Marriage vs Pay for Sex

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Marriage vs Pay for Sex| Gambler/game theory perspective

1. She left. Marriage, she got half your money and fuck your bully and commies. Pay for sex? She left. You stop paying. Period.

2. She stays. Marriage? Cost half your money and she run your life. Also you must be “loyal”. Can’t fuck around. Pay for sex? You can order her to do 3 some.

3. She likes you. Marriage. Cost half your money and monogamy. Also even if she likes you, the fact that now she can fuck milk men and get your money anyway is an option that’s tricky. Pay for sex. If she likes you enough to fuck you for free, paying won’t hurt.

4. She doesn’t like you. Marriage…. She will pretend to like you so you marry her and then leave you. Pay for sex? She can pretend all you want. You pay based on performance.

More honesty. Worse come to worse, she really doesn’t like you and offering money don’t change that. You just save money. It seems that marriage is strictly dominated in all situation compared to sugar relationship. So why would anyone still want to get married?

Government Cartel Up

Cry. Makes me cry. But then again, this cartel will fail. We need just tiny nations like seyschelles charging 0% income tax and that’s it. The whole cartel will crumble.

No cheap thrills for Amazon, FB and other gaints.
https://9gag.com/gag/anQAwvL

Income tax punish innocent productive individuals. Hell, I wouldn’t like income tax if I were a commie. Ancient communists complain about land distribution. In china, poor farmers don’t have land and work for landlords.

In modern USA, workers are taxed like fuck and the money is used to improve land value that benefit landlords. Income tax is neither capitalistic or socialist. Both should hate income tax.

Understanding Non Transactional Relationship

I am trying to understand how non transactional relationship works. Say relationship is not transactional and women pick men strictly based on who they like. So our species are like peacocks.

What about if all women prefer Brad Pitt? How the hell I can compete with Brad Pitt or Leonardo de Caprio?

If relationship is NOT transactional, every women will pick Brad Pitt then. Why would anyone pick me, or you, or any of us?

Someone points out that Brad Pitt doesn’t offer loyalty.

There are 2 problems with that argument.

1. What does loyalty mean? Not leaving the woman or the woman is the only one? Both can mean loyalty. I think the second one means monogamy but people calling it loyalty just want to deliberately obfuscate words. Also all men, including Brad Pitt, want multiple women.

2. Even if loyalty means monogamy, a very strange choice of words. This presumes that women want to be the only one way above how much they want much more handsome and richer men. My understanding of evolutionary psychology says the truth is the opposite.

You see why this doesn’t make sense? Women pick most of us because of lack of choices. Namely, they can’t choose better guys.

In fact, this is what most males do in western civilization.

In marriage, we can only pick singles. That is, we remove all men that already have a spouse from marriage market. Why? Because those that are “taken” are usually better competitors.

This used to work just fine when marriage was important. Now, rich guys can know who their children are through cheap paternity tests and most children are born out of wedlock. Keeping marriage monogamy is like building a dam with nets.

Another arguments in favor of monogamy is to reduce incel population. The idea is that if too many guys can’t find girlfriend or wife, the society will collapse. The problem is 30% of guys under 30 in US is incel anyway.

For societies not to collapse, it makes way more sense that the incels are the one not contributing to the economy. Making transactional sex illegal keep many productive people incel. It actually increase numbers of incels.

Why do we have racism in public sector?

We have racism in Indonesia. However, racism in Indonesia is, fortunately, confined only to the government. Public universities, for example, actively discriminate against Chinese.

My dad told me he managed to get in because when Chinese are forced to change their name to something Indonesian sounding, the officials can no longer differentiate them. They can differentiate us using different tricks now and only 5% of Chinese can get into public university. Without discrimination, the number is 70%.

However, there is no discrimination in public sector. Anyone get rich mainly on merit. And because government sector is small anyway given that we’re a poor country, things sort of work out.

Oppressed minorities, like the Chinese can control 70% of the economy even though there are only 2% of us. At least, that’s what anti themselves say. I taught my kids to be businessmen and do it online to stay the fuck out of racism and bigotry.

In USA, even private sectors promote racism by firing people that disagree with woke equality nonsense.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo

And I have no idea why. What is google’s motive? Why would any private companies care about nonsense like diversity and equality? Shouldn’t they compete like fuck against one another?

Shouldn’t companies that hire people based on anything besides merit go out of business. Why do private universities and private companies care about diversities? How does that serve their bottom lines?

When is Correlation More Important than Causation?

Correlation doesn’t imply causation. However, when does it matter?

For example, say you observe horse race. You see that horses with black furs are more likely to win than horses with red fur. There are many explanation why this is so.

However, if you just want to bet on horses, you probably don’t care. Here, correlation is all that matters.

However, if you are a horse trainer, you may want to understand the cause of black horses winning more. Perhaps black horses eat more carrots or something.

So when do we care and do we not?

Are there moderate muslims?

Some people ask if there is a moderate muslim. I am not defending muslims here. I am not one of them and to be honest? I don’t like religions in general.

But here in Indonesia I can pay women for sex legally. I can cohabit with them legally. I can do so with 2-5 women and I will not run into anti polygamy laws or anti prostitution laws ever.

I can fuck those girls, treat the like wives and the government is not going to declare I am married. Child support is reasonable. We just negotiate among ourselves. Close to private marriage.

I think both europeans and muslims have their own religion. Europeans religion is not christianity. No no no. Christianity is just a mask for their true religion, monogamy and equality.

Every time there is a way for a richer smarter men to get more women, suddenly it’s bad, it’s exploitation, you can’t have that. One the other hand if women choose to be someone poor, they get rewarded with welfare.

As long as it’s monogamy, it’s “love” It doesn’t matter that 90% of black kids are born without father figure. It doesn’t matter that kids are born out of welfare costing tax payers money.

And when people choose to mess up their life and their descendants life, by you know, not picking mensa rich sex partners to produce children, suddenly they get rewarded by welfare.

Western civilization is racist against race that is actually doing better than them. The jews, the asians, are discriminated against. But they bend over backward for race that are more likely to mess up their own life.

And they are just as extremist as those muslims. Okay Taliban sucks. But here, I see at least the muslims have common sense. They live me alone and understand women prefer the rich.