Free Market Forever

I love Capitalism. Stop being Slaves and Take Ownership of Your Life.

Posts Tagged Ugly Women

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

Nov 5

Posted by admin in Featured | No Comments

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.

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.

10 Girls for Every 1 Guy

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supply is Not Elastic

Jan 9

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

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

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

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

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

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

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what about sexual demand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Are Sex Objects as Sure as Michael Jordan is a Basket Ball Player

Dec 2

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Fair enough. I just feel funny when I said that and curious about your reaction would be.

This really should be another topic.

NEVER in this forum or anywhere I said women shouldn’t have gun or shouldn’t choose for her life. In fact, I would encourage it. She has right for her body, I have right for my cash. That’s it. Fair enough? Women, especially ugly women, shouldn’t have right to interfere on how I would spend my money consensually. That’s violating my right there. Clear?

If some women do not want to be seen as sex object, then fine. Most of the time, I would stay away from them and they would stay away from me. No problem. No biggy. They can hang around with other wush… (I mean morally upright politically correct effeminate) males.

Also I do not mean being sex object is a bad thing. Hot women are sex object as sure as Michael Jordan is a basket ball player. Of course, Michael can play baseball too. It’s just that baseball is not how he mainly add values to the market. When women can be sex object, they will be above males. What other jobs you get paid so well doing something you already know without training? More money, more power. What is so bad with that?

No body has a right to force anyone to change his mind. It’s like freedom of religion. People held far more unreasonable beliefs than I am based on faith. We tolerate that. I think the way feminazis want people to stop thinking women as sex object is beyond consensual persuasion.

Not allowing employer to propose groping hot employee is also wrong. It’s force and that’s wrong. If all males want to think women as sex objects, it’s males’ right. Women also have plenty of stupid idea and we let them think freely right?

By the way, I think it’s time you guys start growing balls and think outside the box those feminazis enclosed you. Again, I can’t force you.

Also I don’t expect you will change your mind. It’s hardwired in your gene. I read something about white people that’s you probably disagree. Capitalism is not really white’s trade mark. Ming dinasty is capitalistic too and the Chinese often has the smallest government. If there is anything unique about Europeans is their (Ayn Rand will disagree with me on this) sense of equality and their respect toward women. Democracy (equal power for everyone), Monogamy (equal reproductive success for everyone), and socialism (equal wealth for everyone) are all made in Europe. As if something is wrong if one guy is ubber alles.

As a capitalist that believe in meritocracy, I think that’s bad. But what can I say? You’re the most advance civilization for now. Maybe I am wrong.

The essence of my idea is that all prohibition against consensual act is bad because it’s effectively a market distortion that misproperly align people’s interest toward productivity. I believe government regulation on sex and reproduction is the BIGGEST market distortion and hence the one should be fought most.

I don’t believe your genes decide your productivity. I know plenty of poor high IQ people and rich low IQ people. People used to say the Jews, Black, Asians, Non White, Jin, Roma, Armenian, Palestinians, Arabs, Chinks, as inferior. Well fine. They have a right for their opinion, while I disagree of course. My say is, let them proof it. Let the market decide. I am sure, the market will show that eventually, it’s individuals rather than their ethnic that’ll give wealth to those who are productive. I may be wrong. Whatever that maybe, let the market decide.

Commercialization (which is 90% of libertarianism according to Madonna in “Material Girl”) has motivate males (and a lot of women) to be diligent, industrious, and productive. But wealth means little if someone else decides what we can buy with our wealth, which is what happens now due to many restrictions. Why not allow males to buy what most males truly want? Sexual service from beautiful girls. I am sure motivation to be wealthy will be much more and we will get even richer.

Marriage, and monogamy, when non consensually enforced through governments’ restriction, is simply the biggest market distortion. It’s far more dangerous than income tax, welfare program, tariff, and trades.

Free market has improved our computer speed by 2 every 5 years. Free market have improved our wealth. Free market have improved our standard of living. Guess what? All those achievement will go to whoever make most kids. Wealth distribution, redistribution, crime, genocide, or simply marriage and inheritance, ALL will go to those who make kids. When you inherit your wealth, the kid is only (at most) half yours right?

So why not extend free market to what truly matters, reproduction. Let the market decide who breed. Commercialization of computer makes computer faster. Commercialization of sex makes the productive more breed more.

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

Safe, Legal, Popular, and Fun

Nov 12

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

About drug, there is something interesting.

Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic
Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe
Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet
Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for decades, till it’s popular.

If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.

Prohibiting POPULAR alternatives are then a great way to force people to do something you want. Something like donating trillions to your money.

In a sense robbers do not force you to give your money. They only block an otherwise popular alternative, namely walking away without paying.

Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved.

Of course when the Taliban approve it’s called marriage, and when they don’t approve it’s called prostitution or something. What’s the difference anyway? At least the latter is not as exploitative.

See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt.

The women? Well, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women. Not like what they want matters anyway. Even in democratic countries where women can vote, what happen is simply the ugly women deciding what the pretty can and should do.

The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives.

The one that doesn’t work too well like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) or lead to extinction (get a degree, compete with males on equal terms) can all be practiced openly or even encouraged.

No body force you to get married ha? No. It’s not bullshit. It’s magic worthy to learn. How do we force people without being perceived as “forcing.” Achieve without action. Do without doing.

It’s not right and wrong. It’s Yin Yang. Some more general pattern should emerge here. I am close to understanding it.

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

Fun, Legal, Popular, and Safe

Nov 8

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

About drug, there is something interesting.

Water is safe, legal, popular, but not psychotropic
Alcohol is legal, popular, psychotropic, but not safe
Salvia is safe, legal, psychotropic, but not popular yet
Ecstasy is safe, popular, psychotropic, and USED to be legal for decades, till it’s popular.

If government do not want you to have fun, they do not need to prohibit all drugs, just the popular ones.

Prohibiting POPULAR alternatives are then a great way to force people to do something you want. Something like donating trillions to legislators’ entertainment’s fund.

In a sense robbers do not force you to give your money. They only block an otherwise popular alternative, namely walking away without paying.

Taliban does not force women to mate with their followers. They only prohibits women from becoming prostitute and working. The only alternative left is starving or marrying someone the Taliban approved.

Of course when the Taliban approve it’s called marriage, and when they don’t approve it’s called prostitution or something. What’s the difference anyway? At least the latter is not as exploitative.

See why many young males are willing to die for Taliban? It’s win win win. The Taliban win in getting followers. The young males win because there is no way they can compete with Brad Pitt.

The women? Well, it’s pretty easy to convince everyone that they’re protecting women. Not like what they want matters anyway. Even in democratic countries where women can vote, what happen is simply the ugly women deciding what the pretty can and should do.

The same way, if government wants to force you to get married and risk going to jail for 14 years and paying millions of dollars, it doesn’t need to prohibit all alternatives.

The one that doesn’t work too well like free sex (altruism), or abstinence (not fun) or lead to extinction (get a degree, compete with males on equal terms) can all be practiced openly or even encouraged.

No body force you to get married ha? No. It’s not bullshit. It’s magic worthy to learn. How do we force people without being perceived as “forcing.” Achieve without action. Do without doing.

It’s not right and wrong. It’s Yin Yang. Some more general pattern should emerge here. I am close to understanding it.

For example, cohabitation agreement is effectively legal. You can even set an arbitrage clause for that. Just wait till it becomes a popular alternative to marriage. Then somebody will say it’s abusive, and then it’ll be illegal again.

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

Are the Rich Less Generous

Jan 7

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

The problem is not people are less generous. People are MORE generous now than they are thousands of years ago. In ancient time, the poor got only 2% of money in Muslim countries.

Now we pay 30% income tax most of which goes into wealth redistribution. What else, given that the market can provide far superior service more efficiently anyway. So we are 15 times more generous.

World GDP is 300 times it was 200 years ago. Human race is 300 times richer.

If we have the same number of fuck ups now than we have 200 years ago, non of those fuck ups will be “poor” by 1800 standard.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the fuck ups, irresponsible, lazy, stupid, socialists bigots out breed the prudent, smart, diligent and hard working. The problem is we got smart people like HaRRo that are too willing to sacrifice himself in altar of socialism to fed the parasites. Sorry HaRRo. We got to repent.

Anyone opposing freedom want to enslave others. Yielding to their kind is like cutting our own hand throwing it to lions hoping the lions will become vegetarian. If anything, the lions will just breed and breed and kill us.

If you run the fastest you simply have to show that you too can hit the hardest.

I love poor people. Many of them work hard for me and we both make a lot of money. None of those that work hard for me work as hard as me though. But well, we’re getting somewhere.

It’s the mindset that’s wrong. We encourage the poor to breed by subsidizing those that make kids. When subsidy is given, supply and demand curve no longer meet creating surplus of humans, causing unemployment giving rise to more justification for bigger government in never ending vicious poverty cycle.

Just pay anyone that don’t have kids and legalize commercial sex so the best brightest richest (like our mods) can knock up all the hot babes. Then encourage porn so no ugly women get laid. Hell those ugly feminists can always enjoy their right becoming astronauts, programmers, scientists, or some grenade thrower in the front line anyway. I totally support affirmative action for all womyn that want to throw grenade in the front line, if they’re ugly.

Within 1 generation, all kids will have rich smart dad and hot sexy mom. No need to resort to violent to “exterminate” those we deem inferior.

But even those benign peaceful method is politically incorrect. We’re like gladiator being forced to kill each other by our leaders with their irrational faith based “morality”.

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

If it’s my money and women prefer me, why should it be someone else’s cock

Jan 5

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by luizeba View Post
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.

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

Opposition of Consensual Acts often Have Hidden Motives

Oct 14

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.

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?

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.
How would you happen to know what any one woman, much less ALL ugly (subjective in itself) women fears?
The answer is, you don’t. You are not psychic, so you don’t know what a single other person fears, whether they are ugly or not.

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.

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