Is Marriage Just Legalized Prostitution

Sexy_Bride

The entire concept of marriage has been more about barter than love for at least 5,000 years

My body, my choice! only applies if Anglo women want to kill a preborn baby, neglecting the hypocrisy of the government fining people up to $250,000 for disturbing a Bald Eagle’s egg. However, we often hear a Puritan, pussy pedestalizing Anglo culture screeching and hissing at the idea that women should be able to do whatever they choose with their bodies with regards to heterosexual activity.

Ergo, they are capable of making the decision to end the life of a person who has no voice, but they are not capable of making the decision as to whether or not they want to have sex and get paid for it.

Abortion is just fine for a completely preventable thing like pregnancy, but selling sexual favors is the third rail of discussion. My body, my choice! does not apply if women want to rent out a part of their anatomy by the hour to make some cash, and provide some pleasure for hapless incel Beta, Gamma, and Omega males in society.

These are the incels that have been completely cut off sexually as the sexual jungle shifts female attention away from the bottom 4/5 of men and towards the top 1/5 of men. They are the forgotten men, the men who can no longer provide financial and social incentives to hypergamous women.

She can, however, give away access to her vagina for free to anybody she wishes, especially if that person is another female. In Anglo culture, a culture that has a long history of lionizing gayness, homosexuality is superior to that “antiquated” heterosexuality the social engineers loathe. A woman can also give access to her vagina to a “train” of men, such as the entire football team, and that’s just fine. She can go out and bang several men a night, every night, and no crime has been committed. But, if a man screws her then leaves a Benjamin on the nightstand, an unspeakable crime has been committed. This is the insanity of Anglo culture today.

However, when one thinks about the issue critically, what else is modern day marriage than legalized prostitution? The poor bastard Johnny Depp is being taken to the cleaners for a settlement of up to $20 million for his temporary use of a vagina that belongs to a woman who is at best a 6 or 7 without her paint job of Maybelline.

The advice men are given from a young age – to go to school, work hard, get a “good” i.e. lucrative job, stay out of trouble, and then spend life paying for the adult equivalent of a Barbie Fun House and a couple of cookie cutter sedans or SUVs implies the only value men have to women is financial value and/or their power and status that elevates them over “lesser” men in society.

Therefore, one can reason that relationships and marriages are really nothing more than prostitution by proxy. Women barter for material things and consumer items, and men barter for sex.

Bride-Sexy

The symbolism at weddings helps reveal the reality of marriage

Sexual Barter

Let’s analyze the typical wedding. A bride dresses to the nines in white gown – which is supposed to reflect her virginity at the wedding – and offers herself to a handsome groom in exchange for a diamond ring, a promise of financial stability, and all the other trappings of marriage which today include a McMansion and all sorts of other wasteful material spending. It is not hard to see how this is just a front which hides the real transaction going on when one looks behind the curtain.

The problem is the institution of legalized prostitution (i.e. relationships and marriage) has become so corrupt in modern times they’re not worth entering into for any man who has his thinking cap on. Unless, he enjoys Gaming some chick around the clock and hoping like hell she doesn’t have a mood swing and decide to cash him in for fiduciary prizes as we often see with celebrity frivorces. Even being a top dog, super Alpha actor is not insurance against female betrayal. One housewife interviewed by a mainstream newspaper even confirmed the idea of marriage being legalized prostitution.

To be honest, when I refuse sex my husband doesn’t let go of the money quite as easily as when I comply; and when I’m amorous, I get what I want. In the past he would even leave the money on the dresser after he was finished, but nowadays I’m handed the debit card and he will suggest that I go and buy myself something nice, but only after an extended period of compliance on my part.

In fact, proving that marriage is based on sexual barter, it has become so one-sided since feminism that women command everything from “putting a ring on it” a la Beyoncé to a minimum six figure income and Lexus for a man to be considered marriageable. This behavior shows women want to be compensated in some way for having the Magic Vagina and proves that bartering for sex is still the norm, even in the days of the empowered, Strong Independent Woman™ that Don’t Need a Man™.

They Don’t Need a Man™ because the state provides them with resources stolen from Beta providers via tax theft and hiring quotas kick men out of corporate jobs. Women marry their jobs and the government instead of men in the modern age. In turn, The Hedonic Treadmill spins into overdrive, and suddenly the decent guy who only earns an average salary is persona non grata because the empowered female wants a bigger meal ticket to exploit.

Additionally, as women are drunk on their power over men since being granted all rights and no responsibilities, in the strange world that is developing in the 21st century, some feminists view the very act of sex, and especially selling sex as degrading towards women. Which is strange, especially when juxtaposed alongside the harlots who regularly use their sexuality to sell music videos, concerts, and records, increasingly stooping to degeneracy well beyond the scope of prostitution – songs and videos that discuss such topics as mixing anal and vaginal lube and glorifying sodomy, sexualizing infants, encouraging women to experiment with gayness, and talking down to men as though they’re some sort of provider slaves. These activities are viewed as empowering by feminists. Hmm.

In reality, they’re yet another example of how women trade their sexuality for money in society. Whether for marriage or for selling pop records, women use sex to get what they want.

Strippers

Whether it is paying for dances or being a Beta bucks husband, you end up paying for play from women one way or the other

Legalized Prostitution and Marriage

One of the main arguments of those who are against prostitution is that it provides a disincentive for men to strap themselves up to the marriage cart like a good pack mule and carry the weight of female materialism and frivolity for the rest of their lives. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk at the low, low price of $100 for happy hour?

This further proves that relationships and marriage are prostitution by proxy. Being honest and legalizing prostitution throws the whole arrangement off. As anthropologist Robert Briffault proved, women do not associate with men unless there is some benefit to be gained by them as a result of that association. Bertrand Russell wrote this statement about marriage, further exposing why women detest marriage today:

Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution.

Beyond despising the Beta husbands women of millennia past endured, feminists can’t make up their mind over the issue of whether honest and open prostitution should be allowed, or whether it should continue to be cloaked under traditionally accepted avenues of sexual barter. Rational Wiki reveals:

Because prostitution is rarely perceived to be about a woman having control over her body in exchange for money, and more often perceived to be about a woman becoming the property of a pimp, or worse, feminists are often torn on the issue of prostitution. On the one hand, most feminists accept that when a women is able to be in control of choices, it is her right to use her own body as she wishes, as long as the sex is safe, consensual and fair. This view is especially true of so called “sex positive” feminists. Extreme feminists have argued that in most societies and relationships, prostitution is the norm, though it might be “sex for a diamond ring”. In this view, any prostitution reinforces the view of female as property to be bought and sold (meaning this view conveniently ignores male prostitutes).

Many try to muddy the issue, but analyzing the innate female behavior of selling sex that has been a part of our species since it began and trying to judge it with today’s effete attitudes is an approach that doesn’t work. Additionally, the history of marriage has shown us the arrangement has been more about practicalities, i.e. sexual and reproductive barter, than the laughable concept of “love” for at least 5,000 years.

Almost always, across every society that has instituted it worldwide, marriage has been about land and property deals between families, aggrandizing wealth, and creating offspring rather than the silly idea of spending a lifetime chasing a fleeting emotion. Men trade labor and resources for female sex and fertility. That’s just how it works, it’s Economics 101.

I have yet to see a woman who openly wishes to marry down, as hypergamy is as innate a behavior in females as looking for sexy legs, asses, and boobs are for men. The problem today is sexuality has become controlled by sophistry, i.e. the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. Much like all the other big lies of our society, people want to believe comforting lies rather than unpleasant truths.

The unpleasant truth is women have evolved to want the Bigger, Better Deal when it comes to giving their precious few years of fertility and youth away. This makes sense, as milk (which represents how women age) curdles relatively quickly, so economics dictate women try to maximize return on investment. The problem comes when society tries to create myths around the virtuousness and superiority of women, when in fact they are no more virtuous than men.

Women’s bargaining chip has always been sex and fertility, no matter how much social engineering leftists try to shoehorn into basic human economics. Prudishness towards recognizing marriage for what it is, sexual barter, shows us some of the fundamental issues Anglo society has in its uncomfortable relationship with sexuality. In many cultures, sex is a thing to be enjoyed, not analyzed to death. But it has always been about female control in Anglo society.

Take it for what its worth, and realize the Game for what it is. A woman will not want you as a man unless she feels there is “something in it for her.” This is true whether a woman is turning tricks for $20 down on the street corner, or looking for $20 million from her discarded husband. Either way, it takes money to ride that twat.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

Advertisements

6 comments

  • A close female friend graduated college debt free and many thousands of dollars in the bank by being special friends with a few very wealthy clients. This young lady is super fine looking and very intelligent. Now a lawyer and still single, she still picks up thousands each year for her mad money. The old saying is “Women are sitting on a gold mine!”

    Like

  • While the blatant double standards regarding men and women are frustrating, it’s no use to dwell on them. Men and women are not the same, and we must accept that appeals to logic and reason are often fruitless if they go against a woman’s self interest.

    Men and women have different reproductive goals, and thus will pursue different strategies. Of the two sexes, women are more concerned with social cohesion than men. 19th century observations of aboriginal groups in Australia documented how tribal warfare occasionally resulted in women being kidnapped and adopted by rival tribes. Adaptability and ability to conform to their new tribe would have been beneficial to a woman’s survival. In an evolutionary state of nature, social ostracism and exile would likely mean death for a woman who was physically weaker and not versed in hunting. As such, it would be in her interest not to question the cultural narrative of her society.

    Men relied on the cooperation and competence of the men in their tribe, and thus would have placed a greater emphasis on objective standards in order to give every man of the tribe an incentive to cooperate in hunting for food and for physical protection of the tribe. Historically, women would have gravitated towards less competitive, less risky activities such as gathering nuts and berries, and processing of materials. Much of a woman’s material gain was out of their hands, and was derived from the efforts and surplus labors of their fathers or partners. This scenario where success and failure was disconnected from any of their input may have created the sense of entitlement, and failure to accept personal responsibility that has often been described in women. It is their nature to prod for weakness and accept what’s given to them. In the same vein, it’s in their nature to ignore injustice when it serves their short term interests.

    The frustration should not be directed at women, but rather the cultural paradigm that created this mess. We shouldn’t view them as an adversary. They are simply following their nature, and are being used a political weapon to further destroy the social bonds that connect people to each other, and strengthen the reliance on a centralized state. To view women as merely a sexual commodity serves the interests of a system which seeks to sever the connection between men and women. Marriage was primarily focused on the creation of a stable family unit and the preservation of a family’s legacy. Sex was a secondary issues, and in many societies it was acceptable for men to keep mistresses discretely.

    Patriarchy served the best interests of both men and women. While angry feminists will claim that patriarchy was a period of oppression, the explosion of psychological disorders, high divorce rate, and prevalence of wino cat lady syndrome in our society shows that most women are worse off when socially isolated. Preference for domination pornography and BDSM novels like 50 shades of grey further support the apparent desire for women to be dominated by men. The conditions of patriarchy, where men were tasked with the responsibility of legal authority in their family benefited the entire unit. Women were physically protected, were provided with shelter and sustenance by their husbands, were supported and cherished long after their beauty had faded, and were given social standing and friendships as a result of their marriage status.

    It has been exhaustively documented that children living without a father are more likely to commit crime, abuse drugs, and form unstable relationships. Children born to stable families with male authority figures learned an objective code of moral standards which was enforced through threat of punishment and reward of good behavior. Their fathers acted as a guide and adviser in their pursuit of success. Their mothers acted as emotional support and a trusted benefactor. Fathers were given the opportunity to raise their families, and to continue their legacies without fear of disruption. Inability to dissolve the arrangement through fleeting emotional turmoil allowed the institution to survive and provided fathers the incentive to work tirelessly, as it was assured that the fruits of their efforts would be passed on to future generations. Greater parental investment in society created higher standards of living for everyone involved, and the rise of the middle class.

    The patriarchal system benefited everyone within the family unit. The reverence for hardworking fathers in stable families allowed for the transmission of wealth and wisdom in an unbroken chain to future progeny. Successful, stable families could produce generations where children would go on to pursue diverse careers in law, medicine, business, and create networks that encouraged greater success. In time, families would have the possibility of forming a political force in their own right, and would have made the necessity of a centralized state superfluous.

    In Murray Rothbard’s essay “Anatomy of the State”, he provides a compelling case that the state exists to perpetuate itself. To achieve that end, the political class exerts control over it’s host populace in order to enrich itself off of their labor and productivity. It is a case of organized theft that is tolerated to varying degrees by the host society depending on their dependence to the state, and through threat of violence if they do not comply. An economically and politically self sufficient family unit has little need for a large centralized state, and would create a scenario where a state would have great difficulty garnering political acceptance of burdensome theft payments.
    https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state/html

    Therefore, it would be in the state’s interest to undermine networks of people that are not under it’s control. This would increase the dependence of people on the state, and lower their ability to respond to increasingly burdensome theft payments or legislation that diminished their personal freedoms. By destroying ethnic, religious, and familial networks, the individual becomes isolated and has little recourse against threats of force. The science of psychopathology reveals that for the essential psychopath, the desire for control is total and insatiable.

    Destruction of the family unit and the sewing of hatred between the sexes goes against the interests of most people, and I would argue that such a departure from millenia of social tradition was not organic, it was orchestrated. From what we know about psychology, it’s apparent that one’s actions can be affected by authority figures and a desire for social conformity. It is also affected by our access to information and what narratives we’re exposed to. As we must cooperate or depend on coworkers and family members, we are also affected by what information they’re exposed to and how they perceive our positions on an issue. By controlling the official narrative, an information broker gains both vertical (news to person), but also horizontal (person to person) influence of the worldview of a population.

    Edward Bernays, a member of the Frankfurt school said as early as the 1920s:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

    While women are often complicit in the current paradigm, we must remind ourselves that they aren’t the ones our anger should be directed towards. While they’ve gained some superficial benefits from this regime, by and large many are suffering, though they won’t be quick to admit it. By propagating this adversarial mentality against each other, we are exhausting the vigilance that should be focused on those who’ve foisted this tyranny upon us.

    Like

  • FunkSoulBrother

    When you consider just how cheap pussy is these days….But I don’t mean inexpensive. Far from it.

    In my estimation, the empty hook-up culture that has developed along side the expansion of so-called equality, liberation and the extra ‘rights’ women enjoy (that men are denied…so much for the 14th Amendment) has demeaned and devalued sex and even romance to the point where it is no longer an ideal. Certainly nothing is in it for men.

    And yet these self-anointed, self-righteous, powerful, independent and proud sluts have the nerve to demand cash and other perks for their company, offering no benefits other than sex as, or if, they please.

    Now that’s quite a paradox. Men of the West should be looking at women elsewhere for fulfillment.

    Like

  • Very amazing essay

    Like

    • I have a question. Perhaps your might turn it into an article.
      Why does any man get married? The arguments against it seem overwhelming. The only motivations I can think of are:
      1. Religion
      2. Desire for children (do many men get clucky? Genuine question)
      3. Guys just don’t really think it through.

      Or am I blind to the benefits because I’m a debauched, selfish psychopath?
      As I said, this is not a rhetorical question. I’m curious.

      Like

      • Social pressure would be the big one, I’d say. If your male friends are biting the bullet and you’re the last one left, people will assume something is wrong with you. Any other influences are just social constructs.

        Like

Join the Discussion | Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s