Posts Tagged Prostitution

Choices Prostitutes Have

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

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

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

or you can grab

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

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

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

One main justification for criminalizing prostitution that it’s so bad it can’t possibly be consensual.

The thing is it’s hard to fly given that most of those women are not doing it at gun point.

So the angel religious bigots use is that those women are forced out of poverty. It’s tricky to see which one is right given that women often act as if they are forced no matter what the deal is.

Well

At one meeting attended by 7,000 people, 20,000 were kept out for lack of room. In a conference with Reverend Paul Smith, an outspoken foe of prostitution, 300 prostitutes made a plea for toleration, explaining they had been forced into the practice by poverty. When Smith asked if they would take other work at $8 to $10 a week, the ladies laughed derisively, which lost them public sympathy. The police closed about 200 houses of prostitution shortly thereafter.

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

So you see, many of those women who are in prostitution actually do have choices. Many of them are beautiful enough to marry a bum, for example. They just choose something better.

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

In What Sense is All Prostitution Non Consensual?

So many people are forced to get married. There are so many laws against alternative to marriage. So many girls get married out of economic pressure.

Yet if that same girl choose to be a sugar baby for a richer smarter taller male every body will scream that it’s exploitation.

People argue that prostitution can’t possibly be consensual and hence must be prohibited.

Let’s examine a case.

Girls are being paid $5500 an hour for being a prostitute: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw

  1. Are those girls doing it with gun on their head? No.
  2. Will those girl starve to death if she doesn’t perform? No.
  3. Can those girl pick another job, say cooking McDonald? Yes
  4. Are girls earning $5500 per hour too ugly to find a husband, say a mediocre one at least? No. Notice that if she choose to marry a street bum it would have been legal and no body will scream it’s not consensual. People would say love is blind, yada yada  yada.
  5. Are males able to pay a girl $5500 per hour so hideously unattractive that they have to pay that much? No. Women prefer the rich. Most men are not rich enough to throw away $5500 just for an hour of fun.

How do we define consent? So in what sense all prostitution is non consensual again? It’s pretty obvious she agree to it. So many of them say they enjoy their job.

To the opposite of prostitution, marriage actually take away girls’ best choice as confirmed by economists http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/764/does-marriage-terms-tend-to-kick-out-more-desirable-mates-males-out-of-mating-ma .

Rather than asking whether prostitution is consensual or not, shouldn’t we ask whether marriage is consensual or not? Why would a beautiful hot babe pick a system that kick the hottest dude out?

Incoming search terms:

  • sugar babies girls massachusetts

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

If no means no, does yes means yes?

Tell that to anti prostitution and anti women trafficking advocate.

Tags: , ,

Why Marriage is Failing

In short human nature of homoeconomicus

Various arrangements which are described as ‘sugar daddies’ and ‘prostitution’, and more besides (such as polygamy) are prohibited arbitrarily, classified as ‘not marriage’ (as though the State has any business classifying what contract counts as what); and they actually reflect some adaptation to the circumstances of the people involved. Maybe sugar-daddies and prostitutes would not be as popular under a regime of laissez-faire; but whether or not this is the case it is obviously a preferred situation for many people in the present. The war-on-sexual-contract is as pathetic and mindless as the war on drugs; and possibly just as damaging – more people just tend to take it for granted.

Ever wonder why so many have implosive divorces? Maybe because the contract options they really need – the securities and options – have been outlawed by the state.

I think you’re absolutely right. It’s just that you stop at “there is something wrong there.” That is correct. I am trying to go deeper on what’s actually wrong and why.

What do you mean by implosive divorce? Marriage is not natural.

First I need to correct common senses say:
1. No woman want to share? The truth is many beautiful women would rather share a rich males than be the only one. If all else is the same. The men is equally tall, rich, smart, and pay the same, women pick best sellers. It’s like we checking on top movies before picking the one we actually watch.
2. No woman want to be prostitute? The truth is most beautiful women are natural prostitute. Let’s face it. They got to wait 9 months just to get pregnant and after that they have to nurse the baby. Women are genetically hardwired to raise babies far more than men. It’s far more efficient for beautiful attractive women to just concentrate on getting pregnant and pick some males that pay for her resources. Why be strong, diligent, smart, and successful if you can just pick a male that are strong, diligent, smart and successful. Yap. That means exchanging sex and reproductive service for resources.  If you are a man with 80 percentile attractiveness and you want to attract women that are on your level, you got to pay. Paying for sex is the natural market mechanism. It can be anything. It can be sugar daddy relationship. It can be marriage. It can be a more straight forward prostitution. Men will pay. You only put up sperms and she got to provide a womb for 9 months. Of course you pay. However, why can’t you pay her on your and her terms? Why does it have to be under governments’ approved terms?
3. Love is blind? No. Women prefer the rich. Men prefer the pretty. Except that it’s not easy for women to just pick the rich. If she aimed for marriage, the alimony terms will scare the rich. Also the exclusive monogamous term will scare the attractive males. The easiest way for women to aim for the rich and attractive is to be a sugar  baby or a prostitute. That’s why it’s illegal. If women pick shitty choice, societies will say love is blind. If women pick a good choice, society call that exploitation that must be prohibited.
4. Marriage is best for all? The truth is, government regulate marriage so much that interests of voters creep into marriage laws. One such interest is to ration mates in equal share for everyone. That is why marriage laws are designed to ensure that rich smart attractive males do not become best sellers. Many women would rather share a richer philanders than a loyal poorer males. She doesn’t care. Those poorer males care though.

What happen in most marriage is, the women figure out that he can get a richer male outside marriage. The male figure out that he can found more women outside marriage. Also in US, the women figure out that she’ll still get paid anyway whether she fuck or not. So why should she stay with this loser that agree to pay for nothing? Perhaps marriage would still work for highly religious or romantic individuals. For the rest normal homoeconomicus humans it just doesn’t make sense anymore. Hence, quite predictably marriage fails and failing. Humans max out their profit and the optimum is simply not marriage.

Got so far? GDP want to say I am wrong again?

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

Rethinking Homo Economicus

There are many I can think of.

First of all the issue is not the homo economicus it self but how it is interpreted.

Humans are homo economicus (rational selfish), in a sense that stones are stonyeconomicus with the additive inverse of potential function as utility function.

The theory that stones want to minimize it’s potential energy correctly predict stones behavior on free fall and slippery slopes. The problem is that it’s simply not true. Stones do not have a will, let alone rational. If you interview Mr. stones, do you really rationally want to lower your potential energy, the stones don’t know. “Potential what?”

The same ways, humans are actually just automaton with little creativity. That rational creativity is actually a small part of humans behavior. Yes the idea that we have a utility function that we want to maximize correctly predict our behaviors (mostly under typical capitalistic settings). However, most humans do that by following their instincts and emotion rather than by being rational. Most humans are not aware why they do things.

Try reason with a hot girl on why she should sleep with you and see how far you go. Now just tell her how rich you are and throw money away for her buy buying expensive useless objects like flowers, chocolate, and lobsters. See if it works better.

Remember, if what you give is useless, then it’s romance. If what you give is useful, then it’s prostitution. Both works. The latter works too well that it’s illegal. Uhmmm… I am ahead of my self.

The same way try reason with voters and see how far you go. Now tell her how an almighty God died for their sins and want everyone to go to heaven unless they watch porn or have sex outside your pimphood’s terms and you’ll get your point across more.

Remember, if what you say doesn’t make sense, then it’s sacred religion. If what you say makes sense, then it’s force. Both works. The latter works too well that it’s politically incorrect.

Another flawed interpretation of homo economicus is the idea that we max out what we buy under the constraint of our wealth and income. A better model is that we max out what we buy under the constrain of our capability and power as in political power.

Hence, dictators and corrupt officials, that own nothing but control everything, will live happily. Their people that, in theory, own the country but control nothing will live miserably. Most economic class simply presume that ownership is controlship and treat deviation as special exception.

Another corollary is if we want to know what typical humans’ utility function is, we need to look at what people do when they have power, not when they’re rich. Under normal buy stuff under income constraint theory, we would think that happiness come from expensive hotel, traveling overseas, etc because that’s what rich people do. However the rich are often not politically powerful nowadays and hence not the one that can truly achieve happiness.

A better way to see what makes humans’ happy is to see what powerful persons, emperors, local thugs, or terrorists head get. That is. Own a harem. Prevent others from pursuing the same path. So huge part of happiness is in how well others are not happy.

If we want to incorporate that to homo economicus we would have to deduct others’ utility function out of ours. In a sense, we either see the obvious that we’re not just selfish but also bigotic. Another way is we simply incorporate bigotry into our definition of selfish, which is quite unintuitive. The last one is Milton’ Friedman’s approach.

Another obvious corollary is that humans tend to max out their power rather than simply wealth. Libertarians among us are rare. The higher the value of an object, the more humans want to control it. We can predict that prostitution and drugs will be “controlled” irrelevant of whether they are actually dangerous or consensual. They are just valuable and that’s enough to motivate voters and politicians to control or prohibit it.

We will also predict that those controlled are those most valued rather than those actually dangerous. Last time I check paracetamol is not a schedule 1 drug despite many death due to overdoses. It’s also not illegal for kids to earn money by rope walking across tall building. No body cry it’s dangerous for minor.

Another deviation from homo economicus is that we are not selfish. Our genes are. That one is biological fact. All those genes can reproduce mainly if we reproduce. However, our genes can also reproduce well if those similar to us or our family successfully reproduce.

So huge part of our utility function is in committing altruism in favor of our family and those similar to us. Again, we can be like Friedman, redefining selfish interests to include such factors. Another way is to simply see that we’re not selfish.

If we take into account this, then suicide bombing is not very strange.

I really think the real important true alternative to homo economicus is evolutionary psychology. The shift from selfishness from individuals to genes or even memes, are significant difference that do more correctly predict humans behavior. After all, the memes and genes have simpler utility function, namely reproduce, and hence much more easily analyzed. Humans, are simply mind controlled by those genes or memes.

Again, we can still shoehorn all those aspects into homo economicus. We can say, mother loves her children because her children are her tools to produce grandchildren. That sounds funny but it’s an accurate points of view nevertheless. However, we need to redefine selfish like Friedman, namely those incorporating the outcome and reproductive success of our genes, our memes as well as others.

Incoming search terms:

  • not ugly girls

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

Can marriage be consensual?

Force marriage is rape.

Even in liberal country like German, prostitution is taxed. Tax is fine. Fine is punishment. Existence of punishment means prohibition. Prohibition of something means enforcement of the alternative. The great alternative to prostitution is marriage. So all marriage is forced marriage. Which is rape.

Basically by taxing prostitution, German government effectively provide forceful intensive to get married.

Most other countries are far less liberal than German. In afganistan, sex outside marriage is illegal effectively forcing anyone wanting to have sex to get married.

Can we conclude then that all marriage is non consensual?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Treat her like hoes, fuck her like sluts

I ain’t lose. The hoes wanna divorce. Hubby prevented her. That’s cheating.

Once I am making $85k per month, I’ll make sure she has it her way Thugs are not that expensive. If she wanted to stay, I’ll just bang younger speciments.

The Wife vs. The Whore (Treat Her Like a Prostitute) | Naked With Socks On

But seriously. It’s not just that. Every time I hear people said that prostitution is demeaning or women want love, I know the fucking truth. Those assholes are just like my wife ex boy friend. It’s all utter bullshit. Some men can’t give women what they want, namely money and good fucking and they come up with all these bullshit to kick males that can out of the gene pool.

That’s the truth.

I went from one massage parlor to another. I rarely did that now because I want healthy kids and stuff. I always asked, how do you ended up like this?

And I am not surprised. That’s what drove me mad. I am no longer surprised. Many tell how they used to get married and how the husband just left her nowhere to be seen. I am not surprised.

I KNOW. I know that societies won’t do anything against dead beat husband that just run away. In fact, the whole societies’ norm against prostitution is to ensure that kind of assholes get a piece.

Then I’ve heard about cops raiding prostitution dens. They hypocrisy just sicken me. It’s very obvious those women want it. Yet under pretext of protecting the women the cops are arresting them. Many of those women are raped or forced to perform by cops. What? That’s excess. No. That’s the whole point.

What about you? You work your ass of earning honest living. You pay your tax for the poor. Then you wonder, if it’s going to be my money supporting those kids, why it has to be someone else’s sperms? The money comes with the cock. Why should you support anyone else’ kids just because some hoes pick non paying males. Why can’t the hoes just pick some richer males? Why should any kids have poor dad?

Why should you support kids of hoes that prefer the poor? It’s her fault fucking poor guys, now she has kids, why should you pay tax for it?

Societies will say that love is blind yada yada yada… Bullshit. I know the truth.

Well those hoes would rather share a rich males. Now sugar daddy sugar baby relationship is booming.

It’s just that those non paying males are trying to ensure that those most capable and willing to pay don’t get laid without risking going bankcrupt. Any ways a rich smart male can get laid without risking his whole wealth is politically incorrect. Think about it. Prostitution is the telltale samples. Marriage’s alimony is another.

That’s reality.

Anything not commercialized is politized. See, jews and arab are killing each other over land. Imagine if middle east real estate is commercialized. Then everybody will just bid each others’ land. You see why we have WW2? Not enough commercialization.

The same goes for sex. It’s not commercialized enough. So it’s politicized. So people come up with bullshit after bullshit (=read religion) to justify why they should get the hoes rather than letting the hoes choose.

If women are free, assholes that can’t compete will go extinct. Poverty will be gone. The world will be a better place.

It’s not worthed?

Incoming search terms:

  • harem rape
  • treat her like a women and fuch her
  • word for killing to keep gene pool

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

I got two jobs, please help me select which one I should choose?

  1. The first one is from Britney Spears. She offered me a job for having sex with her regularly.
  2. The second one is from US government. They want me to fight some Taliban in the Afghanistan or something.

The pay is about the same.

Which one you will choose?

Which one most males would choose?

Which one would most females on equivalent situation will choose?

So why do feminists want women to be able to pick the 2nd option but not the first again?

Now let’s use feminazis logic:

Receiving cash for sex is prostitution. Prostitution is so degrading, inhuman, and can’t possibly be consensual. No women can truly consent to prostitution. Because men and women are the same, no men could possibly want it.

The latter seems better. It’s every feminists wet dream jobs. Feminists have been fighting so hard to be able to get the second job, it must be very good. It brings honors, respects, equality, yada yada yada… Not to mention the glorious possibility of honorably being tortured to death for ones’ country.

What do you think?

If I just follow my feeling, I’ll pick the #1. But all (feminist) logic says #2 is better.

Should you ever listen to feminist advice?

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

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, 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
  • freemarket forever prostitution genocide
  • marriages in concentration camps
  • ugly women benefit feminism
  • uglywomen

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