Of course, those who cannot compete by giving better offer are not going to just admit it by saying so. Those who demand sex laws against consensual sex will not say, "I oppose free sex because no women want me and I want to ration females to inferior males such as I am."

They're going to come up with some fairy tales justifying their position by a bunch of incorrect and irrational thoughts that are hard to disprove, such as defending "God's" will. Such believe are usually based on faith, and hence can't be argued against.

Nor will those businesses that demand subsidy and protection will say, "I am not capable or too lazy to figure out how to provide to customers better product at cheaper price than the foreigners." They're going to say that somehow it's nationalist to reduce customers’ choice in favor of their interests.

Sometimes their claims are undisprovable. However, more and more, science gain territory in answering questions soothsayers, charlatans,, and religious leaders used to say.

For example, before religious leaders simply say that the sun circles the earth. Then, whether it is true or the other way around becomes a realm of science when Copernicus started to look into it. A person like Copernicus is then killed by the Church for proofing that the Church is wrong. It's the same reason why the Pharisees kill Jesus for truthfully unmasking their hypocrisy

The same way, currently, people think that life long monogamy life style is enforced to protect women and for morality. They said that such acts are necessary to make society stable, etc.

While it's partially true that enforcement of life long monogamy can make a society stable, none of the proponent ever told us how such enforcement will stabilize society? Nor is there any discussion whether there is a more cost efficient way. So I tell you.

The real reason is because the way marriage is structured tends to ration females to males in equal share to everyone manner. Hence, marriage institution appeases poor dumb males from going berserk.

Just like the tale of earth circling the sun, science has now gained another territory on this issue.

What's marriage? What's the purpose of marriage? Religious leaders will tell you that it is there to maintain dignity, sanctity, sacredness, holiness, yadda yadda yadddaaaaaaaa.....

What's the scientific answer? Ask an anthropologist and they'll tell you that marriage is simply a form of prostitution with 2 important features.

1.       Deciding fatherhood to allow inheritance distribution. Most marriage laws have tough provision against married woman fucking other males. Such act is grand-fraud because the husband would end up supporting and inheriting his wealth to others' kids. Given that money is scarce before capitalism. Such grand larceny is then, quite naturally, punishable by death.

2.     Ensuring that every kids being born do not burden the rest of society. Before capitalism, money is scarce. For the same amount of donation the rich give, each amount given to a poor kids are that cannot be given to another poor kids. Demanding the productive to give more simply evaporate intensives to be productive.

If I lived 4000 years ago, I would agree with laws prohibiting some act of free sex. Serious. If Bob and Jane have sex and then they make kids, who are going to support their kids? There are a third party victim here, either the kid or the tax payer that would end up having to pay for those kids.

At the least, before someone starts making kids, there have to be a sponsor that says, in case kids are being made, I pay for it. Such declaration of sponsorship is called marriage. Obviously the man that want to do it are the one that will make the kid, namely the husband.

Nowadays, the 2 important marriage features are easily replaced by more convenient technological alternatives not available 4000 years ago.

If we want to decide fatherhood, we simply use DNA test. It's not too cheap, I hear, however, it's far less costly than the cumbersome marriage institution. Would you rather spend $300 for a blood test or devote your whole life in a legally binding lifelong relationship where governments become a third party?

What about the second cause? Ensuring that every kids being born are well taken care of? Well, marriage is no longer a good answer. Why?

There is a hidden motive why many people want you to get married. Marriage nowadays has to be monogamy. One man, one wife. Hey, that sounds like equal share for everyone scheme. That's communism! If sex is not regulated, women will prefer the rich. Males, on the other hand, will aim for quantity. Of course, the other way around works too. Women sometimes want several males, and males obviously look for quality feature such as beauty.

For peacock, peahen look for the peacock with longest tail. That's how sexual selection works for peacock. For humans, woman pick rich smart males.

Women prefer the rich. So, if sex is deregulated, richer males with mate with more females. Obviously poor dumb males will oppose this.

Ugly women would oppose this too. That's because uglier women will have harder time to extract money and sperm from rich smart males. That means, the son of ugly women will have worse gene and less money and will not survive well through sexual selection. So ugly women that survive in the gene pool nowadays are ugly womyn that got this instinctive negative preferences against porn.

Basically, ugly women will oppose any public display of higher quality specimen that'll set a new standard they can't meet.

Now, what does this has anything to do with supporting kids?

Whether tax payer end up supporting kids or not depends mainly on the males' wealth rather than the males' marital status. Richer males with shaky commitments tend to provide for their kids way more than poor males with the strongest commitment.

If we really want to prevent people making kids without affording it, whether they're willing or not, we'll simply do the same thing we do to prevent people from committing other non victimless act. To prevent thieves, we criminalize stealing. Hence, to prevent people making kids they can't afford, we'll simply criminalize making more kids then what a person can afford.

No body, including the poor, should have more houses, or cars than what they can afford. Why should they have more kids than what they can afford?

However, even that is not necessary because women prefer the rich anyway. Even without such regulation, chance is top 1% of the richest males in the world will mate with the top 10% of the prettiest women. Then the top 10% will mate with the top 30%. If the rest practice monogamy, then all women will have choice of a male rich enough to support her.

Poor males, would rather share a prettier woman than exclusively want one he can't afford anyway. Such males prefer to use prostitutes, with condom or have some free sex with condom. I know, I was poor. See, it's not that big of the deal.

Marriage, especially, the life long monogamous marriage, tends to ration females to less desirable, usually poor dumb males. This makes the poor males out breed the rich and productive males.

Hence, enforcement of marriage laws and laws against consensual sex actually exaggerate the problem of financially unsupported kids.

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.