Mate « Free Market Forever

May 14, 2012

Tips to Get Girls

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Afghanistan, Best Deals, Buddies, Caveman, Choices, Girls, High Quality, Hot Women, Lungs, Mate, Miss Universe, Narrow Path, Optimists, People Bank, Percentile, Quality Males, Realist, Truth — admin @ 12:56 pm

Some says optimists believe your luck will improve. Realist say you got to be realistic. Why not be both? Just look at aspects of reality that’s on your side that’s reasonably positive.

1. Women (hot women) don’t want me.
Truth:
a. Imagine if there is no other man in the world, can you get miss universe? Of course. The issue is not that girls don’t want you. The issue is they prefer other men even more. So what difference does it make? quite significant. For example, most men are shy. She doesn’t even know more. Getting to know girls even for buddies is a plus.
b. So the real issues are competitors. Not getting girls does not mean you are inferior. It’s NORMAL for girls to EASILY get guys rather than the other way around. Women in 70% mate value can easily get a man with 90% percentile mate value. The reason why is simple. Males aim for quantity rather than quality. So, even average or above average looking women will never run out of high quality males. So if there are more men chasing her rather than girls chasing you, it’s normal.
c. Now let’s examine competitors again. Compete globally. Look at your wealth percentile. Compare your self with a caveman that leave in Afghanistan. Can you make better offers? Can you pay her more? Can you provide more for her kids? Do you like stoning girls to death? Obviously you are BETTER than afghan males. You can compete. It’s just a matter of giving choices.

Yes many of those choices are illegal. Here is something I learn about live. The truly best deals are always “grey”, never white. Humans are so bigotic that when something makes you happy, someone somewhere somehow will say it’s wrong. Doesn’t mean women don’t want that. Just “whisper” the offer rather than screaming your lungs out. You don’t ask people to rob bank by putting ads in newspaper right? The path of salvation will always be narrow. Go through the narrow path.

So always lie. Women evolve to be lied too. Deep inside they know you had to lie. Just like you cannot get rich being nice in a socialist country, you also cannot horde women in monogamous country. When happiness is illegal, the only winners are criminals. Think about it.

When society “caught” you, don’t rub it on their face. Just say you love her, or whatever bullshit society want to hear. It’s what everyone else does.

2. Understand Women.
No body is an expert on this. My knowledge is far from perfect. However, we know the basic.
a. What societies tell you about women are often the exact opposite of truth.
Think about it. Most societies are your competitors. They don’t want you to succeed. People are envious. Deep down they want to prevent others from being happier than them.
Claim: Love is blind.
Truth: opposite
Claim: No women want to be prostitute
Truth: Most essentially are. The prettier the more. That’s the whole point of being pretty.
Claim: If you want to be happy women, don’t marry a rich man. If you want to be a happy men, don’t marry a pretty women.
Truth: Exact opposite.
Claim: Women want to be “loved”
Truth: Features of romantic love, exclusivity, devotion, and promise for huge alimony, is socially constructed to kick out most desirable males out of mating market. Women actually detect such traits to imply inferiority.
Claim: No women want to share
Truth: If all else are equal, women prefer studs.
Claim: Man and women are equal
Truth: Success for males means getting rich. Women that work too hard to get rich go extinct.
b. If you have a daughter, what kind of man you want to be the biological father of your grand children. That should not be far from what girls want in a mate.
Do you want your daughter to get knocked up by a rich smart handsome best selling nobel prize winner or by some losers that promise exclusivity. Think about it.
That means rich.
3. Makes the deal sweeter.
Do you really want her just for your self? Share. Different males have different edges. Why not combine? One talk to the girl and introducing. The other are good at massage. In ancient time, sharing sucks because then you don’t know who daddy is. Nowadays there is DNA tests anyway.
If all else fail, pay prostitute for training. Duh. You need experience.
Watch porn.

I don’t know all about women. Yes you will fail. THere is no one sure way to get laid. So try and try again. It’s like business. You don’t always succeed. You learn you try again. If you always fear to try you’ll never achieve anything.

If you watch so many porn you won’t be that hungry for women. Women avoid hungry men. So watching porn will help you train the right mindset.

Above all, avoid marriage.

Good luck.

Incoming search terms:

i am too ugly to hire prostitute
powered by phpBB job loss in recession
powered by phpBB oriental trading company

Comments (0)

April 18, 2012

Who You Are is More Important Than the Actual Deal

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Bad Move, Beatty Chadwick, Billionaires, Boss, Casual Sex, Cavemen, Circumstances, Formal Marriage, Fuck, Handsome Male, High Iq, Marriage, Mate, Millionaires, People, Prostitution, Religious Marriage, Sex Worker, Sugar Babies, Supervisor — admin @ 4:28 am

I really don’t understand you guys.

If you have a daughter, don’t you want your daughter to end up with the best of the best? Millionaires, billionaires or someone with high IQ? If you have a son, do you want your son to end up like Beatty Chadwick? Do you want your son to get married at all? What do you want for your sons or daughter anyway. I want to know my self.

How the relation works out is secondary. It could be casual sex. It could be sugar babies. It could be formal marriage. It could be religious marriage. He could be her boss (as long as it’s the actual owner rather than just supervisor). Who care?

People concentrate so much on what kind of deal a woman get. Marriage, then good. Prostitution then bad. Free sex, then somewhere in the middle. Bosses, then exploitation. Have to share, then bad. Move to richer country to find a mate then really really bad.

All those are secondary. I think most women and most father of women care more about WHO the man is, and not WHAT the exact deal is. The exact deal must not be too bad and I personally think that marriage is one of the most stupid deal.

However, WHO the man is, that is, how rich he is, is obviously far more important than other factors. Is he rich? Is he handsome? Is he tall? Does he speak C++? What’s his IQ?

Most of the women that are trafficked to europe have that in mind. Will the white male that fuck her be more handsome taller and richer than the cavemen that propose marriage to her back home.

If they can choose, they’d rather marry a rich smart tall handsome male. However, if they can choose between being a sex worker for a rich smart tall handsome male and be a wife of some poor guy back home, we know what they choose. Who the man is override what the deal is, in most circumstances.

The same way if I approach a woman, WHO the women is, namely how pretty she is, is what’s important. She can be on top. She can be submissive, or dominant, who care. Is she hot?

I don’t care if a man worship the earth my daughter walk on. If he’s poor, he has to get rich first.

Have you approached a woman? No matter how polite you are, if you’re poor, they don’t even look at you. If you’re rich, then you just approach them casually and tada….

Rich women do not need money. They still prefer the rich anyway for the same reason men prefer the pretty. At least that’s what I would prefer for my daughter. A very rich man. If my daughter got 2 proposal, one from a monogamous middle class and another from a billionaire playboy magnate, I would advice her to pick the billionaire magnate. Just make sure he’s really a billionaire as he said.

If I can reproduce my self by cloning, I wouldn’t need women at all. But hei, the most natural way is the cheapest cost effective way

Incoming search terms:

powered by phpBB best way to save money
powered by phpBB legal questions concerning wills made by ex husband
powered by phpBB women shoes
powered by phpBB origins of medicine
free market and prostituion
Prostitution actually helps maintain marriages and relationships
powered by phpBB women\s medical group
powered by phpBB ideal health
powered by phpBB division of child support services
people with high i q avoid marriage
male sugar babies
hot prostitution maRKET
high iq tend to free markets
rich men dont want sugar baby marriage

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 8, 2012

Romance is the Second Most Dangerous Religion in the World

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Basketball Players, Beautiful Women, Big Tits, Brain Matter, Capitalists, Cave Dwelling, Concubinage, Failing Marriage, Follower, Followers, Gamy, Hot Babes, Irrational Beliefs, Last Time, Mate, Mates, Men And Women, Monogamy, Non Consensual, Nonsense, Nothing Works, Poverty, Pregnant Men, Proof, Religions, Religious Bigots, Reproductive Success, Romance, Sexual Relationship, Spell Books, Sugar Dadies, Women Trafficking — admin @ 5:23 am

There is a fascist religion in western world called romance. These delusional people think that

1. Men and women have roughly equal utility function that they roughly want the same thing and capable to the same thing

2. For every man, there is one women that’s special just for him

3. They favor equal outcome between men and women. When outcomes are not equal, they irrationally believe that something is wrong.

4. They think that any kind of sexual relationship where hot babes can pick richer smarter males without the males risking bankruptcy as non consensual. You name it. Prostitution, sugar dadies, pimping, concubinage, and women trafficking. In their eyes ALL hot babes prefer to be a wife of some poor cave dwelling terrorists rather than sharing a richer smart males.

Why is this a religion?

Most religions have no proof. This religion is proven wrong again and again and again and again and again and again and again

1. Men and women are not equal. They attract mates differently. They gain reproductive success differently. Women get pregnant. Men impregnate hot babes. Beauty and tits matter more in babes. Wealth and brain matter more in dudes. Having big tits lower dudes’ market value last time I check but improve babes market value.

2. We are not meant to be paired one on one. That’s not how free market work. Just go to restaurants and see how some are full and others are empty. Just look at the number of hot babes that mate with basketball players. Also check out the rate of failing marriage. Monogamy doesn’t work. No “gamy” works. Nothing works if governments get involved.

3. To follower of this stupid bigotic religion, any kind of relationship that don’t match their deluded irrational beliefs are somehow “wrong”. They want to ration women to even the most insane and financially irresponsible males. In fact, in countries where people have this religions, the poor out breed the rich causing socialized big government that hurt capitalists and honest productive people that should have made more money. Yea I know, the other countries are even worst, but that’s a different issue. We’re not trying to make better countries here. We’re trying to understand the world the way they are so we can improve our self.

They’re using the same spell books most religious bigots use.

1. Like typical religions, followers of this nonsense want to indoctrinate our kids. Information that challenge their beliefs, like porn, are declared dangerous for minor. Yet dangerous irrational nonsense like romance that promote heinous fascist relationship like marriage are shown again and again and again. This so called marriage are heavily regulated by fascist states and have caused untold miseries.

2. Any information that may challenge their beliefs are called disrespectful for women. If you call hot babes hot, they will not say you’re wrong. They know you’re right. They just say you disrespect women for mysterious reasons. The hot babes don’t mind. It’s always the other not so hot babes that do. So far, only one hot babe got angry with me for doing it. Now she’s stuck in a marriage she can’t get out with some other guy. Poor her.

3. They actively promote DISCRIMINATION against those that don’t share their beliefs or have different orientation. Their idea of not discriminating means discriminating in favor of equality of outcome or outcome they prefer. For example, in German, prostitution is taxed and yet having sex with ones’ wife is tax free. This unfairly encourage people to get married. In US, prostitution is even illegal. Healthy relationship with sugar babies are legally unclear there. Romance, like Islam, Christianity, etc. promote marriage under terms they considered best rather than letting individuals decide for themselves.

4. Romance actively promote sexist laws. They prohibit prostitution, which is one of the few jobs in the world where hot babes can earn way more money than men. They forced bosses to pay for paternity leaves for pregnant women. This put hot babes that can simply pick richer men without working at serious disadvantage because that rich men will have to pay some other pregnant women that doesn’t pick him. They also prohibit many various consensual sexual solicitation even though many hot babes may actually want to take the offers.

5. They think any males that want women for fucking as pervert. Then they claimed that homosexuality is abnormal. Man. Science have proven again and again and again. Normal=pervert. You don’t like tits, you’re abnormal. You like only a pair, you’re abnormal. You want hot babes mainly as your video games buddy, you’re abnormal. You play video games together with hot babes on the hope that she upgrade you into a fuck buddy. Now that’s normal. You enjoy risking your whole life’s income to pay a lifetime alimony without any legal hard bargaining position to get laid, then either you’re the most stupid loser in the world or abnormal. Love is NOT normal. Lust is. Men want fucking. That’s what we mainly want, that’s all we’re willing to spend resources for. If hot babes prefer that offer, so what? Yet this bigots think it’s wrong to want what you want even though you have no intent to force that to hot babes non consensually.

6. In Afghanistan, when muslim bigots kill women that don’t follow their religion, they call it honor killing, as if they’re protecting women dignity. Anyone other men giving different more attractive offers are called disrespectful of women. In western world, where romance bigots jail women for doing consensual acts, they call it protecting women dignity. Anyone trying to point out that the many hot babes are wanting it are also called disrespectful of women.

7. Like most religions, these people take away women’s choice under the pretext of protecting women’s dignity. They condemn women for being women, namely wanting the best genes to knock up her womb with plenty of resources and protection for raising kids. Those wise financially prudent women are called sluts and hoes, which, romantic people threat as sub humans.

8. In indonesia, those who said there is no God, are jailed for insulting religion. In western world, those who said that hot babes are hot babes are said to disrespect women. Anyone saying that most hot babes are sex objects or sexy objects and many wanna be hoes will lost their career for supposedly “insulting women.” Even though there are hundreds of hot babes that work as strippers that can testify that they enjoy their job and love it, none of those would change the beliefs of those with faith. Followers of these religion cannot differentiate between honest criticism with very high probability of actually being true and mere insults. They, like most religions, would claim any honest criticism as blasphemy that they think should be illegal.

9. And just like any religions, the solution is to simply understand, keep our mouth shut, pretend it’s true, and get ahead secretly. Oh ya, why the fuck I am writing this again? Hopefully no body reads.

10. It’s because of them all other more oppressive religions survive. The reason why people are religious is because religious leaders control whether they get laid or not. So people need to kow tow to whatever religious leaders want just to get laid. Imagine a world where women freely choose. Imagine a world where religious leaders no longer decide under what terms women can mate with and with whom. Imagine a world without marriage, or at least a religiously sanctioned marriage coerced by prohibition of virtually all better consensual alternatives. Religions will disappear by itself.

Incoming search terms:

powered by phpBB secret religious societies
big tits mate
powered by phpBB basketball
powered by phpBB brain
powered by phpBB girls playing with their boobs
Woman with big Tits

Comments (0)

December 25, 2011

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

Divorce rate among Christians are 29%. Even higher than atheists.

Comments (0)

November 5, 2011

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

Filed under: Featured — Tags: 20th Century, Alpha Males, Beauty, Business Government, Capitalists, Child Support, Concentration Camp, Extermination, Fascists, Females, Feminazis, Government Need, Group Marriage, Guns, Hate Jews, Hated Jews, Having Sex, Inferiority, Innocent, Jews, Marriag, Marriage, Mate, Mates, Mediocre Men, Nazi, Nazis Hatred, Oppo, Paternity, Polyandry, Poor Men, Porn, Prohibition, Prostitution, Religious Bigots, Rhetorical Question, Sex Objects, Star Of David, Toast, Truth, Ugly Women, Vague Concept — admin @ 6:25 am

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, funny, ancient and wise people called the jews.

They’re endangered species now. These people underestimated their government’s hatred against them.

The same way today, there are capitalists. Most of those underestimate others’ hatred over them.

The jews underestimated Nazis’ hatred toward them. They think they won’t get screwed. “We are useful to them. Why would they kill us?” They said to themselves. They failed to realize that:

1. The mediocre hate the smart. That’s why Nazis hated jews.

2. The lazy hate the diligent.

3. The unproductive hate the productive.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from reaching their full potential.

The same way most people fail to realize that:

1. Mediocre men do not want women to only pick the rich. That’s why they prohibit prostitution.

2. Singles do not want people with mates to keep getting mates. That’s why they prohibit group marriage, polyandry and polygamy.

3. Ugly women do not want women to be judged by their beauty. That’s why they prohibit porn.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them or have potential to do so. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from achieving their full potential.

All these are half obvious already. Yet most people don’t know.

The fascists justified killing jews by claiming that the jews are inferior anyway. If it were true, why not just let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Inferiority is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

The fascists also justify prohibition of prostitution by claiming that prostitution is such a bad deal no women could possibly want that anyway. If it were true, why not let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Bad deal is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

So the Nazis pulled out a trick. “Work will set you free,” said bigots. “Just register your arms and wear star of David band for ease of identification,” said the Nazi.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something was suspicious. What business government has in identifying who were jewish and who were not? They should have asked.

The same way, religious bigots and feminazis are pulling tricks. “Get married first before having sex,” said religious bigots. “Women are not sex objects and should not be judged solely by their beauty,” said ugly feminazis.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something is suspicious. What business does government have in regulating marriage?

What business does ugly women have in controlling how we think? When men think of women as sex object, we usually mean the pretty right? So why the ugly care?

But many jews didn’t see that the Nazi wanted their extermination. What else could they have wanted? By registering their guns they are easy to disarm. By wearing stars they are easy to identify. And by being in concentration camp they are easy to exterminate.

The same way many of us do not see that those wanting us to get married want nothing but our extermination and suffering. What else do they want?

By getting married government has power to define what marriage mean. Government can ration mates in equal share for everyone by allowing people to only pick singles.

By getting married judges have justification to prosecute the rich with hefty alimony. The justification, as ridiculous as it sound, is that you agreed to that indirectly when you get married.

By getting married people make it easy for government to screw them.

Little did the jews know that hatred against them would matter far more in concentration camp than outside.

Outside concentration camp, hatred against jews matter much less. The jews can still fight, flee, or run.

Inside concentration camp, they’re toasted. Literally.

The same way, little people know, that hatred of those who are not competitive are far less influential outside marriage than inside marriage.

Outside marriage, you decide terms of your mating.

You can change partners, and hence providing intensive for the other side to behave fairly toward you. You can decide your own contract. You can share a more desirable partner, or be shared. It’s up to you.

Women typically can aim at far richer males outside marriage. Richer smart men can aim at more women outside marriage. It’s happening anyway thanks to higher and fairer income disparity globalization bring here.

Inside marriage, the will of all those bigots matters. A girl will have harder time aiming for the rich inside marriage. Rich males are afraid of having to pay big alimony and will not marry unless the women are smoking hot if at all. All those alimony laws are destructive only to the rich. Think about it.

Fascists ensure that rich men that still get married are pretty much screwed, hence ensuring that only the poor are available to marrying women.

Hence, the result

Read more about Beatty Chadwick here.

Check more here for more horror stories.

If you are a beautiful woman, getting laid by rich smart males willing to support you in exchange of sex or reproductive service is very easy. The richer the male, the more he wants you. Finding a male that are willing to risk going through those horrors for nothing is obviously difficult. The richer the male, the less likely he wants marriage.

Notice that genocide pictures I showed you above is quite typical. Most concentration camps’ Nazis to jews relationship does end up badly, for the jews. The experience are different. Some get burned, others get shot, another get gassed etc.

Notice that Beatty Chadwick’s case is quite typical. Most marriage does end up badly, for the productive. Experience varies. Some go to jail, others paid huge lifetime alimony, etc.

Perhaps the jews think that outside concentration camp, fascists can still kill them anyway. True.

But it’s much harder to kill them outside than inside.

As more and more are outside, fascism will starve and get weaker.

The same way many think that outside marriage, fascists can still control their life anyway. True.

Fascists can still prohibit prostitution. Fascist can still declare that cohabiting partners are married, hence effectively instituting forced marriage. Fascist can still prohibit prostitution. But fascists will have much harder time running your life outside marriage.

As more and more babies are born outside marriage, fascism will starve and get weaker.

A lot of hatred was there in the design of concentration camp. They got gas chambers, they got chains, they got guards with guns. Concentration camps were there to kill jews. Shouldn’t jews be suspicious?

The same way, a lot of hatred is there in the design of marital laws. They got life time alimony proportional to men’s income. They got judges ordering males to support kids that are not biologically his. Marriage laws are there to bankrupt rich smart males. Shouldn’t all rich males be suspicious?

Trust your government?

Remember genocide. Remember Beatty Chadwick.

Never again! we let fascists influencing who should stay in the gene pool. Yes in both cases (I am tired of writing the same thing twice), many will deny that.

Do not trust your government. The same government that claim to define what’s best for your kids are the same one that would send those same kids to ovens and roast them slowly. Just ask any holocaust survivor or Beatty Chadwick.

Never forget. Government sucks. Free market is awesome. Free market forever.

Incoming search terms:

afghan eyes
powered by phpBB beauty pics
powered by phpBB funny free
jews funny
jobs for ugly females

Comments (0)

May 23, 2011

Is Government Regulated Marriage Consensual?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Alimony, Beatty Chadwick, Definition Of Marriage, Exclusivity, How Many People, Imagine, Many Men, Marriage, Marriage Contract, Married People, Mate, Men And Women, Monetary Compensation, Money, Prostitution, Salary, Same Marriage, Severance Pay, World Sex — admin @ 3:40 am

Imagine the world where all consensual sex are legal. Imagine if porn, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry are legal. Imagine if marriage is completely privatized.

How many people would choose to agree to something exactly the same as their government’s definition of marriage? How many people, if marriage is totally privatized, will draft the exact same marriage contract that their government have now?

How many people would agree to go to jail for 14 years like Beatty Chadwick if they draft their own marital contract? How many people would demand money proportional to the their mate’ wealth in exchange of sexual favor? How many people prefer high severance pay (alimony) instead of high salary when negotiating with a potential mate? How many people would prescribe that the state of their resident will decide the amount of severance pay each party will get. How many men and women truly desire exclusivity in a mate in comparison to say, getting a higher quality mate or higher monetary compensation?

If marriage is consensual, the number will be the same with the number of married people. Is the number the same? What accounts for the differences? Will the factors that contribute the differences consensual?

Incoming search terms:

Comments (0)

March 19, 2011

How to Persuade People to Use Atheistic Explanation of Life Issues?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Aspects Of Life, Atheists, Benefit, Bible, Brain, Cooperative Aspects, Economic Truth, Emotion, First Science, Gene Pool, How To Persuade People, Instinct, Market Countries, Mate, Mates, Math Biology, Mechanic, Moon, Newton, Physics, Quran, Religions, Religious Approach, Science Works, Secular Approach, Subconscious Mind, Veneer — admin @ 10:53 am

It’s difficult to make people change. But one thing we can do is to show them that they’ve been doing the same thing on most aspects of life. Our Math, Biology, and Physics are pretty much atheistic. We no longer ask bible, or quran, to explain how to build skyscrapper or how to launch rocket on the moon. Here, non religious approach is what people use to get things done and that’s just that.
However, quite often, on what truly matters in life, people resort to religions. People resort to religions to pick a mate, to decide how to deal with others, to vote, etc. That’s because on those area, religions still work. After all religious people successfully reproduce more than atheists. They also tend to be more successful politically.
If we can show them that people can attract mates and be powerful through atheistic understanding, people would at least learn more about secular approach to analyze their problem.
There are many reasonable explanation why people still use religions. It’s basically similar to the reason why people use emotion or instinct at all rather than purely their ratio.
The more something is important, the more that thing is hardwired in our brain. In other word, to successfully reproduce in the gene pool, humans do not need to think. They just need to follow their instinct and feeling. Quite often the way to win is to hurt others. Such thoughts are often hidden deep in humans’ subconscious mind. People want to feel that they’re good but being good is just not the way to maximize their profit.
Instinctively, for example, humans want to get rid competitors. Deep inside, people want to control, enslave, and kill others. However, they need a veneer. A way to justify that things are good. Here, religions give them the veneer. Religions allow them to get the benefit of screwing others without having to feel bad about themselves.
Hence, it doesn’t matter how wrong religion is. As long as religious people keep having that edge, people will be religious.
So how do we persuade people to see the world from atheistic points of view?
Still by showing the benefit.
There is a progress in science. First science works on aspects of life with cooperative aspects. It doesn’t hurt anyone to believe in Newton’s mechanic. It benefits everyone that the truth show up. When it comes to economic truth for example, things start getting controversial. Even though free market countries are richer, many do not like it. Hence, for many years, people do use religions to select their economic system. After all, science maybe true, but young, and religions may be irrational but old and proven. So for a while religion is actually on the side of capitalism and more religious countries are richer because they are capitalistic.
Then science catch up. Now, we no longer need religion to see that free market works. We have plenty of evidence that wealth of a nation depends on economic freedom. So, science then start answering economic issues replacing religions.
Politic and sexual selection, however is more controversial than even economic. The zero sum aspect of the game is greater. For every piece of power held by one guy it’s less power for others. For every one hot babe that picks you, there will be another male that would have to pick someone uglier or jerk of to Miyabi.
Making the world a better place is not a big turn on. Humans are selfish. The one that masked their selfishnest are quite often the one most selfish because they want to get rich by screwing others.
The easiest way is to persuade them to read evolution theory of course. But why bother reading evolution theory?
Well there is something in evolution theory that explains how to attract mates beyond what religions teach. There is also plenty of atheistic analysis on politic. Robert Green, Matt Ridley, are great sources of this type of thinker. People with atheistic understanding of these aspects tend to have an edge. People that think that God gives mandates to leaders, will be easily controlled and exploited by people that knows that power comes from barrel of guns to those who control the army and the media. Giving this benefit will motivate people to at least learn, understand, and use atheistic evolutionary psychology to get the most in life.
Most ideologies, and religions, for example, will tell you that beauty doesn’t matter. Evolutionary psychology not only predict that beauty matters a lot, but also correctly predict that people will try to convince you otherwise.
After all sexual selection is pretty much a zero sum game. One’s victory always means another defeat. Hence, evolutionary psychology and game theory would correctly predict that most religious guidance on how to get laid will not only be wrong, but will quite often be the opposite of what’s true.
If you’re a hot woman and you want to attract a high quality husband, you’d have a much better chance if you show some cleavage than wearing burqha. Quite obviously many will compel you to do the opposite. Most males do not want prince charming to see your beauty. Also most girls want to get rid pretty girls from competition.
Here, an atheistic girl, will get better mate, if she understand evolutionary psychology. Hence, she’ll have intensive to study evolutionary psychology, and will be sympathetic to atheistic causes more.

Incoming search terms:

Comments (0)

January 9, 2011

Supply is Not Elastic

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: 2c, Absence, Assumption, Beauties, Benefit Of Doubt, Bigots, Cement, Evidences, Evolutionary Psychology, Faith, Genes, Genetic Correlation, Globalization, Governments, High Paying Jobs, Justification, Libertarians, Market Demands, Marriage, Mate, Prostitution, Sexual Selection, Triumph, Ugly Women — admin @ 9:11 pm

I understand that many libertarians would curse me when I said about what I think women want.

They’re right. I don’t know. Not only I don’t know, statement about what women want are often used as justification of very anti libertarian agenda. So naturally libertarian hates that statement.

Government, encourage marriage and prohibits prostitution under assumption that marriage is “good” and women want life long legally binding marriage anyway. Libertarian argues that it should still be up to women.

Evolutionary psychology position is that prostitution is preferable to most women and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited. Moreover, simply giving bigots benefit of doubt like what Libertarians do just won’t cut it.

In the absence of evidences, that’s heavily censored, in area of life politically significant, faith triumph over science. It’s just fact.

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

This is probably the biggest difference between libertarian and non libertarian. Libertarians, especially entrepreneurs, match what they produce with what the market demand. So libertarians do not care what the market actually demands. All they want is honest signal of what the market wants so they can fulfill it.

Does it ever occur to us that most people cannot match what they produce with the market demands?

You have a factory of cement, for example. Then suddenly governments’ embrace globalization. That means your factory will just be junk. You can’t easily change that.

The same goes for beauties. If suddenly we realized the obvious that males want the pretty, can ugly women match the market demand and be prettier?

No. In fact, if there is any pattern in sexual selection is that anything “sexy” is most likely genetic. What we’re buying when we pick a mate are genes. Beauty is in demand precisely because women can’t earn it, at least not easily.

Having a high paying jobs will also have huge genetic correlation. High paying jobs are often high paying precisely because workers can’t easily choose to be able to do it. Otherwise I would have been a heavy weight boxing champ.

Libertarians positions are:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

I like libertarianism. I must admit that those 2 positions are factually correct in most area. In some area, the 2 positions are simply false.

Areas where those 2 positions are false are area where supply is not very elastic. Those are precisely the area where governments often interfere, though arguably shouldn’t.

In fact, inelasticity of supply is the very justification of most unmeritocratic rules agreed even by some of the most hard core libertarians called objectivist.

“Forced altruism may be justifiable for things beyond their control,” I’ve heard an objectivist say.

“It’s not fair to hold people accountable for things beyond their control,” says others in justifying that a defendant is innocent on ground of insanity.

“People can’t be programmer anyway no matter how high programmer’s salary is,” says my socialist friend.

To which those with the least to offer simply say that things are not within their control. “Every body wants to be rich but well, I am poor here against my will,” says a cradle to grave welfare recipients.

What I mean by not very elastic doesn’t mean it’s totally inelastic. In fact, I am of the opinion that many things we think is inelastic is actually very elastic in a quite unintuitive ways and those unmeritocratic norms will produce whatever typically unmeritocratic norms will do, namely unproductivity.

Those are elastic in politically incorrect way. The way the supply is elastic is outside our box and hence looks inelastic. Heavy anti market regulations, for example, will create demand for corrupt officials. Well, we don’t teach that in school or public success coaching do we?

Imagine what happen in most normal goods. Say demand for fish drops. Then price of fish will drop too. The drop of the price of fish will also drop supply of fish. At the end the price of fish won’t drop that much. In the short time, price will drop. That’s because of the huge sunk cost fish industry has put. At the end it won’t matter match. Price drops but not a lot in the long run.

The same for steel or car factory. Say demand for car suddenly drop due to competition in china. It’ll be just like fish. Except that now the sunk cost is bigger. The number of jobs lost is bigger. The political pressure, something libertarians never take into account, to prohibit car imports will be bigger. That explains why for so many years we do not have globalization.

Most libertarians will simply tell those car industry workers, “Tough.” Yea they can’t change job. It’s easier for them to pressure government to prohibit import then to change them self. Let’s just face it. That’s what they do.

Now what about sexual demand?

Say men prefer the pretty (they do, we do, I know). Say men only pick the pretty. Now, does that affect the ugly?

Libertarian position is:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.

In most products and service it doesn’t. However supply is NOT elastic. Ugly women can’t just be pretty. Men picking the pretty will drop the value of ugly women.

Libertarian position is:
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

Again, what people typically want matters a lot on supply inelastic goods. That’s because what people typically want decides the market price.

If porn is legal, ugly women will go extinct. I must admit American girls are typically prettier than Indonesian thanks to porn.

Now what about supply inelasticity itself. Didn’t I say that that those are actually elastic?

Take a look at car factories, for example. In short terms, it’s not elastic. They already had a car factory. A sudden price drop means their factory is worthless.

The keyword here is sudden. How sudden? Because if it weren’t sudden, then they could have chosen not to build cars in the first place.

What about poverty? That doesn’t seem to be elastic. We know they can’t afford their babies.

But they can choose not to make them in the first place. Yes but even then is not elastic enough. The need to procreate is stronger than the need to live. Let’s face it. That being said, most women in Asia wouldn’t want to make babies without some financial commitment, while most women in Europe do. Welfare program do encourage breeding among the poor.

However, if those women really want to reproduce can’t they just pick rich smart males first and get say, some financial commitment?

Rich smart males, like any males obviously want as many hot women as possible. No society will ever run out any kind of males. Males are, how can I say it? like sperms. Expendable. I start seeing libertarian bottles flying toward me here.

Expendable unless they’re rich or provide some other values toward the ruling elite/society/whatever. Women always produce some form of value because getting pregnant sucks and hence has high market value. Even women marrying other males provide some values to most males because she takes out a competitor. Not so for women doing it outside marriage.

Men often do not produce any value whatsoever for other males and hence are more likely expendable.

Now, here is another fine point. Women cannot easily pick the rich. Consensual contract to reproduce between adults are heavily regulated against women picking rich smart males.

Prohibition of prostitution is one of them. Lack of right to decide child support commitment before conception is another. Not to mention a price fixed in marriage where women always get half and more unless the males perform some complicated legal maneuver first. That ensures that most rich males are not available on marriage and prohibition of prostitution means they can’t easily commit money otherwise.

So at the end, as we see, unmeritocratic rules, namely welfare program for the poor and prohibition of prostitution for the rich does heavily affect the supply side of poverty. Namely it encourages women to pick the poor and breed poor guys with the same preferences, including voting preferences.

Supply is actually very elastic when it comes to humans’ reproduction. It’s just that the elasticity doesn’t come out of individual direct choices. It comes out of sexual selection choices, which imply extinction of some genes and proliferation of others. That one is just not palatable enough among voters.

Comments (0)

December 25, 2010

Why Loyalty and Love is Politically Correct

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: 1 Million, Bob Bob, Cindy, Evolutionary Biology, Girls, Government Claim, Love, Loyalty, Mate, Money, Opportunity Cost, Politically Correct, Prostitution, Stud, Ugly — admin @ 11:19 pm

Even though it may not (in fact my understanding from evolutionary biology says it’s not) what most girls seek in mate.

Say Andrew and Bob like Cindy.

Andrew offer wealth.
Bob offer love and loyalty.

Notice that it’s expensive for the 2 to switch their offer.

Andrew is a rich stud that earns $1 million a month. Loving Cindy is arguably committing at least $500k a month. At least that’s what courts would say. Also Andrew is a stud with so many women around him. Offering loyalty means very high opportunity cost.

Bob is poor and ugly. Offering love is cheap for Bob. Bob can’t offer a lot of money obviously. Also loyalty is also cheaper for Bob.

Which one Cindy will choose. Well, who knows. I would say Andrew for sure if both offers are legal.

But here is the catch.

Government claim that prostitution is so bad and love and loyalty is so good that Andrew’s offer must be illegal.

If you are Bob, would you agree?

Comments (0)

Older Posts »