There are many countries in the world where you cannot be rich honestly and productively. In fact, there is no country in the world where you can do so without some sort of penalty. In US, doing that is punishable by tax, and that’s not much different from (still?) communist countries like China.

But here is the magic, there is no country in the world where you cannot be rich or richer than your peer. Not even in North Korea.

Extermination of Jews is politically incorrect because the Jews have no choice. Yet extermination of political opponents by Stalin, and Mao, which are just as evil, are more politically correct. On the latter, people have a choice, despite a bad one, to simply kowtow to the power elite.

Think about it.

There is always choice. If you think positively and ignore your conscience, you will see that there is always a choice.

There are always a loopholes. Perhaps the purpose of all these censorship is to hide too loopholes so not too many people find it. You don’t have to get married. Forcing everyone to get married first before having sex will be very difficult. But governments ensure that all media information encouraging extra marital alternatives are “dangerous for minor.”

Perhaps the purpose of all sexual norms are there to put land mines across the loopholes so societies can say, ah you made a mistake. But there is always a choice.

Prostitution is illegal, but escort is not. You can’t pay for sex, unless you film it and show to the world (porn is legal). In countries where porn is illegal polygamy is okay, and informal marriage is fine too. In Iran, contract marriage like cohabitation agreement is legal.

So you just declare, every time you’re caught with some women, that you actually have married her informally. Or maybe made some arrangement before hand. In those countries laws are not clear anyway and public perception of moral matters more than whether you actually break the law or not.

In Indonesia, a country with muslim majority, porn is illegal, but sex outside marriage is not except in some small town you can easily avoid. I mean, all our politicians have several informal concubines there is no way they want to mess with that. Cops sometimes go to hotels and caught unmarried couple, but never to expensive 4 stars hotel .

Massage therapists often provide “extra” service, and no body care.

Income tax has plenty of loophole for those truly rich. Otherwise, the best and brightest among us will go on strike.

This should get our hope up. Be rich. Be careful. And we’ll get whatever we want without having too fight our society too much.

Oh ya, keep your mouth shut. If the loopholes are known, they will have to close it. That sort of thing. I guess the key for gene pool survival is then to do our best to pick the narrow road to salvation. Jesus would agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is it victimless?

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is called faith.

Originally Posted by luizeba This year, my family will ‘adopt’ a children for the Christmas and New Year week…it’ll be a 12 y.o girl She has parents, but she’s living in a State House due problems with her parents (probably in jail, I don’t know) It’ll be a great experience *-*

I got a better idea. Why not tell Dad to attract more women so you can have your own biological sister.

I mean if it’s his money that’s going to take care of her, why must it be someone else’s cock?

If I am paying, and the hot women prefer me, why should it be other man’s cock? If the women is not hot, I wouldn’t want to mate with her, nor would I want to raise her kid.

Oh because if women pick the rich, there are laws against polygamy, prostitution, pre conceive child support agreement, and so on and so on. But if some unproductive welfare parasites want to make kids, it’s human’s right. Yea some right. Right to rob taxpayers all their money.

Doesn’t make sense.

Once I am as rich as Bill Gates, I too will support millions of kids. All of which must be mine.

Heh… And capitalism is great folks. People in Africa and many part in Asia got poor because they don’t embrace capitalism to the fullest. Just import their prettiest women to be sex workers in rich countries and poof, there goes poverty. With porn, ugly women won’t get laid and the pretty will go somewhere. All the males in those countries will fight toe and nails for free market and everyone will get rich. Lest they go extinct.

Ok so then why would people oppose homosexuality? What does a heterosexual lose if a tiny portion of people are gay? I doubt its the loss of potential mating partners. What would be the competition here? I might also oppose bestiality even though I’m not worried about the love of my dog being lost to another. BTW I’m not comparing homosexuality and bestiality.
[/quote]

What I mean by the reason, is the real reason. Deep inside, hardcoded by genes. Not rational reason the actors are aware and definitely not discussed reason. People want to prohibit porn because they feel they need to do so. They feel that way because their genes hard wire them to feel that way. That’s an essence of selfish gene theory by the way. The genes, rather than individuals, are selfish.

As why people hate gay, I do not quite understand too my self. To me for every gay people there is one less competitor. Rather than opposing homosexuality, we should encourage it the way we should encourage abortion.

But there is a pattern. If one men get many the rest don’t get any. If it were like that (it’s not, but say it were), then it’s zero sum game. It’s like penalty kick. There will be no peace or honesty. The more we kick to the right the more we pretend that we kick to the left.

Turns out it’s not zero sum game. Women, or at least the joy of their beauty, can be “mass produced” via porn or more efficiently used via “prostitution”. Some males are homosexual so they don’t mind some males get plenty. Poorer males, would rather have more money rather than making more kids. And many people don’t put high dollar value in their gene pool survival that they want to abort their babies. All those are peaceful solution we should encourage. Guess what, why is it all those “peaceful” solution is politically incorrect?

Why every social norms against consensual sex tend to promote gene pool survival of the weakest, ugliest, and least competitive? Because norms are made by those with power, guts, and insanity to screw others and that kind of people are usually those who have little productivity to offer.

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Then I figured that out. Western men are rich. Women prefer the rich. Hence western men are competitive. Men, I hang around okay. I asked a native javanese girl to meet and she said that she only want to mate with white men. I did try to convince her that white men don’t necessarily have bigger cock, typically have lower IQ (I think I am wrong here), I were rich too, and Asian countries are getting prosper. Let’s just say it didn’t work ;D. Well, she’s not as pretty as my girl friend and I didn’t think it’s worth to pursue. But I do learn something.

Needless to say, in poor countries like mine, it’s the male that opposes free sex. Religious bigots that go from places to places wanting to guard morality are usually males, poor males. In poorer countries like Afghanistan, women can’t even work. The richer the country, the more liberal the men are. This you can verify.

Of course, being weaker, women don’t usually speak clearly on what they want. If women do speak, they usually just confirm whatever prevailing norm in that society so she can fit in. So everyone pretty much undermine women’s consent under the pretext of protecting women because ALL women want it anyway.

It seems to me what matter is not whether something benefits males or females but where you are in the gene pool relative to others. Those relatively competitive sexually will be liberal. Those who are competitive financially will be conservative. And those who are competitive at both will be libertarian. Those who are not competitive will be want bigger government. Like this: http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/RealityofHumanNature.gif

I mean it’s like arguments about socialized health care or income tax. People argue whether it’s good or bad, efficient, or not. That’s because they want as many votes as possible to their side. But let’s just face it. It’s not a cooperative game. If you’re healthy and rich you want privatization. If you’re poor and sick, you want socialization. The zero sum aspect is more influential than the cooperative one and understanding that will more accurately predict what people will vote.

Here is another way to see this.

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

Another easier way to see this:

Rape is like income tax. They’re both a form of slavery, which is a form of robbery. Damage done is then proportional to how valuable things that are being robbed. Which one fear income tax more? The high income or the low income? Which one fear jail more? Programmers, brick layers, doctors, ceos, billionaires, or some starving hoodlum that’ll do anything for free food? I think this will correctly predict people’s voting behavior.

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Just like a person will lay his life for 2 siblings, 4 cousins, or 8 nephews, the same way people would lie his life to exterminate those too antagonistic for their gene pool survival. Suicide bombers typically oppose free sex. At least, they’ll vote against it.

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing at least for males that carry her genes. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. Their friends and families are burglars and will die if you own gun.

Imagine a world without capitalism, which is what the most of the world is before Adam Smith. Those are millions of years are when our genes are fine tuned through evolution. Those whose preference do not lead to gene pool survival, like celibacy, has been wiped out by mother nature through evolution. In those world, we live in a zero sum game.

What would you do in zero sum game? You gang with evil you know against evil you don’t. Our world is NOT zero sum game. But may not be as different as you may think.

Here is another way to think about.

1 out of 4 Asian males carry the same Y chromosome mutation with Gengish Khan. So what kind of humans are around nowadays? Just look at the kind of humans successfully reproduce in the past. Cruel, cunning, insane, greedy, promiscuous, vengeful, and mean. Now, another good question. What kind of human you want to be? The one that stays in the gene pool or the kind that will get driven out?

Maybe it’s true that ugly women also fear rape. Fine. That still doesn’t justify opposition to porn and other consensual sex. If someone rape, punish the rapist. Simple. Why they hell they have to oppose consensual acts like porn and prostitution that actually reduce rape rather than increasing it.

The fact is most women that oppose porn are ugly. It’s as if they are soooooooooo afraid of rape that they want to prohibit porn because it may cause rape. This while the pretty often become porn star. Something is missing. I am saying that’s not true. The real issue is not because the ugly are more afraid of rape. The issue is because they got hidden motives.

The same goes for anti polygamy laws. It’s there to protect poor males. Of course there are males that have so many wives he cannot afford kids. Solution: Punish males that don’t support kids and set child support payment to be constant irrelevant of daddy’s wealth. But nooo… Can’t feed them, don’t breed them. That’s not the solution people pick don’t they?

EASY. This is the essence of evolutionary biology. In free market, what a person want is simple. What he chooses.

It’s not simple in non consensual act like rape. It’s also not simple when there are too many rules against consensual acts. So we need a third leg in the equation best interest=what he wants. The third equation is that both, in general, are most likely equal with gene pool survival.

According to evolution theory, people fear something if it reduces their gene pool survival. How do rape reduces women’s gene pool survival? It undermines women’s “choice” to mate with higher quality genes and her bargaining position to get resources in exchange of her sexual favor.

Say 2 women are equally pretty. One of them choose a mate and got a millionaire. The other get raped and mate with a hoodlum. That decrease her market value. So she ended up marrying someone poorer. See how rape sucks?

So the true cost is the lost of opportunity for the woman to mate with higher quality males or getting paid for the sexual service. It’s like software pirating. If people can pirate software why should they pay for it? So women also lost potential earning she could have gotten through the sexual service.

Let alone disease, etc.

Dignity is also an issue. If people hurt you and get away with it, it tells others that it’s okay to hit you. This is how the Jews got exterminated. They didn’t hit back hard enough that people start thinking that it’s okay to screw Jews. Eventually it leads to genocide. The same way unpunished rape means males can “use” the women without begging, buying chocolate, paying, caresing, bla bla bla, so why the hell should any male do all those to get her?

The prettier the woman the higher the cost, quite obviously. Pretty woman then lose more to rape than an ugly one. So I conclude that relative to prettier women, uglier women fear rape less.

Keep in mind that’s not really the point. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t punish rape against ugly women. I am arguing that all consensual sex, like porn, prostitution, and consensual women trafficking should all be legal.

Can we quantify damage? Well, to quantify damage we need market price. To know the market price, we need the market. Prostitution is illegal, so no market. But once it’s legal, you’ll see I am right.

Here is a simpler way to see it. Pretty women’s choice matter more. Males are willing to pay more to have prettier women choose him. In general. Rape take away women’s choice. So rape hurt the pretty more than the ugly.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.

What I mean by trafficking is consensual trafficking. But as you see from the debate above, some feminists insist that trafficking are made illegal despite consent.

My understanding is that ugly feminists simply do not want to compete with cheaper (and often prettier) women from poorer countries. Moreover, poor males do not want their prettiest girls move to richer countries. It’s like smuggling or immigration or globalization in general. Those who don’t sale don’t want to compete overseas.

It seems that trafficking means non consensual for many (while the consensual one is probably called immigration).

Also what I mean by marriage is state approved sexual relationship. The pattern I see in most countries is if the state approve, it’s called marriage, and if the state doesn’t it’s called “sin”. In muslim countries, for example, polygamy and contract marriage counts as marriage and their states approve that.

I believe no consensual sex should be “approved” more than the other. It’s shouldn’t be up to the state. It should be up to individuals. So if prostitution is taxed, so should marriage. If one is illegal so should the other and via versa. That’s what I mean by destroying marriage. Of course, a better phrase would be as Wendy said it, “Get government out of marriage.” No government in the world, west or east, is in this state as far as I know.

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

shows.

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

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

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

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

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