Sugar Relationship > Marriage

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

I think more people should try sugar relationship. Less messy.

White people keep saying that monogamy is ideal or whatever and that father is necessary with their children.

What white men do is serial monogamy which is effectively far less fun polygamy. They just lost lots of money every time they do it. Then they got separated from their children anyway.

With sugar relationship, she leaves, you stop paying. Bye bye….

Want money? Well, I wanna see my children. More fair. Paying gives her an incentive to stay with you.

All women are whores. They just like to pretend they don’t. At least the super pretty and smart ones that I know.

Also, white men are the only animals that fail to see their female co species as sex objects because those are politically incorrect in their culture. They put women through schools encouraging women to be engineers instead of moms. Hell, they’re proud if women can be soldiers.

We won’t see lots of white people in a few generations down the road.

Difference Between Using Force or Paying

What is the difference between using force or paying? If I offer money to McDonald’s, am I forcing Mcdonald to give me a burger? From a game-theoretical perspective yes. I am basically threatening McDonald of not paying if I don’t get my burgers.

In fact, game theory doesn’t really differentiate between paying and forcing. Those are treated as outcomes.

You do strategies that make the others better off if they do stuff that makes you better off.

This is not new. Most mathematicians see gambling, insurance, and investments as gambling. We don’t differentiate things that others vaguely differentiate.

Things get even more complicated when governments get involved. Imagine the government fining people $5k for not having children. Does government force people to have children? Well, if I don’t I am fined and punished.

Things get even more complicated when governments get involved. Imagine the government fining people $5k for not having children. Does government force people to have children? Well, if I don’t I am fined and punished. So yes, I am being forced, or pressured to have children.

What about, if the government tax everyone $5k and offer $5k for having children. The whole thing is the exact equivalent. Here, when governments do things, we can have two points of view. One point of view is the government is forcing people to have children. Another is the government simply pay people to have children.

Issues get more complicated when we see political deals. Some countries agree to be absorbed by India so it can protect itself from Pakistan. Is that country coerced?

Most people would consider coercion as part of the game in politics and see that the deal is valid. The list can go on and on.

No one chooses your spouse but you can only choose singles. You are “free” to pursue happiness but go to jail if you eat MDMA and get rewarded by welfare if you produce children you can’t afford. So how to differentiate force and persuasion and paying?

To what extend one is right and another is wrong? Where’s the limit? I have no idea. Perhaps if the bargaining position is within another’s right it’s called forcing. If the bargaining position is within my right it’s called paying.

If I ask for your wallet so I let you live, I am forcing you. That’s because it’s not within my right to kill you. However, if I offer money to buy a burger then I am paying. It is well within my right not to pay. But what counts as right is also not clear.

Why Men that Like Transactional Sex is Called Misogynist?

Why many people accuse me of being a misogynist? Do you know how many women I have killed or punched? Okay, I spank a few. But the girls wanted….

I go to Mcdonald’s buying burgers, do I hate mc Donald? I hire people to do many chores? Do I hate employees?

I want all sex to be transactional because that’s what’s working and what’s natural. Rather than marrying, I think men should just pay women to give heirs. Why am I a misogynist?

Why marry a man that makes $50k a year, if a woman can share a sugar daddy, earning $1 million a year, and offer the woman $50k a year?

The second one is far more reliable because the $50k is just a small portion of his wealth. Chance is the kids will be richer and smarter too and have more inheritance.

Yet suggesting this makes me a misogynist? Why? What is the connection between paying and hating?

I thought women prefer the rich? Just ask for money and women will get the rich.

Weird Dream

I have this weird dream of dating a man in a woman’s body.

No she’s not a trans. She’s a real woman. She thinks like men though. She’s good at Math and wants to earn money. But she is a woman. We both like women and she told me to hunt for more chicks together.

Makes me wonder what is the meaning of a man in a woman’s body.

Masculism

I jokingly said I want to empower rich men. I am actually an egalitarian.

What I mean is I want to empower all productive people. I simply realized that smart pretty women can be more productive in a very different way than men. Onlyfans pay for women, for example, is far higher for women than for men.

So women are more productive than men by showing skins in onlyfans. A men with a similar IQ, for example, will be earn more salary by just being programmer. What I found repulsive is if the state actively encourages smart pretty girls to be programmers like men instead of earning more money in onlyfans.

We can measure productivity by salary. By that definition, sugar babies are also very productive and should be empowered too so they don’t have to settle for mere husbands, for example. Well, it turns out, whatever I think there is already some white guy that thinks the same way as I do and I agree with many of their concern.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Masculism

Notice that feminism actually has lots of men’s influence. Men compete against other men and tend to be more hostile to fellow men and more protective toward women. So many of the issue is actually natural and can’t be changed.

Also, many of the issues, is thankfully, not an issue in Indonesia. We don’t go to jail for not paying child support. That being said, the laws tend to favor poor men by encouraging marriage instead of sugar relationships.

Some of the idea that I agree with is

portrayal of “violence against women” as more important than other forms of violence, including “violence against men” (e.g. “never hit a woman/girl, but it is acceptable for a woman to beat a man”) [1]depiction of violence against men as humorous, in the media (e.g., the movie I Love You to Death) [1] and elsewhere (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!), when women are equally violent. Kenshin Himura keeps being beaten up by Kaoru in the Anime

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Masculism

I got to admit it’s funny as fuck. I am concerned only when the law actually punishes differently.

equality in child custody, such as shared parenting
pregnancies carried to term despite agreements ahead of time that they would not be, subjecting men to unwanted parental responsibilities and/or child support expectations (see Dubay v. Wells)
The opposite of the above, where a man who may want to have a child also has no right to decide if his wife/girlfriend/etc. decides to abort (see paternal rights and abortion)
Legislation that addresses women’s needs without considering the corresponding need in men (e.g., Women, Infants, and Children Act; Violence Against Women Act)Biases in the justice system against men, such as higher incarceration rates and longer sentences for men (compared to women) for the same crimes; (see Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo)special government agencies for women’s affairs with no corresponding agencies for men’s affairs
men being incarcerated for the inability to pay child support payments [11]lack of legal ramifications or enforcement for paternity fraud

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Masculism

Also, I think many people that got rich productively are not empowered enough. So I may need a term for that. I am not sure. What’s the opposite of socialism?

Porn and Prostitution Eliminate Poverty

We know abortion works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Abortion Reduce Crimes

Abortion reduces crimes and poverty. Instead of putting more funding on public schools and stuff, we should just legalize abortion and watch crimes plummet.

Kids that will be criminals do not need to get smarter or wiser or more educated. They just need to not be born.


So why not go all the way? Anything that reduces the number of kids with poor parents from being born, or even conceived will eliminate poverty with even less government.

I wonder if access and legalization of prostitution and porn can eliminate poverty.

The idea is that poverty is not normal under pure capitalism. People become poor because their parents breed and their parents breed because they are married.

Poor people want sex anyway, not heirs.

So anything that destroys marriage among the poor and doesn’t reward them for breeding should eliminate poverty.

Porn and prostitution, are samples of alternatives, usually non-reproductive, access to sex. It also allows women to make cash instead of breeding. Public schools and welfare are the opposite. They reward poor people for breeding.

I would say, we should just eliminate welfare and public schools, and legalize porn.

See poverty plummet in one generation, like in Japan.

The extra money can go to lower taxes. It’s win win for capitalism because we win twice. If there is welfare anyway, we can arrange that welfare money go to poor people with no kids that use the money to get rich instead of breeding.

The poor can use the cash, unhindered by the necessity to raise children to start small bizs or investing instead.

Instead of welfare for poor people with kids, we should have tax cut for the poor that want to be rich.

Poor people will also have choices. They can breed now and starve with all their children, or get rich first.

Porn and Prostitution

I wonder if access and legalization of prostitution and porn can eliminate poverty.

The idea is that poverty is not normal. People become poor because their parents breed and their parents breed because they are married. Poor people want sex anyway, not heirs.

So anything that destroy marriage among the poor and doesn’t reward them for breeding should eliminate poverty.

Porn and prostitution, are samples of alternatives, usually non-reproductive, access to sex. It also allows women to make cash instead of breeding.

Public schools and welfare is the opposite. They reward poor people for breeding.

I would say, we should just eliminate welfare and public schools, and legalize porn.

See poverty plummet in one generation, like in Japan.

The extra money can go to lower taxes. It’s win win toward capitalism because we win twice. Poor people will also have choices. They can breed now and starve with all their children, or get rich first.

Strange Behaviors

Will US be a better country if governed by UN? Will Israel be a better country if governed by Nazi? Will your marriage be a better marriage if you register your marriage officially and let the state govern your marriage?

If your answer differs on any of those questions, please explain why.

Why Inconsistencies

I wonder why conservatives like free market but not commercialized sex? It’s okay for some guy to make tons of money. It’s okay for shops to get lots of customers. It’s okay for large corporations to capture the whole market share and deprive small bizs out of customers.

Yet, when it comes to sex and reproduction, suddenly, trades are not okay, in the eye of conservatives? Most conservatives have knee jerk reaction that sex must be within monogamous marriage, that transactional sex must be illegal.

Yes, the liberal are that way too but many Christian conservatives are even more so. Why the inconsistency? If I ask liberals/progressives, their answer will be consistent.

They think greed, in general, is bad and capitalism is bad. So they think prostitution is rich guys exploiting women like rich guys exploiting workers.

I disagree with liberals/progressives. However, at least their answer is consistent. Greed is bad in their eyes for both most goods and reproduction.However, with conservatives, there is this inconsistency. Why?