wife beating nose cutting Taliban dudes. However, some feminazis ~~may~~ will argue that our offers are non consensual and an exploitation precisely because of that.

4. Taliban discriminates against exhibitionists. Some Afghan women may be a closeted exhibitionists. They could be our next porn star and their movie can be parachuted into Taliban territory with cheap portable movie player as weapon of moral destruction in psychological war. Of course, any Taliban troops that want to surrender and study C++ can join the production. There are better ways to get constant stream of virgins beside suicide bombing. Try making money.

That’s it. It’ll hit Taliban right where it hurts. They treat women badly, now all their women are going somewhere else for greener pocket. Let’s see how Osama/Omar/whatever can still win elections among all red blooded gun totting male terrorists if this keeps happening.

More women coming to western civilization means less men have to be single. Also most richer males that are sugar dadies are job creators. Those afghan hot babes can help them breed more effectively creating more job creators and hence more jobs. This will at least outperform all those Obama’s stimulus because no tax payer money is spent.

All those terrorists can just go fuck themselves literally.

Eventually all oppressed people will simply go to countries where they are not oppressed like jobs moving to China.

Everybody will have strong incentive to be productive rather than grabbing political power. Economic competition will be far more important than military might. We will turn our swords into iPad and our spears into XBox or (put your favorite gadget here).

Which ever system produce the richest countries, doesn’t have to be secular or democratic, will be the system that are flocked by womyn. All hot babes will have a never ending supply of rich smart males to choose from when males, like workers and companies, compete globally.

Every kids will have rich smart non violent biological dad that can actually attract women without having to resort to force, trade restriction, or beating.

We will also be more able (though not having to) afford socialism knowing that even with their welfare checks all males will still have huge incentive to work hard and get rich.

I think it’ll be even better when we can simply commercialize and liberalize everything but this should be a start of that.

As libertarian, the only thing that may be unethical in this is if government try to tax it. But hei, even if you’re not a libertarian, none of this thing should be more evil than actually sending troops there killing muslims.

Incoming search terms:

truly hot babes

Comments (0)

February 9, 2012

Why Religious Want You to Get Married?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Control, Girls, Having Sex, Marriage — admin @ 11:09 am

Those who control marriage terms control who get the girls. Those who control who get the girls will control all males. Those who control all males will be very rich. Those people will have strong intensive to ensure you got married and hence stay in control.

Once too many people are having sex outside marriage, the power of leaders will dissipate and the world will be more free.

Comments (0)

February 1, 2012

Sex Outside Marriage is Legal

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Chocolate, Criminals, Flowers, Girls, Homo Economicus, Ipad, Marriage, Religious Leaders, Sex Marriage, Terrorists, Whim — admin @ 3:00 am

It must be, because our leaders want to do it and they don’t want to be criminals.

When it’s no longer legal, males will stop buying chocolate and flowers to women. Instead, they will be terrorists to please religious leaders that have more power in deciding who get the girls rather than the girls themselves.

Girls will be stoned to death, beaten up, or have her nose cut off for not obeying the whim of religious leaders.

And males will struggle for a never ending power to rule other men rather than inventing better ipad.

That’s how Afganistan has became.

And all these can be understood from simple homo economicus principles.

Comments (0)

January 31, 2012

What would happen if sex outside marriage is illegal?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Afganistan, Getting Money, Marriage, Money Women, Nbsp, Religious Leaders, Sex Illegal, Sex Marriage, Suicide Bomber — admin @ 12:18 am

That means religious leaders will have a say on who can get married or who can’t.

That means women are not free to choose as she wish. Religious leaders do.

That means males will have intensive to please religious leaders such as becoming a suicide bomber.

Rather than getting money, women will get beaten up, stoned, or having her nose cut if she doesn’t behave in ways approved by religious leaders.

And that’s what happen in afganistan.

Comments (0)

December 28, 2011

Love Conquers All

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Love Conquers, Marriage, Marriage Contract, Oxytocin — admin @ 11:21 am

Love ubber alles. Love defeats all. Including Oxytocin hormone, Prozetol drug, and marriage contract.

Incoming search terms:

contract marriage in indonesia
bargersville flea market

Comments (0)

December 25, 2011

What kind of human you want to fullfill the earth?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Abundance, Earth, Equal Share, Fascists, Marriage, Monogamous Marriage, Socialists, Sugar Daddies, Terrorists — admin @ 11:54 pm

Pick equal share for everyone monogamous marriage and socialists would have won.

Pick polygamous marriage and terrorists would have won.

Pick any kind of marriage and fascists would have won.

Be sugar daddies and you’ll help bringing abundance free market to every corner of the world.

Comments (0)

Why Sugar Daddy-Babies Relationship is Better than Marriage?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Bankruptcy, Beautiful Girls, Beautiful Women, Bizs, Bozo The Clown, Child Support, Class Warfare, Comparative Advantage, Democratic Countries, Economic Situation, Equal Share, Evolutionist, Females, Flor, Fraction, Gang Bangs, Happiness, Hell, Hot Babe, Hot Sex, Hot Sugar, Hot Women, Hotter Babes, Intelligent Men, John Kennedy, Larson, Life Time, Many People, Marriage, Marriage Contract, Marriage System, Mate, Matt Ridley, Meet People, Michael Snyder, Monogamous Marriage, Monogamy, Old Babe, Prostitution, Relationship, Restriction, Several Times, Sex Parties, Shannon, Single Men, Smart Women, Sociology Professors, Soul Mates, Stab, Stable Society, Sugar Babies, Sugar Baby, Sugar Daddies, Sugar Daddy, Sugar Mommies, Time Don, Tons Of Money, Two Ladies, Violent Men, Yea, Young Men — admin @ 7:21 am

Not rich enough yet? Join force with other males and share a sugar baby

Hei, not all males are good at everything. Some are charming. Some are rich. Some are smart. Women often want all. If you insist on getting married, you will have to spend a fraction of your income. Not like you’re going to make love to her 24 hours a day.

Why not concentrate on making money first and share a female? There is no monogamous restriction on sugar baby sugar daddy relationship. Just share and be happy together.

Should she got knocked up, just use paternity test to decide the father. Women nowadays do not get enough loving from busy husbands. Many hot women love being gang banged.

Build Relationship with hot Sugar Mommies

Love is like business opportunities. The more you share the more you get.

There are many sugar mommies around. They’re mainly looking for female sugar babies. Yea, the way free market works is that there isn’t a lot young hot beautiful girls that want to pay men.

Still. Just get a sugar baby. Then introduce her to sugar mommies for ultimate happiness combo. Turn gang bangs into hot sex parties.

Get more young beautiful women without fearing bankruptcy

“Which woman would not rather be John Kennedy’s third wife than Bozo the Clown’s first?” – L. Betzig – Female Evolutionist

Got tons of money? Want to spend those raises on something that lasts more than your life time? Don’t get married. Get a sugar baby.

There are plenty or beautiful women that don’t mind doing it. Many women would rather share rich smart males than be the only one for the poor ones.

Cost of women are constant irrelevant of your wealth. She doesn’t even need to know how wealthy you are. She only needs to know how much she would get paid.

Live happily ever after with your soul mates

Rich smart males never need to leave the girls he likes. Why would he? Oh the girl may be costly.

If he’s truly rich, that won’t be a problem. Exception is of course when the cost is set artificially by government to be devastating no matter how rich the male is.

However, within marriage, a rich smart male has a very strong intensive to divorce his wife. What about if newer hotter babes show up? Marriage must be monogamy so other males get a share too. So when new babes show up, the old one must be kicked out. What a waste.

As sugar daddies, it doesn’t matter. The new babe comes in. The old babe will also stay. Then you do threesomes happily ever after. Well, at least until another hot babe comes in. Then you do foursomes happily ever after. Bring friends.

Hell you can even ended up joining sex parties with her or his other friends if you can’t handle all of them.

Not so under marriage. Under marriage, it’s whoever stab the other one first. The women will think, ah I get paid anyway even if I left, and so she left. Why wouldn’t she? If she doesn’t, the men will leave her anyway.

The marriage system is designed to fail. Marriage is indeed failing, by around 50%. It’ll fail, and the laws are made to make sure it fails horribly when it does.

That’s what happen when you let others, socialists, feminazis, terrorists, or who knows what, be the pimp of your relationship. To hell with marriage. Come with something that work. Be a sugar daddy meet your sugar babies.

Many people condemn sugar daddy-babies relationship. They claim it’s prostitution. Well, actually it’s not. So what if it is. We’ll get back to it.

Marriage is an unstable implicit prostitution

Women are different than men. They can do something men cannot, namely getting pregnant. Under comparative advantage, even if women can make more money than men, both will still be better of men concentrate on making money and women concentrate on getting pregnant.

Obviously as we evolves, beautiful women start finding out that their programming skills, sword wielding skills, and hunting skills are less and less necessary. It’s far easier for beautiful women to pick the right men rather than to be the man.

Men with such skills and talents get more resources. After a while, most males are better at making money.

Only ugly women have to work hard all their life. The more beautiful the girl is, the more she wants to just be sex object.

Those ugly women then declare that it’s what all women truly want out of envy.

So in marriage, prostitution, or sugar daddy sugar baby relationship, it’s common, and natural that men pay and women make the men happy.

It doesn’t make sense for beautiful women to just have sex for free. It’s natural that she got something back.

How many men want to marry a beautiful girl if he knew he won’t get laid? How many women want to marry a man if they knew he won’t pay?

That’s what happens in all marriage. Men work. Women provide sex in return. In a sense it’s prostitution. So what?

However, in our hypocritical society, knowing that rich paying men are too attractive to compete, voters often declare prostitution illegal.

The truth is, if you’re nice, and then you follow all societies’ norm in getting a girl that don’t want you for your money, and then you’re not violent, and others are not afraid of you, you will live forever alone.

In a rare case some beautiful girls actually like you, some rude violent males, such as her ex boy friend or future ex husband, will say no she doesn’t and try to kill and harm you. Then you’ll never get laid till you stand up like men and fight back like hell exterminating all their kind.

Actually that’s what happened to me. That’s why I made this site up. I am fighting back by exterminating anyone opposing free fair competition. No more Mr. Nice guy for fascists, commies, feminists, and enviromentalists.

So we got marriage. Further political development changes that further. So it isn’t. Yes men expect sex and yes women expect money. However, the 2 are not really linked within marriage.

Nowadays, women can just get a divorce openly sleep with another male. The original ex-husband will have to pay life time alimony. See what happen to husband here http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758 . The women already have sex with others. She simply just doesn’t marry that other guy. The ex-husband keeps paying. What kind of rich smart males want to be treated like that? Let me guess. The nice ones? The naive ones?

Some think it’s a good law for women. Yea, it hurts men but benefit women. Really? Imagine a law requiring you to sell your product way above the market price? What happens? You actually make less profit because sales go down. Now imagine a law requiring you to sell way higher to more attractive customers. That’s how stupid it is.

The lifetime alimony laws actually force women to sell her higher to richer males. It’s there to prevent beautiful women to get really rich men.

It may be to the best interest of feminists, ugly women, society, socialists, or whatever to define marriage with that terms. It’s not to the best interest of the beautiful women. If you are a beautiful woman and you want to hurt men that love you so much, then and only then, you should pick marriage.

What about monetary compensation for women in marriage? Is it linked to her doing her end of the bargain? Not either. I’ve seen enough women with child where her husband has simply run away. Societies will do nothing to protect those women. In fact, the laws and sexual norms are actually there to ration females to financially irresponsible men. Only if the men are actually financially responsible then everyone would start hunting the male.

Not so with sugar daddy sugar baby relationship. It’s still not prostitution. However, if relationship is breaking apart, they both go separate way. That way woman can aim for richer males that are not afraid to enter such relationship.

If a beautiful women just want a win win relationship, then pick a sugar daddy sugar baby relationship. In fact, that’s how most rich smart men know whether a woman love her or not. If she asked for a marriage, that means she’s just after your money and want to stab you in the back. Isn’t that what all marriage end up with?

If a woman wants a longer term commitment, she can ask that out to sugar daddy. It’ll be under the sugar babies/sugar daddies terms. Not under the states’ or feminazis’ terms.

Produce healthy children while always be in good relationship with the mother

Horrors await those who get married. Many males are forced to pay child support for a kid that’s not biologically his.

Victims are rarely able to claim compensation in the civil court system, and even in countries where paternity fraud is a criminal offense, action is rarely taken against offenders. In 2008 it emerged that even though the United Kingdom government had exposed 4,854 cases of false paternity claims there had not been a single prosecution for the crime.[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

The reason is obvious. The socialist government wants to redistribute your hard earned money to welfare parasites so politicians can get more votes making governments bigger.

It’s not to government best interest to protect your wealth. Instead, it’s toward government best interest to find excuse that you end up paying someone else’ child.

Many marriage laws require husband to pay child support for children not biologically his.

It’s an irony. In ancient time, marriage is there to protect husband from this sort of fraud. Now, it’s there to encourage it.

We no longer need marriage for its main purpose. If you want to know who your child is, just use paternity tests.

In marriage, it’s whoever stabs the other one first. There is only one outcome of it. Disaster.

Outside marriage, you, rather than heartless politicians, make the terms. So just make a sensible one.

Marriage Dehumanize and Objectify Women

Encouraging one-to-one pairing so that more men have a mate would reduce the number of potentially violent young single men. Per one of my sociology professors, historical studies show that societies have been more warlike when they have excessive young men. – Shannon Larson

Let’s stop for a while and think for a moment on what Shannon really said.

There are violent people. We do not want them to get them to be more violent. So what does the so called sociology professors think a good solution would be? Yes encourage one to one pairing so that those violent thugs, burglars, robbers, wife beaters, and murderers have a mate and hopefully become less violent.

That ladies and gentlemen is what marriage truly stand for. Pairing men and women on 1 on 1 basis so the males that are the least financially responsible, most deceptive, most violent, get laid too, perhaps with prettier girls so they don’t get mad. Then societies will simply say that love is blind while prohibiting most better alternatives.

No wonder the world is full with violent deceptive people. It doesn’t matter if a girl say yes. It doesn’t matter she consent. It doesn’t matter what she wants or chooses. At the end, only men’s with power over other men get the hottest babes with little relevancy of what the girls want.

Other explanations doesn’t make sense. For example, many people argue that prostitution can’t possibly be consensual. That it’s so bad that no women would do it willingly. That they must be coerced or tricked.

Feminists point out that all prostitution can’t possibly be consensual. Explain to me then how come a $5500 per hour job is not consensual. Is the girl doing it with guns on her head. Is the girl so ugly no body wants to marry her. Is the girl too dumb she can’t even work in McDonald unless she put up. Will she starve if she stops prostituting? Are there laws prohibiting sex outside prostitution? Is the males that can pay $5500 per hour are so unattractive that they have to pay that much?

Obviously most, if not all, prostitutes have many reasonable legal alternatives. They simply don’t have better ones.

But most males cannot afford $5500 per hour. Those males will become violent if they don’t have a mate. So what’s the solution? Yap. You hear it. Encourage one on one pairing, prohibit or prevent alternatives, especially those alternatives women want the most.

Consensuality of marriage is far more dubious. However, very few question it.

Why would any beautiful girl pick a poor bum? Ah. Love is blind says most people. Few ever think that the beautiful girl may prefer to just sell sex to some millionaire if only it were legal. When she did the latter, everyone would scream that it must be exploitation and can’t be consensual even though it’s what she prefer.

Why would any Taliban girl marry a cave dwelling terrorist? Taliban solution? Prohibits women from working. The alternative for those women are either starving or marry somebody Taliban’s approved. Do we bother declare that such marriage can’t be consensual? You kidding. We just hope they don’t kill us.

No means no. However, once the girls are too beautiful, it seems that yes means yes if only if the male is violent enough to be feared. What does this encourage? What message does marriage send?

Shanon is not the only one that got it right.

“Far from being laws to protect women, antipolygamy statutes may really do more to protect men.” ― Matt Ridley

“Your presentation neglects to consider the alternate effects of your propositions. I have brought up class warfare several times, but I don’t think you realize the effect of what you are proposing. If all women chose only rich and intelligent men, other men would hunt us down and kill us. Can I make it any clearer?” Eromsnid Flor – Mensan

“The arrangement you describe would definitely be disadvantageous to men (even though us dumb guys would probably think it sounded like a great deal). The problem is, for every guy with two ladies, there’d be a guy with none. If you want a stable society, you don’t want too many unhappy guys with no partners.” – Michael Snyder

It’s an open secret that marital laws in democratic countries are there to ration females in equal share for everyone. The cause is simple. If women are not rationed, many males don’t get laid. So that those males are happy, laws are created rationing women to less desirable males.

This is inhumane.

If we respect someone as a human being, we respect her choices.

The interest of others should mean absolutely nothing to her unless she agree, usually in exchange of some value that she care for her.

Also under normal economic situation, it is toward the women’s absolute right to max out what she want given what she can offer. That’s how we treat humans.

Not so under marriage. The state, rather than the women, decides the terms. Here, some concern of the state, such as ensuring that the most violent men get women too, is taken into account in crafting the marriage contract. That should be none of her concern. The fact that there are other lazy dumb violent men that won’t get laid if she chooses her own terms should be none of her concern.

However, it’s part of most marital contract in democratic countries. How dehumanizing?

By encouraging marriage, the state effectively tries to appease burglars, robbers, and thugs by ordering women to marry them! The difference is that we do not appease them with money or food. We appease them by preventing women from picking better choices, and hence effectively forcing beautiful women to aim lower against her will. Are women less than food or money that we use them to appease violent men?

Not so with sugar daddy sugar babies relationship. The women rather than the state decide the term. If she wants $2k per month, it’s her term. If she wants life time support in case of babies, it’s her term. If the man doesn’t like the term, he can bargain or refuse, but she has to agree.

The interests of voters, religious leaders, or other humans are completely irrelevant. Well not completely but matter much less.

Polygamy is not a good solution

Some people would say that the solution is to legalize polygamy. That won’t solve the problem. As long as it’s still marriage, then the state rather than women, decide the terms. That means the women are effectively the property of the state rather than owning herself. In most countries with polygamy women’s choice is even less.

In states where polygamy is legal, women have even less choice. Sex outside marriage often is not legal.

In muslim countries, for example, there are laws against muslim women picking non-muslim men. Such laws are equivalent with laws preventing you from buying import products. What about if some christian or jewish yuppies bid higher?

Even if polygamy is legalized, you will still need the state or some religious officials to do the wedding. Who needs them? Why should their interest matter? Why do we need others as pimp?

Most beautiful women can get richer smarter taller and more handsome sugar daddies than husband

Marriage in democratic country is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. The makers of the law know that most beautiful women prefer the rich. They also know that rich smart paying males are too attractive. So how do they give “equal” chance to men that are less desirable?

Simple. They make marriage terms scare off rich attractive males.

Alimony terms are not really there to support women. It’s there to bankrupt rich smart males. That’s why it’s set to be proportional to the man’s wealth. It’s there to scare off rich males from marrying.

The same way child support laws are not there to support any child. Government does not care if the money does go to the child or not. The law is there to ensure that rich smart males do not make too many kids.

Beatty Chadwick, a millionaire went to jail for 14 years http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/. Most rich males simply don’t want to get married. Period. It’s not that the girl is not pretty enough. It’s just stupid.

What else? Exclusivity. Yea some girls want to be the only one. Fine. Not all. Many beautiful women don’t mind sharing. Commitment that a girl will be the only one is cheap for men that cannot attract any other girls. Such commitment is expensive for more attractive males. Obviously the states suddenly turn that exclusivity into marriage contract.

Marriage promote wars while sugar daddy and sugar babies relationship promote peace and prosperity

In general, under marriage, the state decides the terms. Hence only those who are in power, or favored by those in power, get laid. That effectively makes those in power the pimp of all. This will encourage males to kill each other to be in power.

That’s what’s happening under muslim rules. Never ending war between themselves and jews and christians and who knows who.

In democracy women are rationed in equal share for everyone through monogamy. It won’t be long till those least productive of the society start growing more and more in number weighing down on the economy. Then they’ll demand bigger government. Let’s face it. Who is society that it can decide what women should choose?

Under porn/sugar babies, free market decides the terms. So those who provide value decide the terms. Obviously, this leads to a more peaceful and just solution. Free market always leads to peace while deviation always leads to war and strive.

Pick monogamous marriage and socialists would have won.

Pick polygamous marriage and terrorists would have won.

Be a sugar daddies and you’ll help bringing abundance free market to every corner of the world.

For the religious

If religions mean a lot to you. Consider this:

See none of us are following biblical marriage. The pics are still missing the stoning part, which is part of the package actually.

However, sugar daddy sugar babies relationship resemble biblical marriage far more than contemporary civil marriage. The only difference is that under sugar’s relationship men don’t have to pay and women have no obligation to perform. At least not explicitly because the law prohibits that. Implicitly, if she stops “loving” you, you can always stop “being generous.”

Also consider:

But I tell you, Do not swear at all – Jesus http://bible.cc/matthew/5-34.htm Looks like some torah commandment are best circumvented rather than directly obeyed. Never swear, never break swear. Never get married, never divorce.

Every one who is sending away his wife, and marrying another, doth commit adultery; and every one who is marrying her sent away from a husband doth commit adultery. – Jesus . So apparently it’s okay to keep getting more and more women as long as you don’t sent her away and even then, only if she is your wife. The disciples figured that out and quickly ask, why bother getting married.

Verily I say to you, that the tax-gatherers and the harlots do go before you into the reign of God – Jesus

“For [ultimately], a father will marry his daughter and a brother his sister, [for in a sexually permissive society] a [girl] may become pregnant and give birth without knowing who the child’s father is.” – Rabam so the issue is about knowing who the child’s father. Also Solomon and David have tons of concubines.

All religious leaders want to be the pimp of all women. So it’s natural that they go up and down trying to convince you that you can’t have sex without their permission. This is the same religious leaders that have been ordering our ancestors to kill and slaughter innocents over difference of opinions and latter apologize for commanding violent. Believe them at your own risk.

Consider also that 38% of all marriage in Israel ends up in divorce. See? Some people are indeed chosen to reveal divine truth for the rest of us. One of those truth is marriage doesn’t work.

The other one is that anything not commercialized will make us kill each other. Prostitution is not illegal in Israel. Land purchase is still regulated. Guess what people in the area are usually killing each other for?

Some christians will argue that jews are no longer the chosen people and hence quoting divorce rate in Israel is irrelevant.

mkay