Are women responsible? Well they chose to mate with someone poor. The thing is, what choices do they have? So many other choices are blocked under the pretext of protecting them.
Look at those mother of terrorists. Are they responsible for breeding more terrorists rather than more bankers or scientists. Sure. If they want to mate with bankers or scientists instead, say they go all the way from afghanistan to be sex workers or sugar baby for Bill Gates or Tiger Wood, then what?
Feminazis will scream it’s exploitation!!!
With so many restrictions, societies effectively choose for women.
Monogamy means women can only pick singles, which mean those that don’t sell (yet).
Anti prostitution laws means maximum wage for sexual service = 0 unless on some loophole such as marriage or unofficial shelter or deal with cash.
Alimony means women can only sell her self for huge severance pay proportional to man’s wealth.
Anti women trafficking means that women can only choose males from his own country no matter how mess up that country is so women from richer countries do not have to compete against immigrants.
What about if a woman think, you know, I’ll change my pricing scheme. I don’t need 50% of Tiger Wood’s wealth. I’d rather 1% of his wealth. Society will call that women a whore and prohibit that under the pretext of protecting that very woman.
Then, that same woman may ended up marrying a drunk wife beating unemployed wife beating middle class. Then what? It’s super legal because it’s subsidized.
Of course what most males want is not really protecting those women from anything. What males want is to ensure women choose them. That means getting rid better alternatives. The better the alternatives the more incentive males have to prohibit it. Then they just claim that it’s so bad no women would want it anyway even without prohibition.
Incoming search terms:
- powered by phpBB computer technical support las vegas (14)
- powered by phpBB asiana japan europe business class (13)