Promoting Consensual Commercial Sex

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Ok, I’m willing to cut you a bit of slack on the “women trafficking” and the “Germans hate Jews” remark, as being difficulties with an unfamiliar language.  For future reference, when used as a verb (as you did), “traffic” refers to commercial dealings.  In other words, buying and selling.  Trafficking in human beings is, by libertarian standards, about as wrong as you can get.  A better choice of words would be “open borders” or “free immigration.”  If you’re referring to the people who arrange cross-border matches, “marriage broker” would be a better term.  (Though I should warn you that marriage brokers have acquired their own bad reputation.)

I see your concern. I think choices of words are quite difficult here.

About open border and free immigration as a word, it’s tricky. Women cannot just immigrate to richer countries for being sex worker and while I think they should be allowed to, I am not aiming to promote open border for now. It will happen. Don’t worry. With globalization, job move overseas and soon salary differences will get reduced, reducing political will to prevent immigration. However, I must reluctantly admit that voters in rich countries did something right in making their country rich. Simply forcing voters in those countries to unconditionally accept immigration would undermine intensive for people in poor countries to vote for free market too. So I think a moderate slower approach to get that done through globalization is better than campaigning against truly open border.

About “marriage broker”, well, I don’t promote marriage. To me, marriage implies governments approval while I believe that all consensual sex should be equally approved.

The majority of women “trafficking traveling for mate to richer countries” is of course, consensual. I know that through reasoning. When market value difference is too high, it doesn’t make sense to force people. Much easier to trade consensually. You can see the report on the web easily. Yes traffic refers to commercial dealings. All sex is a commercial dealing. Commercial usually means consensual. Saying consensual women trafficking is like saying I just buy a bread consensually. Of course I buy the bread consensually. That’s what I want to promote. Consensual commercialized everything including sex.

I think I am the one that should be more of understanding rather than talking in my own lingo. Yea, trafficking has commercial connotation. I like to think that everything is a commercial trade. Maybe because I am a businessman.

Quote
Regarding Nazi Germany and the Jews, yes, during that period, Jews were vilified, singled out for persecution, and eventually slaughtered in large numbers.  On the other hand, this indicates that before the rise of the Nazis, Germany had a large Jewish population…unlike some other countries which actively opposed their immigration.  This suggests that pre-Nazi Germany was quite a bit more cosmopolitan and civilized than you might suppose.

I have nothing against German. EVERY people that I know of hate some more financially successful minority groups. I used German as a sample but really, seen from here, I think many people that oppose individual freedom is about as evil as Nazi. In a sense that if they have the same power with Nazi, they would have done the same or even worst, as we can see Lenin, Mao, and young Turks did.

Also, during 1930, German lose a lot of money in war. Also they couldn’t regain their wealth through trade because of protectionism practiced by the other countries. Here they were a country in the middle of assholes that make money through war rather than through productivity, what would you do? The true evil is those opposing globalization. With globalization, intensive to wage war will be much less.

To me, saying that porn, prostitution, cohabitation, foreign bride, should be prosecuted make as much sense (or non sense) as saying that Jews should be prosecuted. The statements are based on prejudices rather than proper understanding. Also bigots would embrace the belief anyway for the same reason that will take too long to explain.

Now, I am going to speak “YOUR language” as I have observed.

Ever heard the idea that men can never understand women? There are many jokes about it, like how books about “understanding women” is empty, etc. I think it’s a running gags.

The truth is men can understand EVERY OBJECT, including, if not especially, women namely through reason.

The problem is proper understanding of humans’ sexual selection can lead to really really politically incorrect conclusion. If we understand that men prefer the pretty and women prefer the rich, for example, it would justify legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and consensual  (I can’t say trafficking, so ugh, traveling across country borders to find mate with help of people smugglers). All those are politically incorrect because it would drive many uncompetitive voters (poorer males, uglier females) out of the gene pool.

So males then pretend that they do not understand women so they can “protect” women against women’s own consent under the pretext that no women could possibly want that anyway. The truth is, the number of women that want to do consensual crimes, if it were legal, is TOO MANY, and that’s why it’s prohibited.

So, societies fed us with the wrong model to understand sex. Sex is then reduced to confusing “romance” that doesn’t make sense. If people want to be romantic, that’s fine. But we have strong imbalanced information. Cinderella’s stories are taught to children, perhaps as mandatory reading. Yet more straight forward porn where women are paid to get nekkid is declared “dangerous for minor” or even everyone.

Even on sanitized literature there are glimpse on humans’ sexual selection for those curious enough. Why do the pretty Cinderella and the rich prince happen to like each other anyway is not usually explained (hint: because the prince prefer the pretty and Cinderella prefer the rich). I once being reported to cops for being arrogant by an ex boy friend that bitch about how he truly loved the girl I walked with. Part of me was angry. He loved her, whatever that means, so what? But part of me see the confusion. Somehow many males think that women prefer males that love her, rather than a richer smarter males that do not even want to marry her. Many males of course have a really hard time to understand women as long as they use incorrect model.

So what’s the correct model? Simple. Go back to science. Evolutionary biology, game theory, and many other things tell us how to predict sexual selection on many creatures including human. Don’t trust me. Read “red queen”, “seflish gene”, “evolution of desire.” It’ll be too long to explain but here is what I think is the “basic” principle.

1. Peahen like peacock with longest tail. The peahen do not get any resources by mating with peacock with longest tail. However, those peahen would produce “sexier” sons and daughter with the same hardwired preference to longer tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
2. Humans do not grow elaborate tails. Human males, grow elaborate, guess what? Elaborate wealth. Just like I like pretty women even though I won’t get prettier by mating with them, women prefer the rich even if the rich pay her the same amount of money. In addition, richer males, are often willing to pay MORE, rather than LESS, money for pretty women.

Am I being too technical?

Quote
Regarding forum spamming and playing by “the other side’s” rules, I stand by my statements.

It doesn’t matter how true evolution theory and game theory is though on humans’ sexual selection. As I said, it’s politically incorrect. People would fight toes and nails, with religions.vague reasoning and censorship to prevent the idea from spreading. Beliefs tend to be self fulfilling when governments get involved. So, you still think we should leave black hat method out of the table despite what the other side will do? I’ll think about it. I am going white hat my self in my biz. Google search engine is too tough to trick nowadays. Maybe you’re right. But just to let you know what we’re up against.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.