Prostitution « Free Market Forever

December 17, 2011

Rethinking Homo Economicus

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Additive Inverse, Almighty God, Automaton, Capability, Chocolate, Constraint, Constraint Theory, Corollary, Corrupt Officials, Creativity, Dictators, Economi, Economic Class, Emotion, Flowers, Happiness, Heaven, Homo Economicus, Hot Girl, Instincts, Money, Potential Energy, Prostitution, Religion, Romance, Sleep, Slippery Slopes — admin @ 11:13 pm

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.

Comments (0)

December 4, 2011

Can marriage be consensual?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Afganistan, Existence, Forced Rape, German Government, Marriage, Non Consensual, Prohibition, Prostitution, Sex Illegal, Sex Marriage — admin @ 11:53 pm

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?

Comments (0)

December 2, 2011

Treat her like hoes, fuck her like sluts

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Assholes, Boy Friend, Cops, Fuck Sluts, Gene Pool, Healthy Kids, Hoes, Hubby, Hypocrisy, Massage Parlor, Norm, Poor Dad, Pretext, Prostitute, Prostitution, Socks, Those Kids, Those Women, Utter Bullshit, Whore — admin @ 4:59 am

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:

powered by phpBB child support money used for
harem sluts
harem women fucking

Comments (0)

November 27, 2011

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

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Afghanistan, Britney Spears, Dream Jobs, Equality, Females, Feminists, Having Sex, Logic, Men And Women, No Men, Prostitution, Respects, Second Job, Taliban, Wet Dream — admin @ 9:36 am

The first one is from Britney Spears. She offered me a job for having sex with her regularly.
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?

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
jews funny
jobs for ugly females

Comments (0)

October 30, 2011

Why Women Dignity and Respecting Women are Prejudice?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Bad Decision, Bad Women, Choices, Contract Marriage, Dignity, High Paying Job, Lot, Marriage, Married Women, Poor Countries, Prejudice, Pretext, Prostitution, Real Reason, Rent, Respecting Women, Truth, Vague Concept, Western Countries, Women Trafficking — admin @ 11:10 pm

Prostitution is prohibited under the pretext of maintaining “women’s dignity”. The truth is, prostitution is a very high paying job, not to mention one of the most enjoyable too. However, if prostitution is legal so will effectively polygamy, contract marriage, etc. The rich will just rent a lot and the rest don’t get any. That’s the real reason why prostitution is disallowed. It’s not because it’s a “too bad” job. It’s because it’s too good. Given choice, too many women would do it, too few will still want to get married.

Women trafficking are also very consensual. Women prefer the rich. It’s normal that women in poor countries want richer males in western countries. It’s not a bad decision. It’s the best possible decision anyone can make. It’s too obvious. Of course, that will be bad for women in western countries that do not like competition. So issues like “women dignity”, or “respecting women” are vague concept used to justify taking away women best choices.

Incoming search terms:

Comments (0)

October 29, 2011

Will increase in prostitution increase women trafficking?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Assumption, Cigarette Consumption, Citation, Commercialization, Consensual Acts, Criminalization, Economic Principle, Girl Friend, Government Tax, Low Quality, Opponents, Prostitute, Prostitution, Sceptic, Selfish Interest, Sex Worker, Sex Workers, Smart Phones, Those Women, Women Trafficking — admin @ 8:15 am

This is my first answer. If you think it’s low quality please comment so I can fix it okay. I know I need citation. I will ask around in sceptic and get my citation.

Yes but nowhere like the way opponents of prostitution and women trafficking want us to believe.

Say government want to legalize commercialization of smart phones. Will import of smartphones increase? Yes. So what?

Will those whose job are being replaced by the oversea workers complain about it? Yes. Will they complain that their job is lost or will they complain that the foreign workers are underpaid? Both. In fact, it’s not politically correct to bitch about your own selfish interest. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that you actually care about others. So people tend to complain on something far difference than their real issue.

About many americans complain that job moved to China is already obivious. Just look at here. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp188/. In fact if I ask “Are there many american that complain about jobs moving to china?” I bet I’ll get downvote. Very well, I’ll ask anyway.

To be frank, all assumption I used is that humans max out profit and basic economic principle. Yes I am a libertarian. Yes I am sceptical on any laws against consensual acts.

Say government want to legalize commercialization of sex. Will import of sex worker increase. Most likely yes. That’s the whole point of criminalizing, namely to reduce demand. It’s basic economy. Criminalization is like taxing. It imposes penalty against a certain service. When government tax something government reduce both production and consumption. Taxing cigarette, for example, will reduce cigarette consumption. Taxing cars will reduce production of car. That’s basic economy 101.

Will those women who are being replaced by cheaper sex workers complain about it? Yes. In economic term, prostitute is a substitute service/product for wife/girl friend. Yap they directly compete like Xbox vs playstation. I know I need citation.

Will they complain that they can’t compete with cheaper sex workers or will they complain that somehow the trafficked women are oppressed? The latter. In fact, it’s politically incorrect and embarrassing to bitch about not being able to attract a mate. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that they actually care about those trafficked women.

Some background.

The reason why prostitution is prohibited is most likely not there to protect women that want to be prostitute. Think about it. Humans are selfish (do I need to cite for this?). How can we protect anyone from their own consent. C’mon. We’re sceptic here.

A much more plausible reason is to protect men. If prostitution is legal, women’s market price will go up, most males can’t afford it. In other word prostitution is prohibited to prevent competition.

Women trafficking are often consensual. Even those opposing it admitting it

Here just look at the Every year mainly women and children are frequently trafficked. People do not report cases of trafficking. Illiteracy rate is very high and trafficking is often consensual; even parents or husbands sell off their children/wives. We need them to make a complaint before we can take action, but the victims do not.

http://www.childreach.org.uk/our-work/bangladesh

Red queen from Matt Ridley says that women prefer the rich. Isn’t it natural that women from poorer countries want to immigrate here to find a mate?

In fact, look at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_women

(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

The law specifically prohibit women trafficking DESPITE consent. That’s because the lawmakers knew that most of those women consent and that trafficking MAYBE consensual. Isn’t that strange how they said that women consent is irrelevant?

I mean if people care about me if people claim about wanting to help me the first thing that’s relevant is my consent right? They said women’s consent is irrelevant. Do you think they care about women’s interest?

Okay, I need more sources to decide how many women trafficked actually consent.

I know 5 of the most beautiful girls in my high school are in western world. No they are not trafficked, but desire to move and “find rich white guys” is not that far fetch. Seriously guys. I have a niece that explicitly told me he only wanted to date white guys.

We know many women in poor countries MAY (with very high probability actually) want: 1. Richer males (richer whites) 2. Money (Men and women want money, everybody want money).

To say this can’t be consensual is just insane.

Humans max out their own interest. I am a businessman, I hired employees, I was screwed by fraudster, if there is any thing I know how to predict what people would do is their selfish interest. Mutually consensual means mutually beneficial. Obviously.

Prostitution is prohibited for the same reason polygamy is prohibited. To protect men that can’t pay rather than women. You can read Matt Ridley’s book, the red queen, for more info on this. You can read more discussion here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/ You can also read Get rich bang bitch http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264

If you want source, just look at here Far from being laws to protect women, anti polygamy statutes may really do more to protect (less desirable) men” – Matt Ridley – The Red Queen .

Matt ridley is a prominent evolutionary psychologist. It’s already mainstream science.

Also economic theory is based on the assumption that humans’ max out their profit. To see that a lot of women protest against women trafficking, despite consent from the trafficked women because they care about the trafficked women is preposterous. Again, extra ordinary claim require evidences. If you want to show me that humans actually care about others so much in this case, you need to show me.

A lot of male admit that they can’t compete with more desirable male and argue that it’s the reason why we should keep polygamy illegal. Just look at here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/. Yea it’s sugar coated with ideas that polygamy is not compatible with democracy yada yada yada… But you’ll see the same.

It’s natural to expect that prohibition of prostitution is based on the same thing.

What about women trafficking? It’s the same thing. Women trafficking is there to protect, oh well, women. However, it’s not there to protect trafficked women. Women trafficking is there to protect women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper and prettier women from poorer countries.

In other word, even if all trafficked women are happy having sex with richer guys, I would bet that many women would still oppose this so called women trafficking. They have enough huge motive to prohibit trafficking irrelevant of consent.

It’s the same reason I know why MANY males have huge motive to prohibit prostitution and polygamy irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason why racist anti immigration want to prohibit immigration irrelevant of the consent of the immigrants.

There are true motives, there are justification. The latter can be anything. The motives most easily explained away from selfishness is obviously the most correct. Humans, after all are very selfish.

The majority of so called trafficking is VERY consensual. I mean it’s very obvious. One can more easily argue that marriage is less consensual than trafficking and prostitution.

After all, why would anyone allow government to be the pimp of their sexual relationship with no force whatsoever. Why would any rich male want to bet half his assets for a woman? And why would most women choose to be the only one for poorer males than sharing a richer males?

Imagine if all kind of marriage and all kind of commercialized sexual relationship is legal. Would anyone still get married? How much?

Many culture have restriction against sex outside marriage. Society actually prohibit prostitution and yet women do it anyway. That’s how much many women want to be prostitute.

Does legalizing prostitution increase women trafficking? Again, this is another vague language that’s hard to answer. Imagine if prostitution is legal. Imagine if women trafficking include consensual women trafficking. The legal definition actually DOES include consensual women trafficking. I do not think anyone can use “But the women agree” argument to defense against women trafficking.

Of course it does. When things are legal, then more people would want to do it.

So yes more will want to do it. However, it’s no where as what those anti freedom people want us to believe.

It’s like asking if government stop tariff against import goods will there be more import goods? If government make iPhone legal, will there be more iPhone? Yes. It’s the way it should be.

Comments (0)

September 22, 2011

Why is what the state says about marriage important to Western civilization?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Creators, Equal Share, Females, Genocide, Having Sex, Heresy, Love Lives, Marital Relationship, Marital Status, Marriage, Marriage Laws, Muslim Countries, Polygamy, Populations, Prostitution, Religions, Religious Ceremony, Sex Marriage, Western Civilization, Western Culture — admin @ 6:32 am

In short, marriage is still important in western civilization to ration females in equal share for everyone and hence ensuring votes from singles in coming election. Other importance of marriage has gone.

Now for the explanation:

Anything created is there to max out the interest of the creators. The same way, marriage laws are there to max out the interest of those who make marital laws. That is, whoever are in power of the society.

Furthermore, is marriage nothing more than a tyrannical institution designed to control populations?
Yes. Not much more now.

Why do couples need approval from the state to begin and end a marital
relationship?

In short, because government prohibit all alternatives that directly compete with marriage.

Because the state often says so and provide hefty penalty for those who don’t get married or use other alternatives.

Let’s examine non western culture first for comparison.

In Indonesia, marital status, rather than wealth, decide whether you can reproduce or not, officially. That’s effectively genocide against those who don’t feel like getting married.

To get married in Indonesia you need to register your marriage in a religious ceremony and then Indonesians’ government only approve certain religions and certain interpretation of religions. The rest are condemned as heresy and punished heavily.

So yes you can choose not to get married in Indonesia, but that means you go extinct.

In muslim countries, you can get stoned for having sex outside marriage. So not marrying there means you just jerk off your self for the whole of your life.

In western civilization, prostitution is illegal. Other arrangements like polygamy is also illegal. Of course, as people are more free and this penalty get less and less, marriage simply decline.

Alternatives are better. As alternatives are legal, there goes marriage.

Why do people consent to unelected and elected officials meddling in their love lives?

Depends on what you mean by consent. In a sense, too many things are illegal outside marriage that it effectively make mariage forced rather than a concented decission.

In afganistan, women can’t even work. So, their alternative, besides starving is marriage.

Many countries still have laws providing blanket bans on all sex outside marriage. So the alternative is either abstinence, which sucks, or marriage.

What about modern western civilization? Women can work right? Well yea. And that’s the very reason why marriage is in great decline. Once alternatives are legal, there is little reason to consent to get married.

Western civilization is still not fully laizes faihre when it comes to marriage. Prostitution is illegal. This has huge chilling effect. Imagine if I pay for my girl friends’ rent? Does that count as prostitution? Imagine if I have 10 girlfriends? Imagine if her ex boyfriend make a big deal out of it.

Rather than facing such chilling effect, people may opt for marriage. That explains why marriage is still around even though declining.

Also kids are indoctrinated with romance while more realistic movies like porn are prohibited and declared dangerous for minor.

Imagine if it’s the other way around. If it’s fully up to the market, marriage, as defined by government will be gone. There is little reason to consent to government deciding our mating terms. Why should we?

Marriage has some benign benefits. At least it used to.

Determination of fatherhood

In ancient time there is no blood test. There is only one way to know who the father of the child is. A man has to make a deal to a woman that she won’t bang other guys. We sort of call that kind of deal as marriage.

Society that accommodate that kind of deals tend to have more diligent males. Males are motivated to work harder because now they can inherit their wealth to their sons rather than distance cousins.

Such societies tend to be richer and win more wars. Finally, patriarchal marriage traits then become common.

Marriage it self evolve into totally different deals as time goes by of course.

Obviously, with the invention of genetic testing, this purpose of marriage is in decline. Marriage no longer protect men from having to support other’s kid. Marriage tend to increase the risk of having such fate.

Helping society make decision on sex by forcing the issue to be public

It’s the same reason we wrote contract. We can just shake hand and talk. However, writing a contract make it easy for society to decide who are the fraudsters. Before most people are literate, people actually make their contracts publicly.

Other reasonably benign purpose of marriage is to decide whether the sex is consensual or not. Imagine if Kobe claimed that sex is consensual and the girl disagree? Outside marriage, it’s hard to decide which one is right.

Notice if the judge can’t make decision, the mob can take justice into their own hand and well, there would be tribal wars.

However, with marriage institution, ancient people can check whether Kobe is the registered husband or not. Making consent of having sex public, which is another aspect of marriage, will make societies’ decission easy.

So another purpose of marriage in ancient time is to make consent publicly available so societies can differentiate between rape and consensual sex, where “everybody agree”, more easily.

Of course, “every body” agree is a vague term. Most marriage in ancient time is forced marriage. Even if the girl consent, you can bet her ex boy friend doesn’t. That leads to another aspect of marriage.

Marriage also tend to have another not so benign feature. Marriage tend to uphold the interest of your competitors. Marriage incorporate the interest of legislators, that incorporate the interest of voters, and those voters are your competitors. If your wife is pretty, for example, every other guy want her too but can’t because you marry her. Quite obviously they do not want you to bang too many girls.

Think about it. Imagine if there is no monogamy rule. Then Brad Pitt will get all the chicks. Obviously there are many people that are unhappy, and hence would insist that it doesn’t work that way too easily.

Marriage, or to be more exact, prohibition of various more efficient alternatives, are there to enslave and control population.

Who ever control terms of marriage, effectively become the pimp of all women. That give them enough bargaining power to get votes, and support from all the voters, or warlords, or terrorists.

Think about it. Western civilization is democracy. Natural resources get divided proportional to political power. One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife.

In western civilization, main purpose of marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone. That’s why we have monogamy norms. Political parties that allow polygamy will be so unpopular they won’t win votes.

Alternative to life long monogamous marriage tend to be illegal in western civilization until recently. In fact, we can predict that something will be more politically incorrect based on how an option make it easy for rich males to consensually grab women. Hence, prostitution, polygamy, and contract marriage are illegal.

Sex outside marriage used to be so frowned upon. Even free sex outside marriage is not as efficient as concubinage or prostitution.

Information that encourage people to have sex outside marriage, like porn is prohibited while nonsense like romance, is taught to kids.

Let’s compare this with the only non westernized people.

The muslim worlds are led by monarch. These monarchs of course have very little interest to ration women in equal share for everyone. So monogamy is not an issue there. Sex outside marriage is. Sex outside marriage means having sex without permission from the monarch.

Now if you want to wonder how the hell Osama can motivate people to blow themselves up to your towers. Think about it. Osama control something far more precious than money for those males. Osama control their women.

No sex outside marriage means no sex until Osama or one of his underling says OK. Would you kill for Osama if you’re one of those hapless male that can only get laid if Osama permit?

Comments (0)

September 12, 2011

Why does western culture detest polygamy while being permissive toward adultery and extramarital affairs?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Adultery, Ancient Chinese, Ancient Greeks, Arabs, Asians, Different Cultures, Different Ideologies, Economic System, Essence, Extramarital Affairs, God, Hierarchy, Inevitability, Invention, Joke, Kn, Little Bit, Long Bows, Marital Rape, Marriage, Morality, Nature, Peasants, People, Persian, Polygamy, Prostitution, Relationship Marriage, Sexual Morality, Sexual Relationship, Western Civilization, Western Culture, Western Men, White Guys — admin @ 2:33 am

That’s basically the essence of western sexual morality. Anyone can bang your wife but you (marital rape is illegal), and any kid deserve your money, except yours. Okay that’s a joke. But if you interpret lack of reward as punishment, and anything punished as prohibited, and consider marriage as a form of prostitution, it won’t be too far of to accept.

It’s not that bad considering the alternatives though. It all comes from what I call, inevitability of power.

So, basically different people favor different ideologies. Different cultures are controlled by different people and hence tend to have different values. Interests of the people that are in control decide the prevailing morality in a society.

Marriage as government favored sexual relationship

Marriage can be very intuitively defined as government favored sexual relationship.

Think about it. Marriage terms vary from places to places from time to time, but there is one thing in common for all marriage. Marriage is always the most politically correct sexual relationship.

What makes something politically correct?

Something is politically correct when people think it’s “right”. People often think something is right because God or somebody approve it. However, that theory simply doesn’t fit the data or is hard to test. A better theory is that people think something is right if those in power approve it.

So what makes something politically correct? Simple. The interest of those who are in power.

Egalitarian nature of western civilization

Western civilization is unique among all other civilization for a trait that most would find surprising. In western civilization, men tend to be equal. Don’t know how that works. The ancient chinese or persian would actually bow down to emperors. The ancient greeks doesn’t.

Perhaps constant welfare and dividing languages give western men bigger bargaining position toward their leaders. Some said invention of long bows giving peasants and merchants bigger power.

GINI index is always high in Asia no matter what the economic system is. GINI index tend to be lower in western civilization, again no matter what the economic system is. Asians are used to hierarchy. White guys don’t. Well, Persian, Indians, and arabs are white too.

In western civilization and only in western civilization or their “westernized counterpart” lower status males tend to have higher bargaining position. I said westernized counter part because most of us, including the chinese, are effectively part of western civilization now due to westernization of everything.

Think about it

1. Socialism

2. Democracy

3. Monogamy

All tend to redistribute something to the mass. Socialism redistributes wealth. Democracy redistributes power. Monogamy redistributes women. Guess what, all are product of western civilization.

I am not saying it’s good or bad. Obviously hierarchy and disparity of result has very important function to motivate people to perform. I am just explaining things.

In Asia we don’t have equality. You lose you die. You win, you win big. Most asians won’t bother questioning why the emperors can have 1000 concubines. They can get their whole family slaughtered. Most asians won’t bother asking why an emperor have right to slaughter families?

The closest equality we have in China is probably during the Sung dynasty where even the emperor would be punished if they break the law. After that, none.

There is only one civilization where the lowest common men have enough balls to question and challenge the alpha males. Western civilization (or “westernized” civilization).

Legalizing your winning strategies while prohibiting your main competitors’ winning strategies

So what does that have anything to do with polygamy and extra marital sex?

Simple.

Natural resources tend to get divided proportional with political power. One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife.

Got that?

In arab, monogamy doesn’t make sense. The king and tyrants are in power. Obviously they all want more. The king simply chooses to be assertive enough and call such relationship marriage.

In western civilization, any king that grabs too many women will be very unpopular. When there are contests for the thrones, those kings, or presidential candidates, would lost a lot of vote if people figure out they support polygamy.

I suppose the king in arab will be unpopular too if they grab too many women. But who care? The lesser cocks are powerless anyway. Also some arab kings, like Dubai kings, are wise enough to govern their country well that their people are quite happy.

Moreover, rich arab countries can always import women from neighboring countries. So, pressure to prohibit polygamy is simply far less than in western civilization.

Western men cannot easily import women from neighboring countries. That’s because western women, just like the males, can vote too and do not want competition from cheaper competitors oversea. That’s how we hear so much bad publicity about women trafficking even though most trafficked women actually prefer richer western males.

Now what about adultery and extra marital sex?

That’s the thing. As any socialists would soon learn, there is no such thing as equality of outcome. Humans are different. Some will get more and some will get less.

So in western civilization, just like in any civilization, you can get many women despite prohibition of polygamy.

It’s just like how you can be very rich in a socialist society. Not in theory, not legally, not openly, but you can.

You see, polygamy is like winning openly. It’s like saying, see I am ubber alles, all of you are lesser than I am, and well I am banging all the bitches that you yearn for, and there is nothing you can do about it. Well you can sort of do that, but you can’t expect all those who don’t get any because of you to be saying, “Hell yeah.”

Marriage is socially approved sexual relationship. Relationships where Justin Bieber, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet gets all the chicks are not the kind of relationship most males would say, “Hell yea”. It’s not going to be marriage. It can be done, but it won’t be an openly socially approved sexual relationship. Not in a democratic western civilization.

You can do that. But in western civilization, you can’t do that openly. There is no way you can get many women with approval of the majority of men around you. If you want to do it, be quite.

Because polygamy is illegal, despite natural, the only way to do the equivalent of polygamy is outside marriage. So there is a bigger pressure for sex outside marriage to be legal in western civilization. Too many people wanting it.

Outside western civilization, and before invention of DNA tests. Marriage has one very important role in society. Marriage is the ONLY way to know fatherhood. That assurance is established brutally. Women that get caught cheating will get stoned to death.

Some would think it’s excessive. But when things are done so commonly, there is usually some upside, at least for those who are in power. When men are sure that their whole wealth will go to their son, they are more diligent, hardworking, and risk taking. They value honor more than immediate profit because at the end honor and trustworthiness can bring money which will go to kids.

If adultery were legal, there will be less intensive to work hard and accumulate wealth. There will be too much intensive to seduce someone else’s wife instead. Obviously such culture are less likely to spread. Imagine hordes of Vikings and Mongols attacking your city and all the men are like Justin Bieber?

Society needs brick layers, engineers, sword wielders. Most men won’t bother becoming that if they can’t be sure that wealth and status they earn by laying bricks or swinging sword can’t go to their own child.

After 1000 years, most societies tend to be patriarchal with stiff penalty against adultery. Including western civilization.

However, we need to remember that in western civilization, main use of marriage is not to test fatherhood. At least not now. Main use of western civilizations’ common marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone.

Marriage has a secondary use besides deciding fatherhood. Marriage is there to ration mates to those who are in power. In western civilization this second use is far more significant.

In western civilization you are already obligated to support everybody’s kid anyway whether it’s your kid or not, due to socialism. Also recently, we have DNA tests to decide fatherhood, greatly lessening the traditional importance of marriage. If I want to be sure that my kids are mine, I no longer need to get married. I just test my kids’ DNA.

Also adultery gives the poor males a chance “to win too”. Think about it. If you’re a milk man, how do you win if you have to compete with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? What I mean by winning here, means attracting higher quantity and quality of women.

If prostitution is legal, definitely you can’t win. If adultery is illegal, it’s hard to win too. Even if you can attract those women, who would feed your kids?

So it’s natural than that many poorer males in western civilization vote for

Prohibition of prostitution
Forcing richer males to pay even for kids that’s not his
Higher welfare program so that the rich are forced to feed all their kids

In western civilization, the mass are the one who are in power and morality tends to move toward that direction.

Not all poor people like that of course. Also I am not saying this to portray the poor as evil. However, I am simply trying to point out what typical conflict of interests between the poor and the rich. We simply have different interests and hence we have different opinions on what moral value to support.

It’s the same reason why many oppose death penalty. They are robbers or robber’s family that sympathize with robbers. In ancient England, when the rich are in power, people can get death penalty for pick pocketing. When the poor in power, it’s often the home owners that defend their property that go to jail rather than the robbers.

Adultery follow similar pattern. There is absolutely no punishment for adultery in western civilization. In fact, adultery is actually rewarded by the court system. Males often have to support kids that’ not his own in case of adultery even though DNA tests show that the kids are not his.

Yes all these hurt the rich. But again, unique in western civilization, the rich are NOT powerful. Hence the rich do not decide morality. Maybe that’ll change now that disparity of wealth is growing. Also globalization means that the rich has one very important right, namely the right to flee to China where hierarchies are more tolerated. However, that’s not happening fully yet.

Cultural comparison

Let’s compare this with Arab, for example. In arab, the rich is powerful. In fact, in oil rich countries like most arab countries, the way to get rich is to be in power. Those in power will decide

No sex outside marriage. That is, no sex without approval of those who are in power
Allowing polygamy. Only those who are in power or get approved by those who are in power can get laid. The powerful in Arab, like bin Laden, effectively become the pimps of all women. You can get women there only if alpha males approve. Now you wonder how they motivate men bash themselves to your building and why their religious leaders are so obsessed about sex.
No porn. The less people want women the better.
Yea obviously they are more likely to kill each other over who get laid. Like there is any culture that doesn’t.

In arab, men has more intensive to be in power. The arab leaders then wisely channel those men to fight some great Satan, such as US or Israel, which everyone somehow has to believe as faith.

In China, money rules everything and chinese civilization tend to be much smaller. So we have

Toleration of prostitution. Until communist rules, prostitution is always legal.
Even when prostitution is illegal, you can always get that somehow if you have money. However, you only have that in Chinese dominated regions. At least that’s how it works in my countries.
Polygamy is not common. Why fight authority? Concubines are common.
Corruption. Obviously if you’re rich but not powerful, you simply pay up. Very common in all Chinese influenced society.

Comments (0)

August 29, 2011

Should men get married?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: Alimony, Ask Question, Beatty Chadwick, Child Support, Competitor, Democratic Countries, Different Story, Equal Share, Females, Incorporate, Legislators, Marriage, Matt Ridley, Monogamy, Nazis, Parasites, Pretty Girl, Prostitution, Rapists, Religious Bigots, S Market, Sweet Heart, Target Market, Ugly Women, Welfare, Wiki, Wikipedia — admin @ 6:05 am

No.

At least no if what you mean by marriage is marriage as
defined by the states. It’s a different story if you draft your own
marital contract. However, drafting your own marital contract can land
you in jail due to anti prostitution and anti polygamy laws. So you
won’t call that marriage either..

Do you want to be like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick?

The last thing you want is letting government effectively deciding your
spouse. Why would you? Why is it up to government whether you’re going
to have 3 or 10 or 1? Why it’s up to government you will share half? If
she’s happy with 20% or $100k why offer her half of your income? Why not
let you and she decide? Why let government decide?

You don’t like ugly women. Why let what ugly women want matter to you at
all? They’re not your target market. What they want should absolutely mean
nothing. However, if you get married, votes from ugly women decide your
marital terms.

Marriage is regulated by the states. The states
are regulated by legislators. Legislators are regulated by voters. And
those voters are your genetic competitors who will go extinct unless you
go extinct first.

Marital terms are full with your competitor’s
interest. Marital terms in most democratic countries are there to
bankrupt rich smart males. The purpose is to kick richer males out of
mating market.

Monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. Ask Matt Ridley. Also check here http://cocksofthealphamales.com/

That’s why alimony, and child support is
proportional to a man’s wealth rather than to the women’s market value.
That’s why you can only pick singles, even though singles are single for
“a reason”.

Imagine if you prefer to share somebody more
attractive rather than be the only one for someone less attractive?
Can’t do that in marriage. If I can’t get a pretty girl, I’d rather
watch Miyabi.

That’s why they don’t just let the market decide
marital terms. Why else? They knew that no body will use the insane
terms government prescribe if marriage is privatized.

Should you get married? Well ask this question. Should you incorporate interests of nazis, ugly women, poor males, rapists, facists, religious bigots, singles, welfare parasites, and bigots into your marital contract?

Do you want to end up like Beatty Chadwick?

Now if you fully craft your own contract with the sweet heart, then it’s a
different story. However, many will not call that marriage. Many will
call that prostitution, polygamy, etc. So be careful.

Best to just keep it quite, buy here expensive lobster, sign contracts that you
will afford all her kids if and only if genetic testing show it’s yours.
Then bang her. That’s it. No need for all the other marital terms. If
you feel other terms are needed, write your own.

Till you’re rich enough to attract and knocked up many hot girls in Asian night clubs, just watch Miyabi. Help women evolve. Pick the pretty. Soon every kids
have rich smart dad. Poverty will go away. Now that’s true social
responsibility.

– Some reasons why people may still want to get married:

1.
Religion. This is the main reason. Forget it. Did God ever told you
that you should keep supporting someone else’ kids even though genetic
testings shows the kids are not yours? C’mon. Do you really think that
God want you to make that kind of deal first before you bang any girl?
Because that’s what marriage, as defined by the state, mean, namely
making that kind of deal.

When did God say she deserve half? When Nebudkanezar told Ester that she get half, she didn’t say, “Isn’t half is mine anyway?” When did God say you shouldn’t have concubines? Fine. Go through all the bible and through all marital laws and draw a line for every rule in the contemporary marital laws and the bible and see if they are isomorphic. Interpret the scripture your self. Don’t let others interpret that for you.

You may argue, oh marital terms should be changed to conform more to the bible. The problem is not the terms. The problem is WHO make the terms. Want it to be something good for YOU, then write your own. Want it to be something good for those who hate you, then take the plunge.

Obviously biblical marriage sucks too. But just in case you truly prefer that, keep in mind that marriage nowadays has nothing to do with marriage in the bible. It doesn’t have the same name, it doesn’t have the same term. It’s a different deal. It’s just completely different things.

2. Historically marriage serve 2
purposes. One is deciding fatherhood so you can inherit your wealth.
Well, use genetic testing for that.

3. Another benefit of
marriage is women knows that her child will be taken care of by daddy.
Again you can either draft your own contract or let the state force you
to pay child support without marriage for this. The difference, is that
if you marry her, you may still be liable to support her child even
though it’s not yours. In any case you support your child anyway. So why would you risk having to support the milk men’s child?

4. If you still want to
get married, I can’t stop you. But please read all marital terms first
or hell, craft your own. So many people get married not knowing what the
deal is. It’s a major contract guys. At least read this first:

http://freemarketforever.com/2011/07/01/top-10-facts-evolutionary-psychology-and-game-theory-can-predict-more-accurately-than-religion/

and

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

Okay. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe marriage is such a good thing. Great.
Go ahead. Get married. Just write the damn contract your self. What can
you get out of government defined marriage that you cannot get out of
writing contract your self?

If the issue is not being in jail or bigger tax break, then it should raise issues on con-sensuality of marriage and for whose interests are marriage terms really made right?

5.
Forget romance. Oh hell… There is only one reason why people want you
to believe something without checking. They want to lie. Proponent of
romance are evil bigots that want you to end up like Beatty Chadwick.
That guy rot in jail for 14 years for getting married. That’s more than
murder man. That’s how pro marriage people hate males. They sent males
to jail. Getting married give them a good excuse and mean to do so. Your
mates are decided by 2 main factors. Supply demand. That’s it.
Read
http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/ to see how Beatty rot in jail
for 14 years. That’s what model typical marriage is nowadays. Why people
want you to get married? So you ended up like Beatty. They’re your
competitors. They’re not happy that you got hot babes. They want you to
suffer. That’s why they want you to get married, like Beatty.
Here, read more.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beaty+chadwick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

6. Think of whether you can get into her skirt outside marriage. If she doesn’t want it, she doesn’t love you. If she doesn’t love you and you let her power over you, look what will happen to people that make that kind of mistake.

http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/images/Armenia_slaughter.jpg

7.
If marriage is so good, why not let the market decide? If marriage is
so good, there will be fewer divorce and about the same marriage even if free sex
is legal. Well, when free sex is legal, marriage is in decline
everywhere. Customers max out their profit. There is only one reason why
more and more people choose not to get married. Marriage doesn’t live up to it’s opportunity costs. Ask any economists. This is econ 101.

In ancient time, virtually all consensual better alternatives are
effectively illegal. Some cultures, like the arabs, still have a blanket bank against all sex outside marriage. That’s the main reason why people get married. Forced. As more and more cracks are open, marriage is in decline big time. Even in Iran, a conservative country, contract marriage is more common than marriage. In US, free sex is more common.

8. Marriage give women right to cut of your penis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt After seven hours of deliberation, the jury found Lorena not guilty due to insanity causing an irresistible impulse to sexually wound her husband. As a result, she could not be held liable for her actions.

If you’re not married and she cut of your penis, will she get away with it?

9. Marriage give women right to kill you. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-14/us/preacher.slain_1_mary-winkler-fourth-street-church-preacher-husband?_s=PM:US

10. Some people may think that alternatives to marriage, like prostitution can cause STD. Find. Make your own arrangement that’s relatively STD free. Rather than renting her for 1 hour, rent her for 3 years. Or stuff like that. You can pull that out in Asia. Hell, women would do a lot for a green card. Seek other ways first. Knows the truth. For narrow is the path to safety and few people found it. However, wide are path to marriage hell, because people don’t think.

11. Marriage terms are so bad for males that it’s bad for women too. Women can only get dumb or poor males if she insist on getting married. Women with equal beauty, can get richer males outside marriage. Many smart pretty women prefer that and more would do that if free market decide that.

12. Marriage doesn’t buy sex. Yap. Marital rape is illegal. Not that you want to do it anyway even if it’s legal. But at least if you’re not married, you can just use your money to woo others and she will have a strong reasonable intensive to perform. Within marriage, you still pay her anyway even though she bang the milk man.

So, want bondage? Spanking? BDSM? 69? Blowjob? Swinging? Threesome? Foursome? Fingering? Tits job?

Don’t get married. She’ll just say no and it’s over. Hiks hiks hiks… Outside marriage, just find someone else that want and show her a sample of what you want

13. Oh and banging someone else wife is great. It’s perfectly legal. Also you got someone else working his ass off to support your child. If you really want to bang married women, make sure it’s not yours.

14. Women prefer married man. Okay, this is the only reason I can think of why marriage may be a good thing. If you think this is significant enough, then consider marriage. Otherwise, save the money for bigger cars with chicks magnet.

If anyone still want to get married, please comment on this answer so I can straighten your head. I want to save as many people as possible from marital hell. That’s the whole point of reaching enlightenment, so I can compassionately save people.

Incoming search terms:

beatty chadwick

Comments (0)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »