What are your stance with feminists?

Our stance is close to libertarian feminists. We believe that all humans, including, women are free to do whatever they want with their body. However, all humans, including males, are also free to do whatever they want to their money.

We're against government's excessive regulation on consensual acts. For example, should women be allowed to get pregnancy leave? That's something the market can take care off.

We'll help promote any cause if we believe such causes will improve meritocracy and fairness. As far as we know, we don't see why someone that work less and produce less, for any reason, deserve the same money.

Are you against females?

No. Surprise surprise. The main reason why we make this websites are to promote females choice and happiness.

You see, if a male is desirable by many females, he want females to have as many choices as possible. When females can choose, they choose the most desirable male. Only less desirable lesser cocks that want females to have less choice.

Deregulation of sex will increase the variety of offers males give to females. This leads to more choices and happiness to females.

Many people argue that sex regulation against consensual acts is there to protect females' interest. We think females interest are best served by females' choice.

For example, supporting several females financially is also illegal under anti polygamy law. People consider females that share a female as victim of financial pressure. The truth is, if females cannot choose to share a male, what's the alternative? How many females are hurt by violent poor husband?

People resort to violence and other negative intensives if they are determined to motivate yet do not have positive intensives to offer. Poorer dumber males are more likely to use violent against females.

Some would argue that females are nevertheless better of being the only one with a poor dumb male than sharing a loving billionaire, for example. Hence, most males agree to laws discouraging billionaire from having multiple mistresses or wives. For the argument to be true, the females must be dumb enough to choose what's best for them. We disagree.

Prostitution and porn, for example, is often prohibited under the pretext of serving females interest. Even though prostitution can be very consensual, people simply argue that females become prostitute due to financial pressure and hence the act is inconsensual and should be prohibited for females' interest.

However, we know that a person is rarely made better off by taking away choices. A person can only be made better off by giving alternatives. Prohibiting prostitution will not make females better of. Giving them job and welfare might. Out of this, opponent of prostitution would argue that government should give females welfare and job and prohibit prostitution. Always it goes somewhere toward bigger government.

The problem with this argument is that whether a female has job and money, she'll still be better of if she has a choice to be prostitute too. A choice almost always help. Taking away choice always hurt.

Now, choices are usually good, in the hand of smart humans. People often argue that females cannot handle freedom given to them and will be better of un-free. After all, why do they want to share a male anyway if they can be the only one for another? They think it doesn't make sense? It's freedom gone wrong, like drugs, not wearing seatbelt, etc. There must be fraud. I thought like them too. Now I disagree.

Actually, something fishy happen when government prohibit us from having choices under the pretext of our own interest. We can go through great length but not here.

Here, I haven't used my special knowledge of what's typical females interest is. I just use basic common sense assumption that choices are good. For deregulation of sex to serve females' interest, I only need to assume that females are smart enough to choose her own interest.

I do have some knowledge of what females want as someone that have read a lot of theories and test them out. To understand it, we need to forgo a very popular assumption that has been taken as self evident all this time.

With plenty of evidence, men are not equal. Men are not equally smart, rich, famous, understanding, funny, and... desirable. Women would rather share a highly desirable (in a sense superior) cotams than be the only one for poor dumb males.

Now, based on evolution theory, females instinctive preferences are aimed at getting a high quality Cotam. Our instincts are built to survive in the gene pool and the main thing that females need to do to survive in the gene pool is to get impaled by a Cotam.

So, it's not true that females choose to share a rich male due to financial pressure. Given choices without monetary intensives females can still choose to share a rich male than being the only one for a poor one. We know rich males that sleep with thousands of females. Rich females aim for males that are even richer. Wealth is males way to signal genetic quality.

If you're a male, waving your wealth in front of a female will be more effective in attracting her than keep spending a lot of money buying her stuff. Ever wonder why males buy shiny car and boom boxes? If you're a male, you should pay me $1 million for this tip.

The same way females have many consensual intensives to be prostitutes or mistress outside economic pressures. If that female insist on being a monogamous wife, she'll have to settle for a low quality cock. However, if she becomes a prostitute in a night club, she'll make more money while being impaled by richer males.

Given equal amount of money, or no money paid, females will choose to mate with richer males. So, a male earning $100,000.00 dollar a year supporting 10 wives will still give better offer than a male earning $10,000.00 supporting 1 wife. That's because the richer males are more likely to have better genes that females like. Now it's too long to explain what females want in this, but that should give some pictures.

Of course if a person A, select an option B, based on various consensual motive C1, C2, C3,... it's always easy to pick one of the motive, argue that the motive is not consensual and should be prohibited.

Females that are not under financial pressure want rich males for their Cotam. Yet, males that mate with many females take away females from competitors with less to offer. So the lesser cocks simply argue that females share a male due to "economic pressure", which they then incorrectly argue to be in-consensual.

If a female choose you consensually, people says she is forced by economic pressure and put you to jail. Then she has to settle for lesser males. Sneaky ha?

Again, people would argue against my special knowledge on what females want. I am tired of arguing. Tell you what. Why not let the females choose?

Also, you'd better try to learn reality objectively if you want to be successful in getting sex partners you want and achieve happiness. Be stubborn at your own risk.

Will deregulation of sex benefit females?

Definitely. There are two sure kill way to see this. You see, the more consensual offers females receive, the more choice females have. Regulation on consensual sexes prohibits many consensual offers that many females might prefer than the offer they currently take.

1. Females will have more choices if sex is deregulated. They can choose to be mistresses of rich males. They can choose to be the only one for poor dumb males. They can choose to have several males (though females rarely want it). It's up to the females.
2. Females consent will matter more. Under monogamy restrictions, every male will get a female anyway no matter how undesirable they are. When sex is deregulated, males' gene pool survival will depend on females choice. Females will be the one deciding the direction of evolution. How's that for girls' power.

Males that can give better offers to females will get more females and survive better in the gene pool. Males that cannot, or will not, will be shag less. It's like any business. Better business with more to offer get more customers. You wouldn't think a restriction on what businesses can offer to customers will likely to profit customers do you?

While the sure kill way is there for the logically oriented, there are other ways to see this in huge magnitude.

In Pakistan, women are burned alive by their husband. Why?

The husbands fear that the woman might leave him. So they burn her. Wife beating are more common among dumb and poor males. Can you imagine the like of Hugh Hefner beating up or burning up his mistresses? Why would he? He has a lot.

Less desirable cocks cannot give positive offers that can compete with what Cotams' can offer. So they use negative intensives, such as fear of being burned to keep females. They also discourage richer males from being available to females by various sex regulations. Those regulations come in the form of anti polygamy laws and anti prostitution laws.

Females are, very arguably, better off being a mistress for a loving rich stud than be the only one for such males.

While possibly not as devoted as the poor and undesirable males, Desirable males use positive intensive to attract females. Those intensives are either money, or better genetic codes, or anything else positive.

Sex regulation effectively ration females to less desirable males. Those females will face beating, torture, burning, even death by husbands that cannot give better offers the rich can. Still think females are better of the way government regulate sex?

Do you support polygamy?

Not really. It's not the poly that we're concern. It's the gamy. Women face distress in all kind of marriage. We oppose monogamy more than polygamy, but agree that both are consensual options that'll improve women's choices.

Many societies that support polygamy, just like any other society, are ruled by lesser cocks. So they utilize many form of force against females too. The Muslims in Taliban, for example, prohibit women from working. In contrast, true Cotams would want women to be able to make money too. The richer the females, the cheaper they are. This is not something embraced by lesser cocks.

Also it's difficult, in many cultures, for women to get divorced, hence, the reason why we hate marriage. During Taliban era in Afganistan, women cannot work on strip club or parade naked on the street to promote her reproductive assets. This limit women's exposure and hence, offers from rich smart males. American troops are also governed by lesser cocks. Hence, they haven't change this all the way.

Nevertheless, it is well understood that women would rather share a high quality male than be the only one for a low quality one. Also life long legal commitment might turn some people on consensually. So, we think any form of consensual sex should be legalized, including polygamy, polyandry, and free sex.

Some people argue that females will be "happier" if they are the only one and hence, choices involving one males and many females, (or via versa) need to be heavily discouraged, or prohibitied. This argument utilize the opinion that females are too stupid to choose for themselves what's best for them.

Why does poor males' philosophy decides what we believe of females' interest? Why not let the females choose? If all females choose the best and brightest, that's because they are happier with that choice.

It's true that a man's wealth will be distributed when he has more wives. But a distributed wealth does not mean lesser wealth. Man are not equally wealthy. A mistress of a billionaire would earn more than a wife of a dish washer.

Another argument of women's picking wealthier males are because women' are forced to it due to economic constraint. It's not true. Given the same monetary offer, women would still choose the richer male due to higher quality genetic code the rich can give.

Nevertheless, even if it's true, taking away choices from females or discouraging males from giving consensual offers to females will always hurt rather than help.

Even if polygamy hurt women, which is not the case if it's consensual, prohibition is not the way to go.

Is discarding the law against polygamy the main purpose of this website?

No. Polygamy, like any other "gamy" is heavily regulated by government. Whether you want to live with one or several sex partners should be up to you. Other ways that'll work great is the reshaping of child support law to ensure that it's proportional to a child's need, rather than a man's wealth will help much more.

If child support law is not linked to a man's wealth, wealthy men will become promiscuous and females will have more choices. As long as the offers are consensual, females won't get hurt with more choices.  To hell with anti polygamy laws. Who wants to get married anyway?

Linking child support, alimony and palimony to man's wealth actually force females that want to have sex and procreate in exchange of some form of financial commitment, to demand higher commitment from richer males. Females that have sex for money will have to sell her body for higher price to richer males.

This may not be the best pricing strategy for females. If you own a department store, you'll sell cheaper to more desirable outlets to maximize your profit. Here females are told to sell more expensively to more desirable males. That's crazy.

Alternatively, government can also legalize prostitution. Legalizing prostitution give females a choice to support her self without having to compete in fields males are doing better, such as engineering. Of course, females still have choices to be engineers or anything they want. It's just that now females have more choices.

What about women's dignity?

I am not an expert on soft hard to measure aspects of life such as "dignity". It's so easy to argue either way.

However, enforcement of monogamous marriage hurt women dignity.

You see, women are made to promise to respect her husband. Under monogamy, half of the women would end up being with someone dumber and poorer than her. Now, expecting someone to respect someone else dumber and poorer than her simply because he is a male would hurt women's dignity right?

Why prohibition on consensual acts hurt the good guys and females in general?

When consensual acts are prohibited, smart people with inner tendency to be productive will vanish. The smart and evil will still achieve greatness anyway, through consensual means.

Prohibit capitalism, and the smart will still get rich,... through dictatorship, corruption, etc. Prohibit prostitution, and the smart and rich still have many girlfriends, silently, while paying politicians to fool the rest of the population.

Hence, the good guys die and the bad guy lives. Women that choose the good guys are out of the gene pool too. Hence, women then evolve preference for the bad guys.

There is another reason why prohibition is not usually the way to go for many consensual acts. The good and productive obey the law because they have much more to lose in breaking it.

The poor and parasitic will risk getting caught because they have little to lose. So prohibition put more restraint against the good guys than the bad. The impact is predictable.

Prohibition of gun do not eliminate gun. It simply moves gun to the hand of criminals or politician. Prohibition of drug do not eliminate drug. It simply let the crooks handle it. Prohibition of prostitution do not eliminate it. It simply drive prostitution underground where sexual slavery, forced sexual relationship, STD, child selling, rape, occurs with impunity. Prohibition of stealing works! But government simply legalized that in the form of welfare.

The same way, norms and laws against males' promiscuity and polygamy will not stop it. There are more females than males. Many males are not capable to support a family without some form of welfare. Be it explicit welfares, or implicit ones, such as jobs creation, protection from foreign competitors, minimum wages, subsidized public school, and affirmative action. Even if they can, females may still choose to pick even richer males.

It'll happen anyway, and now, the abusive, poor, and violent are the one doing it. Some husband are so poor, yet insist on having multiple wives. So they burn the first one to get another.

There are plenty of loving multi millionaires, like Hugh Hefner, that would be glad to have those women as mistresses as long as the females feel like it. But those billionaires are not promiscuous due to various sex laws and norms. Those who do will get sued with large amount of child support, alimony, and palimony, which are conveniently set proportional to a man's wealth.

Do you think people should get married?

No. But it's up to them. Marriage is an obsolete institution. In ancient time, food is scarce. Women need money, and rich males want inheritance. The way to get inheritance is to make a deal to a female. Basically the males' offer is "I'll support you and inherit my wealth to your kids, but you promise not to have sex with other males."

That's the whole point of anti adultery laws in ancient time. Making sure your money goes to your kids. That's the whole reason behind males' jealousy. To keep his money.

So that's what marriage was all about in the past. Distributing inheritance to the right kid.

Now, if a male want to know whether a kid is his father, he can simply do blood test. Contraception also ensure that women do not always have to risk pregnancy by having sex. Killing women that commit adultery is like killing gnats with cannon.

The purpose of marriage has shift to females rationing. Discouraging sex, except when done under life long monogamous relationship effectively ration females to poor males. Marriage is no longer consensual due to many laws discouraging extra marital reproduction.

Which is why we do not encourage marriage.

When a female consensually choose to be a mistress for a rich male, people call it economic pressure that should be prohibited. If a female is trapped in a marriage too expensive to get out, people simply shrug of blaming the female.

Why there are some feminists group that are offended with the idea?

I am not very familiar with feminists ideas. There are 2 kind that I know. The first is a libertarian feminists. These women want women to have as many choices as they can get. I think this type, as any libertarian, will agree with what I write.

The second kind is the radical feminists promoting gender equality. They believes women should choose as long as women choose their political agenda. These type of feminists want prohibition of porn, prostitution and polygamy which they believe to have put women in their place.

However, they also consistently oppose marriage in general. Which I agree.

The third kind is ugly feminists.

When disparity of wealth exist among males, lesser cocks argue the system is unfair. The same way, when disparity of wealth exist among the sexes, ugly females would blame males, capitalism, etc.

These are usually ugly females that is out competed by superior specimens. These type may not like my idea.

I am not sexist. If some female want to make a lot of money so they can attract more females, they should have a right to do so.

In fact, females are not much dumber than males. It's just that males vary in intelligence more. That's why most of the top people in any field are males, giving the impression that males are superior.

The truth is Zhuge Liang cannot beat up a single foot soldier, and Guan Yu is not a good strategist. Mike Tyson is not smart, and Bill Gates' punch is light. Those people simply be the best at what they're best at.

Many females are actually smarter than most males. It doesn't make sense to give more chance to a person because he is a male.

In fact, true smart rich Cotams would like females to be rich too. The richer the females, the cheaper they are. Rich females seek males that are even richer.

It's just that females did not survive well in the gene pool by following that strategy. In particular, this lack of evolutionary intensive is hard wired in our genes.

1. Females do not become sexier no matter how wealthy they are. Think Martha Steward? Of course, I admire her, but not in a sexual way. But still this means females have less intensive to be rich.
2. Females sexual desirability drops quickly as a function of age. So a female might find more satisfaction in life by having sex quickly before she expired rather than working hard to make money first, which they're not good anyway.
3. Males are willing to pay big bucks for females sexual favor. Virginity can be auctioned of at eBay at $80,000.00. So this lessen females' intensive to say, be engineers. Many billionaires would love to rent a wife rather than committing himself to a life long marriage. A commitment that both will break latter anyway.
4. Unlike males, females are more willing to sacrifice quantity for quality, while males are the other way around.

Again, I am not trying to put women in their place. However if they want to place themselves, it's up to them. Women can choose to become anyone they want. They still should have a choice to make money by sexuality too. If they want to be prostitutes, it's up to them.

Because women have more choices than males (who want to hire a male prostitute?), it's natural that women don't strive as hard, or hard wired enough, for man's oriented job. So they also shouldn't complaint if on average they do not make as much money as males in males dominated jobs.

Also, gender gap in salary do not necessarily come from discrimination. The same way, gender gap in life expectancy is not because males are discriminated. If females do not earn as much money as males, it's not that something is wrong with the system. It's just natural expectation to anyone that ain't got the ball.

If government protect secretarial jobs from foreign competitors while forcing programmers and businessmen to compete toe to toe with foreign competitors, that's sexual discrimination against males.

I believe deregulation of sex will give more choices to females. More choices will benefit all females. So I am counting on females opinion to support it.

Of course, as long as the majority of less desirable males decide what's females' interests are, black will become white and via versa.

When a woman happily share Hugh Hefner, people say those women are "victim" of shared love. Notice we do not expect males that knowingly share a female as a victim. We just think that this female must be very pretty.

The same goes to women that show up naked in magazine or become high class prostitutes. Theories are written to depict females that consensually and beneficially agree to mutually beneficial propositions as "victims".

Yet when a wife have a hard time getting a divorce because her husband/boyfriend force her from it, society call that act as "love".

Societies simply declare that the women is wrong for wanting to leave or wanting to have sex outside marriage. How can someone is wrong in choosing what to do with her own body?

Societies blame promiscuous males way more than husbands that burn or beat up their wives. The latter are often tolerated more as "devoted" and understood.

If a male can attract so many females, he must be very attractive for females. Hence, it's unlikely the females are the victim. Yet society acts as if the females are the victim.

Those that need to use excessive effort, force, or harassing techniques to get females are the one less attractive. Yet societies act as if the females are lucky to have such devoted males that want her so much.

What are the other sources that women might be better of without sex regulation?

Sure: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0008

For comment, link exchange request from related website, please email comment@CocksoftheAlphaMales.Com. In particular I need more sources to strengthen or reconsider my points.

Get plenty of tips to survive in the gene pool from http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com. Primitive affiliate programs are available. From the same author that brought you http://HowtoLearnMath.com.