|
|
|
|
Why do many people believe sex regulation promote females interest?You know what, I was one of them too. I didn't know. I thought it's really for females interest. Things don't fit in on many areas. For example, how in the earth prohibiting some form of mutually consensual acts can in anyway protect someone's right? As long as the offers are consensual, how in the earth women's interest or right be in anyway violated? What about if some women want multiple husbands? What about if some women want to choose males with many females? We tolerate males with many girlfriends. Why not males that financially support his girlfriends with his own money? Why such males have to face jail time due to prostitution or polygamy laws? On the other hand, I thought how can so many people are "wrong"? There are three main reasons I found out.
How do misunderstanding leads to heavy sexual selection regulation?First misunderstanding. Males and females want different thing. Each think the other want the same thing as they want. Have you ever heard an argument, let's put your self in her/his shoes and see how you would feel? The problem with that argument is that we share different interests and instinctively feel differently. As a male, would I rather share a high quality sex partner than be the only one for a less pretty yet more devoted ones? I don't. Females don't vary in quality as much and males satisfaction is more of a function of the quantity of females. Males vary in quality greatly and females think differently and would choose differently. In fact, if everything else is equal, females often heuristically conclude lack of devotion as signals of high quality at least in the beginning of courtship where prima facie influenced everything. Hence, when two males are equally rich, handsome, famous, etc. females often pick the one already with other females and look less interested. It's the same reason why we pick full restaurants or read best seller books. How do prejudice leads to females' rationing?The second even more important reason is prejudice. “Opinions based on prejudiced are held with the greatest violent.” - Hebrew Proverb What is prejudice? Say a person due to subjectivity would like the world to support a certain act, such as elimination of an ethnic group, intervention in economy, restriction of immigration, or mitigation of abundance lazes faihre capitalism, slaughtering of opposing opinions or anything. That person will work really hard to ensure that the justification of such act is believed. Now, the justification is not scientific, so it cannot be disproved. Tough luck for the defendant. It cannot be verified, but it can still be convincing because many have vested interest in such acts. The justification is a pretext. Often, the real motives are very dark, politically incorrect, and embarrassing while the pretext doesn't make sense. The real motives behind sex regulation is females rationing. The real reason behind calling greed is evil is lack of sexual desirability of males that cannot make a lot of money. Those losers want the rabbits to wait for the turtles so they don't look too bad. Simply put, achieving success offend losers. Hence, the more those that support the pretext have all intensives to support the pretext. Scientific truth often speak by itself. Prejudiced opinion need to be heavily defended. Hence, we got inquisition, religious prosecution, etc. The real cause why we are led to believe that sex regulation benefits females are because those regulation serve the interest of a lot of poor dumb less desirable males. Under democracy, what we know about what females want is based on the opinion of less desirable males. Without regulation on consensual sex, only top 25% of males population will be "chosen" by females. The rest share public utilities, which is also prohibited under anti prostitution act. Poor dumb males want to get a share of females. So they want sex to be regulated to discourage high quality rich males from being available to females. Of course, they're not going to admit that as the real reason. They'll use anything from bible, to vague unscientific notions such as "immoral" to justify their point. What can I say? Certain words are so vague it's hardly useful for any argument. Words like good, bad, immoral, original purpose, are all very vague. Those arguments are called Hypnotic Language Pattern. Those words exist only in our subjective reality. Most religion and philosophy that are not scientific fit this category. They can be interpreted in anyways that support any point. For example, can you imagine a Jewish scripture being used to slaughter Jews by a group of people worshipping a Jewish God? Well, it happened. There is no limit on how stuffs can be twisted in this world. An NLP expert told me that some people can argue that Hitler is Jewish hero. How? Well, they mumble something that Hitler make the capitalistic Jewish to learn spirituality. I felt a churn when I hear the argument. It gives a whole new meaning to the word "Seek and you shall find." However, I can see how many would believe it. After all, how many of us deviate from what's naturally our interest under a believe that such deviation will do us good in the after life. The thing is, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, prejudice can make many people believe it. Ridiculous arguments can really bite. Politicians know this all along. They maintain the believe that serve their interest by blocking information that challenge it. Copernicus and Gnostics are killed for challenging the opinion of the Catolic church. Salman Rusdie are hunted for having written a book challenging a few fundamental Muslims' doctrines. In Indonesia, a scientific report that most teenage Indonesian have pre-marital sex is banned. The researcher, that got awards from an Indonesian scientific community, got expelled from school. Then some teenagers openly argue that they don't have sex and say that the scientific report must have been wrong. In US, porns are prohibited from minors, and often adult. What fears the lesser cocks are that people see the truth that most women would rather share a cotam than be the only one for a lesser. All aspects that support that truth are then hidden under the rug. Many laws regarding consensual sex are not enforced unless done provocatively. People know it's done anyway, but politicians want to hide it from public view. Escorts and massage parlors are prostitution. Yet, they are all let to strive. Think it this way, so many people freak out about consensual sex. They're so motivated to prohibit many consensual sex that's obviously victimless. What's their problem? Do you think they're so good that they want others to be good too? Chance is those not getting any are the one that hate free sex. Free sex, like free trades, hurt those that fail to bring better offers to customers. Hence, less "sexy" individuals then want government to regulate sex. How do religious manipulation support females' rationing?Unless God's original purpose is rationing females to poor, financially abusive, irresponsible males, it's unlikely God support contemporary sex laws. Ancient bible seems to tolerate prostitution. Pssstttt..... I mean, "Thou shall not go to prostitutes" are not mentioned anywhere in the old testament. Judah get away after screwing Tamar. Bible don't explicitly prohibit polygamy or free sex. Bible are only concern with a male having sex with someone else's wife. Such acts constitute inheritance fraud that's not victimless. If no consensual parties are bound by marriage, there doesn't seem to be any problem or prescribed punishment. Marriage is a covenant. If you enter a covenant you got to obey it. If you don't enter a covenant then you're free. So there will be less sin (less divorce, less adultery) if there is no marriage. “Don't take this as authority but in my opinion, the biggest prohibition in the Bible about sex is against divorce - Jesus said if you divorce and marry another you commit adultery. So today many disobey God having serial adultery: marry, divorce, marry, divorce, marry, etc. This is the point to examine with care and prayer: is there any prohibition against many marriages but zero divorces? I understand some governments have laws against it but I haven't yet found a Bible verse against it. King David had his wives and concubines -- Solomon had more. So if you can afford it, maybe there is no restriction if you don't kill or divorce. Check it carefully for yourself instead of believing my words on it. Also, please do not post my name anywhere.” - Wanting to be Anonymous Christian It's not until the democratic Greek show up that the majority of the lesser cocks can successfully enforce monogamy restriction. In ancient Muslim, contract marriage is allowed. Of course, contract marriage is effectively prostitution. No society can withstand the wrath of the lesser cocks if it tolerates polygamy, yet not prostitution. Scriptures, like Bible, Quran, and many others are all very open to interpretation. You can justify any point with that book. Through out history, humans interpret, select, defend, preach, and enforce doctrines that serve their interest. What at the end matters is not what God's says, assuming He exist, but what's the interpreters' interest are. Blind fate leads to blind obedience to the cause of those that control the religious doctrines. Hence, religions are heavily promoted in many countries. I would argue that those doctrines are most likely made by humans too, rather than God. However, what difference does it make in predicting what sort of doctrines that are commonly believed nowadays? If God said A and humans in power want B, after 6000 years, doctrines that are commonly believed are B. When the majority of males population instinctively feel the need of justification of females rationing, they'll believe and preach any justification that serve their interest. Which is why, if you want the truth, stick to scientists and capitalists. In science, facts are verified or disproved through observation. Theories are valued for being able to correctly predict the unobvious. Also science quickly change their opinion when evidence demand it. They shift out bad ideas by arguments rather than inquisition. Compare that to what church do when Copernicus said that the earth surround the sun. How do we know that the Gnostics are heretics and the Catholics are right? With so many prosecution against those with uncommon believes, we're like a jury that only listen to one side: the victors side. In capitalism, people have intensive to be correct. If the price of a good is $5, you'd better believe it's $5. If you believe it's $6 you'll buy more than what would have maximized your profit and if you believe it's $4, you don't buy. So you maximize your profit by correctly appraising the value of anything. In all other system, people can "misinterpret" stuffs all they want, cause great damage, and say "ups" latter. Such people are not very credible. Why females often promote monogamous restriction too?The effect of heavy sex regulation and heavy prohibition against consensual sex act is rationing humans to other humans. Sex regulation alter natural sexual selection. The one usually end up being rationed are females. Without sex regulations, all females can aim for higher quality males. So why some females support monogamous restriction? In fact, many laws favoring government to get in the way of sex regulation is supported by females rather than males. Why? One word... Envy. Now this might be hard to believe. So you have to bare with me first. Why people hate capitalism? Capitalism, as we know, help the poor too. However, envy people hate capitalism. They too are helped by capitalism. However, the smarter best and brightest humans can get very rich under capitalism. So they hate capitalism. Wait a minute.... The same way. If sex is not heavily regulated, then all females can aim for higher quality genetic code. But prettier females can aim for an even higher quality females. So ugly females, are envy with it and want all females to be rationed equally among males. For example, pretty females can show up naked in penthouse collecting millions of dollars. Ugly females got to suck her husband's low quality cock for much less money. So ugly females want to prohibit porn to satisfy their envy. How? They're going to say that women that they are envious to are "victim." Hard to believe ha? When pretty women happily make a lot of money sharing a billionaire Cotam, envy ugly females will cry that those women are victim! Hence they want females to be regulated, so fewer females can get what they want. Now, look at anti porn advocates. Look at their face. Not just women that are against porn, those can be misguided. Look at women that actively fight porn. Are they hot? Not usually. Why some females often fight for more heavy regulation even more than men?In fact, ugly bitches have more intensives to support sex regulation. Males, especially those in rich countries, can always imported chickz from poorer countries. Also males can choose to share. In ancient time, sharing cause fraternity determination problem. Now, determination of fatherhood can be done with blood test. Females on the other hand, don't get sexier no matter how wealthy they are. There is nothing un-sexy females can do to attract more males. The only way they get a piece of gene pool survival for females is by imposing sex regulation. Sex regulation is pretty much ugly bitches VS pretty goddesses issue. How can people be so envious?I proposed that humans are so envy they often promote social values against their interest if that social value allow superior specimens to get more too. That seems like a ridiculous proposition. Why? That's because humans instinct are build for gene pool survival. Instincts and preferences that lead to gene pool survival in the past are instincts that show up now. Because what used to work in the past is what used to work now, we can simplify the model by saying that humans instinctively maximize gene pool survival. Think it this way, females maximize gene pool survival too. It's just that they use less direct approach. Males can maximize his gene pool survival through mating with many females. That strategy doesn't work for females. So females maximize their gene pool survival by mating with "sexy" males. That'll produce sexier sons that'll produce more grand children. Females strategy for gene pool survival is 2 generation down the road while males strategy is 1 generation down the road. Say, for simplicity sake, each females produce 2 kids. So, gene pool survival is constant. You see the problem? Capitalism is not a zero sum game. However, gene pool survival is. Under capitalism, we can concentrate on getting more cakes rather than distributing cakes in our favor. That's not the case for almost a zero sum game gene pool survival. The word is full. If we keep improving our gene pool survival. there will be too many humans and we'll kill each other. Without restriction of monogamy, smart pretty females can mate with rich smart males. They'll produce prettier daughters and richer smarter sons. Uglier females will have to settle for lesser cocks. At the second generations, the richer smarter sons of pretty females will produce more offspring. So prettier females produce more grand children. Also the daughter of prettier females will be able to mate with richer smarter sons. Hence, prettier females, in the long run, will produce more offspring too. This will wipeout ugly females from gene pool. You see why ugly females oppose porn, prostitution, polygamy, and free sex? How do monogamous females' rationing are enforced?Say monogamy restriction is enforced. Monogamy restriction comes not only in prohibition of polygamy. It also comes with many sex regulations that discourage rich smart males from being available to females. In fact, we're not aiming to legalize polygamy. Marriage is obsolete. Any "gamy" is bad. It's hard to argue against governments' created covenant anyway. It's far easier to legalize prostitution and all kind of consensual sex outside marriage. Regulation should only be there for disease control or for potential parents that cannot produce kids. The following are regulations against consensual sex.
Without these restrictions, richer financially responsible males will be more promiscuous than poor males. It's just natural. With these restrictions, it works the other way around. The rich are not promiscuous while the poor are. |
|
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.
|