What I think, genepool, is that people should make their own arrangements in their personal lives, and that it’s not any government official’s business how people choose to arrange their personal lives.
That’s what I wish too.
I also think that your “solutions” — treat all women like prostitutes, pay them to have your babies, and raise their children in hutches like rabbits — are three of the stupidest, most asinine ideas I’ve ever heard in my life.
That’s a misrepresentation of what I said.
By the way I agree with some of what you said. Not simply because something is legal means you should do it. In particular, I do not think prostitution, in a narrow sense, is a good idea even if it’s legal. Still if women choose to do so, it’s their right. I hate anti prostitution laws mainly for 3 reasons.
1. It’s not up to government to decide what’s best.
2. It’s so comprehensive it can be used to nail virtually anything. It’s a very vague law. Define prostitution and explain to me why marriage isn’t. Compare your definition to legal definition and you see we have serious issues.
3. This is what most important. I do not believe that anti prostitution laws are there to protect women at all. I think it’s there to get rid superior competitors.
Someone ask what I would wish for my daughter. It’s a very good question. In general, it’s up to her (and may be her mom). Not me. However, I honestly think that being a sugar baby is better than being a wife. Women can get richer men and richer men can get beautiful women without pretty much mortgaging his testicles.
I would rather my daughter be a sugar baby of a rich smart handsome tall nobel laureate than a wife of a middle class. I don’t care if that nobel laureate already has 10 photo model sugar babies. I want my daughter to be able to aim for the best of the best of the best of the best.
I want my daughter to be rich too independently, say as programmer. But I don’t want her to be rich so she can afford a coach potato husband. That’s idiot. I want her to be rich so she can hang out with and aim for someone that’s even richer and yes pay her to support the kids, etc.
My wife would insist that my daughter should be in life long monogamous marriage. My wife is a christian. However, if I watch my families and all the failing marriage, I see that it’s nonsense. By aiming for exclusivity women often end up with a mediocre. Then what? Marriage doesn’t work anyway. Divorce happen, and when that happen, she’s already old. Better aim for the star instead rather than life long monogamous marriage.
I think the real reason why marriage terms are made that way is to kick the richest smartest most attractive males out of mating market. Monogamy scare off the attractive. Alimony scares of the rich. I do not think rich smart beautiful women need that kind of commitment.
If it turns out you’re correct GDP, if rich males make fewer kids because they’re happier that way, because they want to concentrate wealth, then that’s what the rich should do. Not making many kids.
The way I see it is, reproducing is simply way more expensive for the rich due to artificially inflated cost. That’s wrong. That should go. If after that the rich still make fewer or more kids, it’s up to free market.
It seems to me our differences lie on what we think is best for others and what others’ would do if people are more free. We agree that individuals, rather than community or government should decide that. However, I sort of doubt the latter too.
Another is the way our mind is hardwired. I do not see being a sex object as a demeaning job. Your mom won’t become a mom if she’s not a sex object. And yes, becoming a mom is one of the most exalted thing anyone can achieve. I see becoming grenade throwers as demeaning, dangerous, and difficult.
I see feminists do not really fight for equality between men and women. I see feminists fight for equality between ugly women and pretty women. I think the latter is superior than the former. In fact, I think pretty women are superior than men. In free market, they command higher salary.
When women become a sugar baby, I do not see this as demeaning. In fact, the women may not even need money at all. I want my daughter to be financially rich too rather than depend on a male for money. The fact is that many rich women want males that are even richer. To me men paying women is not a sign of disrespect.
It doesn’t make sense for me to think that getting paid implies forced or lack of choice. I can do SEO for free. I sure as hell prefer to get paid for it for even more money. What’s wrong with that?
Paying and financially supporting women is a sign of respect. They have to get pregnant. So it’s normal that men sweeten the deal. It shows, that the men are rich enough. It’s like you taking your girlfriend to expensive restaurants. Not that she can’t afford it. You need to show that you’re rich enough, and worthy enough for her attention.
To me, women not working as hard in science and engineering does not imply women are inferior. Women don’t do men’s job for the same reason CEO’s do not do janitors’ job. CEOs have better things to do.
I think the real reason why many opposes prostitution is not to help or protect women but to control them. They do not want women to be free to decide what they want to do with their bodies. I think the real reason why many opposes women trafficking is not to help the trafficked women. I think ugly women in rich countries simply want to get rid prettier competitors from poorer countries and that’s it.
I think the most politically incorrect thing most people cannot accept is that as sex object, we are not equal. There are beautiful women and there are ugly ones. There are richer males and there are poorer ones. You, and most whites, cannot see, that under free market, the one more attractive will simply be more successful in the gene pool.
Incoming search terms:
- powered by phpBB beautiful (18)