Marriage the relic

Marriage and monogamy while being demonstrably unnatural in a biological sense may have also cost us the cure for cancer in part. Marriage is an extension of the monogamous system whereby the sexual rights of one man and one woman are restricted to each other for abstract reasons, such as the Church saying, "God said to". This union has economic consequences also, such as the woman now having 50% control in whatever interest she married into and vice versa, at least on exit. What is the fundamental difference between a man's sex and a woman's sex in terms of society biology and economy? Obviously, one is far more valuable. After all the very definition of male and female for identification purposes in new species is which one pursues and which one chooses. It is far easier for a woman to ‘sell’ rights to her sexually than it is for a male to do the same. It is far easier for a woman to bed her way into a higher tax bracket than it is for a man. This is actually quite bad for women, I'll explain how further on. Since a woman's sexuality has more value than a man's, it stands out. Take two lawyers for example, both average looking, one male one female, both equal skill and education. Yet the woman's sex has more value, so it stands out. This makes life hell for her because she's chosen to not make her sexuality her career choice. This woman now has to work harder to be seen as just a lawyer and not a hot chick, or sex object. In short she has to bust her ass to make her skills’ value eclipse the value of her sexuality in order that she be seen as a person. And not say, a carrot on a stick, or a trophy. A man does not have this problem because a man's sex is near worthless in American society - his skill set and his income are far more important to his happiness. So if women want to be truly equal with men they need to give away their sex rather than sell it, like the men do. This would also devalue wealth and reduce greed. Because of this extra effort required of the woman to just to break even, many women go with the flow and simply work towards enhancing their sexuality and make that their means of employment. So basically women encourage the sale of their sexual rights for the same reason men chose not to - ease. This is dangerous for humanity because if a beautiful girl is born with a gift for logic she's now less likely to be a scientist, since it’s harder for her to be a scientist and easier for her to pout on a magazine cover and make 10 times the money. This trend taken to the larger social scale shows us that the extra value

placed on a woman's sexuality is costing us scientists, and thus progress. I'll submit that progress is a good thing, the Amish and Taliban notwithstanding. Also considering that women make up half our population, this becomes a huge amount of lost progress, even more so considering the nature of scientific expansion. One useful fact often leads to two others, the process becomes exponential, therefore so too is the loss. Consider Moore’s law. As time marches on the losses mount up ever faster like compound interest in reverse. What does all this have to do with marriage? Well, the extra value placed on a woman's sexuality is purely social. That is, there are social mechanisms in place which garner female sexuality artificial value, marriage being the most common example in America of the false value increase. To draw an analogy, marriage is basically a rule which prevents the sale of water for food in the desert, and as a result many starve to death or die of hunger. Allow me to explain. Sexual, and indeed all, value is a function of desirability and availability, supply and demand. Let's view sex with a woman as a product, and sex with a beautiful woman as a more valuable product than sex with an average woman. If a beautiful woman is married she is now barred from selling this product openly to anyone, regardless of emotional or other profit to herself or potential buyers. This regulation, this exterior control of the function of the market has seriously negative consequences, as the market struggles against the limitations needlessly applied. This often causes murder, since a man who has ‘lost’ a woman he loves to another man, knows that there is now no longer a legitimate way for him to win her affections if the value of this woman's sex has been elevated to monopoly levels. It also works the other way, but the other value is wealth not beauty. Monogamy increases the sexual and monetary profit to be gained by murder of competing mates since sharing mates is not a socially accepted alternative, even among the very beautiful and the very wealthy. An abstract can always beat out economics because it isn't based on anything real. Like selling wishes. Hence rich or beautiful people occasionally killing each other. As any student of economics knows, when an abstract rule interferes with the process of the market, values become artificially depressed or inflated. Since many beautiful women are married, they can no longer add their supply of premium sex to the market, no matter it’s demand. This inflates the value of available remaining sex in the market, while subsequently annihilating any value to the public her own sex has. This hurts everyone. It hurts buyers because now they have to compete with a larger number of people for the same sex, and it hurts sellers because their customer base is reduced to one, and their value beyond their sexuality is further and further eclipsed. This has a dehumanizing effect on men and women post

marriage and it inflates the value of wealth and beauty in terms of mate selection. Men are now reduced to a net income figure, and women are reduced to measurements or ‘vital statistics’ as if a woman’s breast size is ‘vital’. Honesty, novelty, creativity, intelligence, and even looks, in the case of men, fall by the wayside eclipsed by the now more scarce but less important values of wealth and beauty. Neither side does this out of cruelty, it must be stated, I am not blaming a given gender. Women engage in this sort of activity because as their sex becomes more valuable they gain a wider range of choices for less and less effort, which as I’ll cover later is a noble effort. So why wouldn't a woman pick a man that's handsome and honest as well as rich? Men on the other hand do this because it's hard to become rich, and that means of the values, honesty, good looks, and wealth, wealth becomes the scarcest. If there are more men who are merely handsome and honest as opposed to men who are handsome, honest and rich, then suddenly handsome and honest both mean less. Also, rich is often dependant on public perception, rich men sometimes cannot afford to be seen as "playboys", they have stock holders to impress, or political careers, or reputations, and that often means a wife is required, to demonstrate -normality-, despite being anything but in private. So, if you have to have one and only one, even if you don't want one, she might as well be the hottest one you can find, since that was the initial point for shooting for success to begin with for most men, thanks to advertising and the like… As this trend continues you end up with rich ugly bitter deceitful men, married to beautiful young attractive women, who know nothing but how to maintain being attractive, which of course becomes pointless as old age chews away at you, hence ugly old women in fur, getting skin treatments every week. This is further exacerbated since these unions are made public. It has become a measure of success for a woman to find and marry a rich man, or simply to be as sexy as possible, and for men it's a measure of success to find court and bed young attractive women, or to simply be as rich as possible. Furthermore, as rich men and pretty women take themselves out of the market the value of those traits goes further up, encouraging more marriage and driving the value still higher up, to the eventual point of nothing but them having any market value. Also as that value rises the search for them heats up as well, resulting in more coverage, and those already committed to this arrangement will be exposed to mates surpassing their own in looks and income, but since they are locked in, they become bitter and turn on each other since they are robbed of any hope of upgrade, or they cheat and divorce, both of which are absurdly common

-around 50% as of 07- in a society that claims to honor marriage as a pivotal “Family Value.” My point is that rich and pretty won’t solve our problems or cure cancer, they are not the traits that should be given breeding priority. Our intellectual elite in most cases are neither rich nor pretty. What causes this more than anything is the artificial value of female sex, which is at best a relic of a matriarchic prehistory, or at worst is an intentional subversion of potential female power. For example the church found they could control who women had sex with and, inflate the value of said women's sex, while selling rights to it, by controlling what women and sex were seen as, via their monopoly on fear and guilt. This control was primarily aimed at the men in power who had an interest in having sex with women, which is pretty much all of them, except gays, which may go a long way towards explaining why the church is so threatened by them as well. They could not be controlled by sex in the traditional way. It could have easily been the other way around, men could have been made the objects and women the providers, but the war of the genders had already tilted the scales of power long previous to this, leaving men in charge, and so they became the targets. How that happened covers a wide variety of topics ranging from our distant primate, rape culture past, to our corrupt agricultural revolutions, which gave rise to warrior classes and the types of unnatural divisions of labor, which later evolved into the ethical quagmire we find ourselves in today. Partly how the church did this was by instituting their form of marriage and began radically supporting public monogamy, which served as a way to lift sex out of the market, and by painting all sex outside of their marriage as dirty or bad, they further jacked up the value of ‘legitimate’ sex, which they controlled, and which had the beneficial side effect of generating more people accustomed to this system. This is partly why the church opposes divorce because divorce could return valuable sex to the market, thus dropping the value, which is a bad thing if you’re selling it. This is also why the church hates prostitution, why tolerate direct competition? -The church historically attempted selling ‘indulgences’ as a way of tapping the prostitution market, but this was abandoned.- Among the many pitfalls of this approach to power acquisition is the creation of ‘illegitimate’ people, since sex produces people regardless of marriage -you’d think God if marriage was holy, he would just make unmarried people sterile, go figure.- This concept has been the cause of countless murders and cruelties, ask anyone who's grown up a ‘bastard’. Or ‘child of sin’. In terms of spending, acquiring sex the traditional way of dating and marriage is several orders of magnitude more expensive than selling it directly as in

prostitution or related fields, since it's basically the exploitation of a monopoly. This is why upper middle class girls who try selling their sex for a 50% interest in a giant marketing firm by marrying the owner will rail against a single mom stripper who makes 7K$ a month working her way through med school. Because that stripper may make that owner reconsider what he is spending on one, in exchange for the other. Also, patronizing a hooker doesn't lift either sex or wealth out of the market. It merely removes the artificial price inflations of female beauty and wealth. That's why they hate it so. Suddenly you only have to be rich enough to afford a good hooker, not rich enough to impress a wife, which can be worlds more expensive given the value of her sex and given what she's used to selling it for. But this works the other way as well. By encouraging the system that makes a stripper or professional sex worker ‘dirty’ and ‘bad’ they thus make their lives harder. Sometimes a woman's sexual value is so blown out of proportion that any time she tries to sell it outside a very tight knit and limited circle of ultra rich, that disparity becomes obvious and laughable hence the terms "frigid" and "prude". This is also part of why actors marry actresses; they are the only ones who can afford each other, or at least afford the settings and standing needed to impress. They are public figures thus they don't have the option of using strippers and pros openly. The only way out of this cycle is to eliminate words like "slut" from the vocabulary and to destroy the stigma that giving away sex -assumed safe- is somehow a bad thing. People call strippers and hookers, sluts and whores because they sell sex directly for a dollar amount or they give it away because they are sweet, good, and kind people. This should be encouraged. Why is this behavior hated in our society? Because if something has a dollar amount, it’s price stabilizes, if the price is stable then price gouging becomes more difficult, and price gouging is at the core of the traditional method. Marriage is the sale of sex for what you can get out of it, not what it’s worth. It costs us scientists, lawyers, artists etc. It costs us lives and happiness, and it makes money for the government, the corporations, and the church. It encourages the sale of blood diamonds and domestic violence. And it subjects children to unspeakable conditions. All in the name of ‘purity’ to avoid, ‘sin’. Biologically, the species is best served by women choosing the fittest mates, and men being chosen by as many women as possible. So that once a unique beneficial mutation occurs it may spread more quickly. Also this would allow for larger extended families, which is the whole point of our tribalism. To isolate human mating into a fixed binary based on only two traits is to doom the species to stagnation and eventual ‘devolution’ by nullifying the only real

advantage gender based reproduction has, which is the identification and rapid propagation of survival traits. But rather than focusing on building a system which will trick us into doing these things, perhaps we should select and replicate desirable survival traits after the fact, which is the central goal of Transhumanism. Why wait for reproduction to update the species via children and death, when it begins to look possible to do it directly.