Month: August 2011

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Moral is always vaguely defined. I sort of prefer definition that has scientific bite, namely those we can verify.

http://freemarketforever.com/201…

I like some definition with scientific bites, namely, something that’s disprovable. Arguing over things that’s not disprovable seems to go nowhere isn’t it?

I am not saying valid moral imperatives do not exist. I see that defining moral that way goes nowhere and useless to discuss.

However, defining moral as we observe pecking order in chicken shed some light on the true nature of morality.

I see that moral simply evolves and coevolves with us.

Another reason why I do not like to see valid moral imperatives is because most of the argument behind it is actually bullshit.

Moral comes out of profit. Here is a sample: http://freemarketforever.com/201…

When it comes for moral, people simply lie on the “why” I support this. Kind of expected. Why argue with liars? Why not understand what he truly want and why he lies and why he choose that lie? The latter make more sense to me.

Well there are many reason. However, perhaps one story should illustrate my point.

One day I was reading an anti polygamy forum. I am not advocating polygamy as I detest all marriage, but I read anyway out of curiosity.

One guy blurted. We got to prohibit polygamy. In my neighbor there is still one male that doesn’t have a wife yet.

My first reaction is, so what?

So what if some guys doesn’t get laid? Yea that’s sad, but that’s his problem. Not mine. If I am rich I want to bang a lot. If I am poor, I don’t need any women.

Also if some guy don’t get laid, maybe something is wrong with him. Maybe he’s not rich yet. May be he’s not attractive enough yet. Why not let the women decide.

So what if some guy don’t get laid?

Well here is what.

The vote for that guy dictate your marital terms.

So you see. Marriage is not about what’s best for you. So many people say that marital terms are made to protect women, or protect men. No. Marital terms are there to protect that one guy that doesn’t get laid yet.

That’s the reason why we have monogamy. That’s the reason why alimony laws are financially devastating for the rich. It’s not for the men obviously. It’s not for the women either.

Many women would rather share a rich smart men than be the only one for the poor. I, as a man, would rather share a smart beautiful girl rather than be the only one for the ugly.

It’s for that one shagless guy that don’t get laid yet.

In muslim countries sex outside marriage is prohibited. So what?

Getting married doesn’t seem to be such a hassle. Yea just get married. Here’s the thing.

The interest of those in power decides marital terms.

You see why all the hatred? They want to impose their interests to you. It’s that simple. Obviously one of those interests are rationing women to them. All under non sense pretext of God’s will or even women’s interest.

Here is what max out women’s interest. Let them choose. Duh…

That’s how I hate marriage.

morals and ethics are always vaguely defined. However Shawn’s definition quite fit in.

Moral, as well as ethics, are rules we make because we like them. So the
answer of how religious people decide what’s moral is simple. Do they
like it?

Monogamy, for example. Do you like it? Not if you’re stud. But if you’re single
and don’t get any, you will like it like hell and “somehow” it’ll become morality. Somehow you will think and try to convince everyone that it’s what God’s want.

In other word, it’s just like every one else. The difference is atheists can explain the benefit to people around them. The religion uses more absurd pretexts

I think you should read all the other answers first. Like Eric. This is for the cynical:

It’s the cynical answer. I know. The more ethical answer is because it’s “fair”. However, for how “fairness” somehow becomes reality requires a little “process”. Fairness, is not just moral. It’s practical, and profitable. It took times for us to realize it, but we finally did.

The basic idea of is that under capitalism, people get rich through productivity. So it doesn’t matter how they get rich, they are benefiting everyone else.

The problem with that idea is, while seems fair and noble, is not actually how things work.

In ancient time, emperors are rich and unproductive and the people “let them” even more than people let the rich get rich now.

Why?

Emperors are strong. Some people know enough politics and enough business skills to lead. If some peasants would protest, emperors would kill them along with their families.

People are selfish. They do not max out their profit based on their income like in sunday school economy class. People maximize their profit based on their power.

Here is an easy way to see this. Deep inside, all species, including humans, just want to pass on their genes to the next. If we want to see how much power some men have, just look at the number of wives they have. Emperors have a lot. Capitalists do not. Capitalists, while rich, are not powerful, and hence don’t get “what they want” as much as emperors.

So issue is not merit. The issue is power. However, merit and power has a positive causality. To get power, you need people to agree. For people to agree you need to benefit them. That’s in a sense merit.

If we really do not like disparity of success, shouldn’t we complaint about disparity of power instead?

In fact, how power often override productively earned wealth is the very reason why people complain why the rich get richer. Complaining against the rich pays because the rich are weak and who knows we can rob them. Complaining against the powerful doesn’t.

So the question then become obvious. If the rich are weak anyway, why the mass, which are stronger, let them be rich? That seems to be the heart of the question. Forget about right and wrong. It’s not real. We’re selfish. Why do the mass let the rich be rich? Why not tax the rich to death and grab the money?

Actually they did. Ask jews, armenian, borgueis in China and tax payers in US.

But then the world stop doing that.

Let’s examine first how the world become the way it is.

300 years ago, a wise sage, Adam Smith, wrote wealth of nations. Now the best and brightest among us have choice. They can still make money productively or they can be dictators. Before the latter is the only choice. Before the only way to get truly rich is to be king. As the former start becoming lucrative, that’s what many smart people do.

Things don’t go as well as planned. Money is not equal with power. Well money is a form of power. There are far greater power than money. Namely political power.

Armenians and jews learn this the hard way. They earned money productively, cause resentment, and get killed.

However, the word seems to have a karma like behavior (though i still don’t think it’s as perfect as Buddha think it is).

Imagine the world where the productive get slaughtered. Would you bother being productive? Any society that fail to embrace free market are riddled with corruption, and political strife. Everyone is worst off.

We’re not dumb. We always come up with ways to move our self to equilibrium that’s “better”. What works in some is then tried in others. Through experience free market tend to produce good results. So the rest of the world follow and do it.

So the question of why we allow the rich to get richer is because it is toward our best interest to do so. Should we not, the best and brightest among us will become corrupt and dictators we will all pay the price.

Some may think that we shouldn’t because disparity of wealth is “bad”. Well, just look at emperors. Just look at disparity of wealth and power in socialist countries. Disparities always exist. Do we want that to happen because somebody is more productive or do we want that to happen because somebody has more gun?

Here is another way to look at it.

The smart can:
1. Be dictators
2. Be corrupt
3. Be productive

The mass can:
1. Support free market
2. Support socialism

For thousands of years we’re on 1,2 strategy. It’s natural then that we evolve into 3,2. It’s more lucrative.

Before, even though I am rich productively, I will still be affraid of being sent to some concentration camp by the powerful. Knowing that I try to be powerful, which is not very productive. It’s to the best interest of society then to guarantee my right to live and spend money as I please. As that get taken care of, I start becoming productive.

You see how the process works? You see how both businessmen and the mob benefited?

Now recently something even more interesting happen. It’s called globalization.

The best and brightest among us has the 4th option. They can live. They can move their factories to China to avoid minimum wage oppression, for example.

This put countries to be more like business. Each countries can only charge so much out of their productive members. Too much, and like customers they shop around.

Imagine the world before globalization.

I produced a light bulb. Someone else make better light bulbs. So I pay thugs to kill him. Now I sell more light bulbs. I generated more revenue and profit. If the extra money is bigger than the thugs’ cost, of course I do that.

In fact, that’s what happened in third world countries for years. Rather than spending resources productively, they spend resources bribing politicians to give them favors and quite often literally send thugs. Disparity of wealth happen anyway. Politicians get richer and richer.

It’s only natural. In a sense, it’s not too unfair. If the people are ignorance and resort to force, it’s natural that someone that’s not ignorance, namely the corrupt politicians, collect the money instead.

Political influence on biz created some form of niche that politicians simply fill, like businessmen.

Now under globalization, if I send thugs to beat up competing stores, I will still have to compete with chinese. No win solution. It doesn’t pay to pay thugs anymore.

Now those who used to be thugs and corrupt politicians obviously do not like globalization. That’s why they keep fighting for a while, become terrorists or something. But again, karma will work again. People are fed up with them. They’re getting killed. And good system, like free trades flourish again.

So the answer of why we let the rich, rich, is because they/someone else will be rich anyway even if we don’t let them. It’s just that they’ll be rich through ways not favorable to us.

Hei what about another option. I can lie. I can trick people that the government is fair and then screw the productive. Or I can trick the people that free market doesn’t work. Again, this gets difficult due to proliferation of internet. Truth prefails over falsehood thanks to abundant information.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps. The people still want to be a socialist. Well some socialism could work. Libertarian would argue it’s wrong, but I am a cynic. I care only about profits, not right and wrong.

As we see in Denmark it sort of work. However, that’s because people in Denmark is smarter. It takes skill to rob from the rich and give to ones’ self. Also it can only go so far because if they charge too much, the productive can always go somewhere else.

Most countries are not that smart. They do not know political science. Hell, they believe in religions. They do not understand that humans maximize profit. They think people are moral. They do not see that humans’ interests create morality. They think it’s God.

If I were a businessmen in that country, I would just bribe the religious leaders. Why bother being nice to the people if the people will blindly obey whatever nonsense the religious leaders spit out rather than seeing by themselves what’s good for them and whether they’re getting what they want.

This is of course what religious leaders want. That’s why, in countries like Indonesia we have pogroms against those who think differently. That’s why we have censorship that keep people in the dark. And that’s why Indonesians are not as rich as the rest of the world.

In a sense, that’s like karma too. The more ignorant the people, the poorer they will be. The more they tolerate or accept terrorism, the more terrorists will there be, raising biz costs.

After evolution and experience, the most lucrative system even for the poor is capitalism. Due to information age, everybody knows that. That’s why capitalism prefail everywhere. That’s why we let the rich getting richer. Because it’s most profitable for us, and because now we know it. Because human race has tried everything else and doesn’t perform as well as this.

That’s engrish. Not proper english.

Proper english:
No sex outside marriage (as defined by us)

Please comment if this post help you understand engrish more.
http://getrichbangbabes.com/2011/08/31/all-your-women-are-belong-to-us/

I want people to be more religious.

However rather than following all these “bad” religions. I want them to instead believe, that I, Jim Thio, is a prophet, and God wants everyone to pay me $1k every year.

Saying those 2 sentences will turn them into “believers.”

Then I want believers to have faith. So I don’t have to proof anything.

Then I want them to be vigilant against all heresy, namely those who do not believe the religion I have given them.

Trying to convert “believers” into non “believers” is a crime (once I got enough believers). I mean religion is not just personal conviction. I am losing $1k/year for each of those apostate here.

Then I want people not to ever have sex outside marriage. Here, marriage is defined to be a relationship between beautiful women and Jim Thio or somebody Jim Thio approved, usually after some political concession.

For some reason, I prefer to define marriage for the mass rather than letting the consenting parties decide. That should effectively make me the pimp all of hot babes.

I’ve heard how some competing religions pull this out to motivate people to die for them. I guess, if it work once, why shouldn’t it work again right?

Also I want them to stone those who have sex outside “marriage” as defined by Jim Thio.

For those who don’t get it:
Obviously this is a joke. Well not that I wouldn’t want that if I can. Who wouldn’t. But isn’t this how religions operate? The moral is actually to be more cynical toward religion. However, sigh…. This should get the point across more.

Someone wrote:

N that satisfies:

• Min(N) where sex=true

• (avg. date price) * N <= (price of professional sex service) * (expected # of sex acts)

but get voted down due to lack of verbal elaboration and derivation.

Lazy! No wonder our kids are failing. Teachers don’t explain enough.

Here is some more elaboration to get things straight:
N is the number of date you need to do to get laid regularly
(avg. date price) * N is total costs of such date.
(price of professional sex service) * (expected # of sex acts) is the monetary value of sex you expect from her.

So you should pay to the point that your total cost of paying is lower than the total cost of equivalent service.

The
problem with this formula is dating is more like gambling. You don’t
know when she start performing. So each date is like a bid in those
penny auction sites.

A correct decision is whether you should date one more time or not.

Here the formula becomes

I should date again and pay again if and only if

1
2
3

(avg.

 date price) <= (price of professional sex service) * (expected # of

sex acts this one additional date will improve)

Think marginal folks. You need to review marginal economics for better understanding.

I would add discounted time cost to take into account the present value, but this is the simpler formula.

Improperly understood, sexual disparity has caused mass murder, mass killing, poverty, starvation and very inefficient social contract etc. All in the name of things that don’t make sense like religions, racism, etc.

What’s the point of being productive, if you don’t make more money? What’s the point of making more money if those with power, rather than money, decide who lives, who die, or who can reproduce. Think about it.

Isn’t it normal then that so many are still killing each other rather than productively earn wealth?

First I will answer the opposite of the question. I will show how sexual disparity can actually be very positive if left to free market, or near free market system to operate. Then I’ll answer the question of what usually goes wrong with it.

Sexual disparity has a VERY IMPORTANT POSITIVE aspect rather than negative if we properly understand it. However lack of understanding of it has caused huge amount of suffering, which is the answer to the question.

Think about it. Sexual disparity is the MOST HUMANE way to evolve!

We will evolve. There will be winners and losers in the gene pool. Somebody will successfully breed and others will go extinct. It’s been like that for trillion of years. It won’t change any time soon if ever.

In fact, that’s the true purpose of life, all life, namely to outbreed your competitors. Okay that part was arguable.

However, we are descendants of those who out breed their competitors and you can bet your ass, that’s our nature. That’s what we will do whether we want it or not. That’s what all living things will do.

You can read Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene for more. All the genes that we have are there simply because those genes help us reproduce. Think about it. Our will, our self, our nature, everything is made up by genes that only want one thing, reproduce.

We can’t defy our true nature. Richard thinks we can and should but that’s where I disagree with him.

Even if you, out of sheer will, scream, I won’t be like that, it won’t make much different. Someone else will. Whoever does that will reproduce and be majority. If there is anything that all living things don’t usually fail to do is reproduce.

We will evolve. That’s our nature.

The question is, how should we evolve?

1. Killing each other like genocide?

2. Let the poor starve?

3. Let government decide (enforce monogamy, prohibits sex outside marriage, prohibits women from working, prohibit women trafficking, justified by religion, etc.)

4. Sexual disparity?

These are the economic equivalent

1. anarchy

2. let the poor starve. Won’t work either, just look at arab revolution when people are starving. People won’t just starve to death if they think they can rob richer people out of starvation.

3. command socialist economy (monogamy is effectively sex socialism)

4. and free market.

Obviously the 4th is the way to go. Being a moderate I would put 5% on third bucket but seriously. Only free market can truly provide working solution.

The key here is properly understood. If not properly understood, if we didn’t understand what the real game is, then things can go really wrong.

The truth is we are very close to totally abundant economy.

Think about it. Sexual disparity for males correlates very highly with wealth. In short, women prefer the rich. Now, in western civilization welfare program pretty much lessen that. In Asia, wealth=sexy is pretty much the absolute norm. In Chinese dating websites, men would actually display their salary to attract women. It’s that simple.

Left to the market, Bill Gates will have tons of concubines; we will evolve into homo bill gatus. Poverty will be gone.

Is this desirable? I don’t know. Should we embrace that fully? I don’t know. I’ll let you decide that. But at least 2 of our main goals that most of us can agree with, namely elimination of poverty and maximizing prosperity is within a very easy grasp just through market mechanism.

It’s important. Humans have very few goals most of us can agree with. Terrorists want islam to be the world’ religion. Many want more religious freedom. Some wants bigger government, the rest want freedom. It’s normal. Gene pool survival, and hence the creed of our very nature, is almost a zero sum game. When some want something, you can be assured that most will wanting the opposite.

Only wealth, and prosperity it represents, is not zero sum game.

Now imagine if some people vote wisely for their country and their country through free market, mixed economy, proper alignment, or whatever, got prosper. Then men in that country will attract women from the rest of the countries. Then poverty will be gone again in all countries because

1. All males will want their country to be rich too. They would change their ideology to whatever work. Free market, or whatever.

2. Should 1 doesn’t happen, they’ll be so depopulated richer countries will buy their land. Imagine a country where all the hot women emigrate to another country. The ugly is unused-able and usually are feminists anyway. The pretty are out. You see how that will affect population growth?

See. That’s a vision I have for years. I see, as many of us want, to increase humans’ prosperity through ways that fit our nature rather than against it.

We can’t eliminate poverty out of altruism. Altruism is not our nature. It just won’t work. Too much forced altruism (=socialism) and the productive will go John Galt. Actually they have more lucrative option than going John Galt. Ayn Rand live before globalization. Now, the productive can just go country shopping, picking the country with the most meritocratic rules. They do not need to go John Galt.

Now back to the question. What’s the negative of sexual disparity?

Well things can go really wrong, and in fact have been very wrong because we do not understand it.

Hell most of us do not admit it.

We keep lying to our self that love is blind, that money doesn’t buy love. Then using that lies we justify stupid solutions, like bigger government regulating sex.

So how do we deal with this sexual disparity now? Well different culture does it differently.

In western civilization, the main way is to simply ration females in equal share for everyone. Namely monogamy. You do not have to be a libertarian to see that this is a highly inefficient solution.

Just like money socialism has caused hugged poverty in china, monogamy is the biggest market distortion and the main cause of poverty in the world. Our GDP is 300 times our ancestors’ GDP before wealth of nation is produced. The cause is simple.

The poor outbreed the rich. Before, with much less money, poverty is still in check. That’s because before the rich outbreed the poor, as expected. Now the poor outbreed the rich. Before, a mere 2% tax from the rich is enough to feed all the poor. As the poor outbreed the rich, even if the rich were to spend their whole income to feed the poor it won’t be enough.

Also it’s not going to work as well anymore anyway. Free sex is legal. Women don’t want to be rationed. Predictably as free sex becomes more and more “legal” marriage is simply in decline.

The rich are moving their money to China. Socialism is over. Period. Money socialism is dying. So is this sexual socialism.

The arabs have a more conservative solution. They prohibit sex outside marriage and allow polygamy. That means only those favored by the states, get laid.

That means the rulers in Middle East are pretty much the pimp of all women. Saying no sex outside marriage is like saying you can’t reproduce without my permission.

That means everyone will want to rule everyone else. Humans will kill each other to decide who should be leader, what religion is true, and what variants of those religions are true, etc. That’s what happen in middle east.

I am not saying the 2 solutions are totally wrong. Hei we built things based on what used to work. But c’mon. The justifications for all these sexual rules are religion. Think about it. Do we ask religion when we want to lower or raise interest rate? Do we open the bible when we decide how much money supply is?

No. Why not? Because we understand economy. We do not understand sexual disparity. We keep denying it. So we lie. So we use religion.

Properly understood, we can make better social contracts. We can, for example, tax head rather than income. That’ll eliminate poverty in like one generation. In addition, we can, for example, provide free cash to those without kids. That’ll ensure that only those who are

1. Rich enough to afford kids

2. Attractive enough to attract mates.

3. Want to make the baby enough.

This is also another solution for pro/against abortion. Imagine if all kids have rich smart biological dad, would mom want to abort?

Currently monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. As sex outside marriage is more common, I expect many males to be shag less. Solution? Prohibit sex outside marriage? Well, that won’t work again. There is a far more efficient solution. Why not import them from poorer countries?

What about porn? That’s like mass produced females right?

Obviously some will scream on how I “demean women”, even though it’s not what I am trying to do. But that’s the reality. We do not understand sexual disparity. We do not understand that ugly women are not sex objects and hence, it doesn’t really make any sense why they keep bitching about women shouldn’t be ones.

If we understand, we should see that humans are naturally bigot when it comes to intersex competition. Males like to kill males and women like to kill women. The ugly that can’t be sex objects of course insist that the rest cannot too.

But we don’t understand it. We simply believe the fairy tales of feminism because we don’t understand humans’ true nature.

There are so many things we can do to use sexual disparity positively.

Improperly understood, we will just keep lying to each other, kill each other, and try to rule each other.

This is some samples of what can and have gone wrong:

Currently, ugly but diligent males are forced to support childs of the sexy through wealth redistribution. If this happen they’ll vote for conservatives that’ll eliminate welfare. No wonder they want to prohibit porn. No wonder they opposes freedom for so many others.

Without welfare, many will starve, and they’ll rebel like in the middle east.

Another that can go really wrong is that it’ll motivate people to prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage, which can result in bigger government

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://getrichbangbabes.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.

Please verify my answer. I think it’s true. I haven’t actually done any statistic but I do observe some. Not exactly double blind tests. Just observing.

We all are sex objects and we all wanna be ones. Well 99% of us at least. Well me at least would do anything to have all hot women think of me as sex object. Men usually pay for it. While women usually get paid.

So things get complicated because attraction is often more than what you are but also what you offer to get sex.

We would support a value that benefit us and prevent value that benefit those who are different than us.

I predict that, in general, more attractive people are more likely to be pro market when it comes to sex. While less attractive people are more likely to be pro states.

This is quite vague because 40% of attraction for males are political power. The way politically powerful males get laid are often through force rather than attraction.

A welfare recipient, for example, can attract women by prohibiting prostitution. Even though women would prefer mating with a richer paying males, she chose to mate with a death beat poor guy instead because that death beat poor guy can vote richer males out of mating market by prohibiting prostitution and ensuring that marriage terms would bankcrupt rich males. Also, poor guys can use his voting power to enslave productive individuals to support all his kids.

In western civilization, child support is proportional to income. Hence welfare recipients can actually “afford” even more kids than a billionaire. What he lacks in money, he have that in power over the oppressed billionaire. Women instinctively want to max out the number of grand children and pick the poor.

Should we count this as attraction or force, is arguable.

In general I would see that there is a strong causal and correlation between value and attractiveness. In fact, I see that there will be strong causal and correlation between moral value and how a person become attractive.

Beautiful women are more likely to be pro porn, sexy clothes, and sexual freedom

Unattractive women are more likely to be pro emancipation. Unattractive women are more likely to be lesbians and affirmative action is more important for them than the hotties.

Studs are less likely to oppose sex outside marriage. Singles are more likely to support monogamy and prohibition of sex outside marriage. That way they can kick out all non singles out of mating market.

In democratic countries monogamy are norms way more than in monarchy. That’s because in democratic countries singles’ opinion matters more. Sultan that sleep with different girls everyday will obviously oppose democracy and prohibition of polygamy.

Rich men are more likely to support legalization of prostitution. Poor men are more likely to prohibit that. Politically powerful men are more likely to support polygamy and oppose sex outside mariage (sex without their approval).

Poor handsome males would more likely oppose marriage. They’re more likely to think that adultery should be legal and cuckold husbands should pay for the kids nevertheless. Looking at the laws in western countries nowadays, I bet white males are pretty handsome. Also poor handsome males would oppose prostitution also to kick paying males out of mating market.

Ugly women are more likely to be pro burqha and sexy “endowed” women are more likely to support top free rules.

Ugly women in rich countries are more likely to oppose legalization of consensual women trafficking. The same way poorer males in poor countries will oppose that.

Richer males will think that consensual women trafficking are just key to resolve global poverty.

This is just prediction. Can anyone please verify? Yes, I based this on causality. What we think to be moral is whatever give us edge over others 🙂

Please help me verify rather than just voting up or down.

Oh ya, in general men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich and powerful. So you may want to take that into account. In western civilization looks may count more than wealth due to welfare. Welfare program are then effectively genocide against rich ugly males which are more likely to vote conservatives.

But that’s what makes our species unique. Winners are those who can knock off competitors and bullshit their way to do it, and sugar coat the shit. That’s how we became the smartest species on planet. We’re full of… you know, holy, sacred, sacrosanct, absolute truth, ideas, especially those regulating sex.