the Danimal wrote:
> marthawhite2000{at}yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
> For the billionaire, which strategy makes more sense:
>
> 1. Giving half his wealth to a woman who then spends it on her
> boy toys.

How many such women have boy toys?

Sex and the City  and Desperate Housewives are fiction.  Most women do
not want to screw the pool boy.

> 2. Investing five hundred million dollars toward building the first
> comprehensively satifying artificial companions.

Or just blowing a few grand on hookers.

Of course, this should take into account that some billionaires
may hesitate to purchase prostitutes if they're illegal
but "artificial companions" could also be made illegal as well.

I've made the following observations in the past:

1) The same social forces that make kiddie porn and beastiality
illegal would also be upset if it was discovered that an
artificial being was being tortured or abused.

2) Just as some beta males support the woman's vote, many
men may fall in love with their artificial companions and lead
a movement giving them equal rights.  Pretty soon, you
would find yourself working extra hours to pay taxes
for "robot welfare".

3) Just as many modern American women can become frumpy
and fat and unattractive due to the new powers that feminism
has given them, the robots could also start making themselves
into unattractive forms.  Imagine "dyke" robots.  bleah!

4) Just as the wives of wealthy men don't want gigilos to replace
them, women wouldn't benefit from any sex robot that
wasn't intelligent enough to make a full replacement for
a male worker or, by extention, humanity itself.

5) Artificial intelligence is DANGEROUS.  It would require
regulation and even if the moral forces above didn't
intervene.

6) Trying to make sex robots with today's technologies
would be similar to the 18th century French trying
to build a Babbage machine x386.  By the time
technology evolves to the point that sex robots
are viable, our civilizaion will be quite different
including feminism already having collapsed.

Yes, the collapse of equal rights for women appears
unthinkable but many leftists were saying the same
of the USSR during Ronald Reagan's time.  Feminism
can only sustain itself if it can sustain a birth
rate of native women and stem off immigration
from cultures that are hostile to feminism.

> > We also hate being tricked into
> > supporting other's kid through marriage and adultery.
>
> Invoking sociobiology to justify your designs for social
> order has a serious weakness: sociobiology also predicts
> things that don't serve your interests, such as women who
> try to extract resources from wealthy men while getting
> genes for their offspring from other men.

It turns out that sociobiology may have created the above
as a side effect of women enjoying sex beyond mere
reproduction in order to induce a mate to stick around
after he's impregnated her.

Our very civilization's existance may depend upon the fact
that men, the creators of our society, decided it was
in their personal best interest and sexual gratification
to stick around and form society in the first place
rather than roam around when it suited them as
most other solitary animals.

> > As long as things
> > are front front, we're fine.
>
> But that is not how nature works. The natural world is full
> of deception and trickery. Look at all those animals and plants
> that pretend to be something else (the walking stick insect,
> for example, and those otherwise defenseless moths that
> deter birds by looking like brightly colored wasps, etc.).

Yes, but these biological forms exist at the expense of
other species.   Our society's low birth rate may be
an indication of it's future self-destruction or
metamorphasis.

> > Also, don't get married. Marriage is a trap to bond you to some
> > lesser cocks. Marriage contracts are heavily regulated by
> > government's that serve the interest of less desirable males.
>
> Marriage contracts also serve the interests of women as
> they get older and lose their value to men.

Agreed.

> For a genetically superior alpha male you're not too bright.
>
> > Women, why not decide your own term of sex relationship rather than
> > letting lesser cocks decide what's best for you?
>
> That's exactly why women aim for 50% of the billionaire's wealth
> rather than some piddly 1%. Women know perfectly well what's best
> for them AS INDIVIDUALS. Women do not collectively sacrifice what's
> best for them individually in service of some greater good for all
> women.

Now this is a delightfully non-bright statement!

First off, it's redundant: Women do not do X together at the expense
as individuals Y for the benefit of X.  Well, duh!  You don't need
the end part of the sentence.  But hey, I'm not one to correct
your grammar. :-)

I'll address the claim: That women don't make individual
sacrifices for group acceptance.

Let's savor that for a moment.  How many people believe women
don't care what other women think?  Really?

It's possible that women don't make individual sacrifices for
the larger society that includes men, but they certainly
do so for the "feminine" group interest.  Pretty women
often wind up becoming spinsters, for example, because
they buy into a traditionalist mindset to make sex
scarce for men to drive the price up for plain,
less attractive women.

> That would just be stupid, don't you think? It would be
> like a billionaire choosing to divide his wealth evenly among
> all the poor men.

One of the things driving anti-feminist and anti-equality sentiments
among women is their resentment of the welfare state
whereby they work to support other women's children.

> Why should they settle for 1% when they can aim higher, at 50%?

Once again, you really don't think things through:

There are plenty of women who will happily sleep with
married, wealthy men with no strings attached just
for him to share his bed with her rather than accept
50% of the wealth of some loser slob who would
only support her in somewhat decent comfort.

Women's sense of proportions is so incredibly skewed
that they often sell out for tokens.  1% of a billionaire's wealth?
How about having sex with him just for the sake of
being able to talk about it with their friends?

> > I am not sexist. I am just a rich smart male that knows what women
> > instinctively want. That's why many chicks want me. I just want
more.
> > Rich smart males want to spread our superior genes to as many
females
> > as possible through consensual means. Why we are immoral?
>
> What do your existing chicks think about your attempts to
> get more chicks?

Assuming the original poster isn't just BSing us, I imagine that
most women while they may "think" very poorly of an alpha
male sleeping around, they would still rather chase after
him than a loyal beta loser.

OJ Simpson still gets plenty of hot chicks to share his bed.
I hope they have orthopedic mattresses.  You don't want
OJ hurting in the morning!

> Because then you would REALLY be getting nervous. At least under
> the current law, she can only take half.

WRONGO!

It's possible that the woman could get alimony in addition as
well as "child" support to the tune of several thousand per month
adjusted to a percentage of the father's income.  She can
also get legal fees and extra money for any pain or suffering
the court believes she endured.

> A woman places no limit on what she thinks she is worth.

I think most do.   They certainly would be happy to get more
but most will learn, the hard way if necessary, what
the limit is on their SMV even if it's not totally correct.

By most women's 30's, they realize that they cannot have a perfect
man and that their clock is ticking and will be extremely
happy if they can find a man who meets their basic
requirements.  These can be as little as the man earning
in the same ballpark as her (even less), the man being
minimally physically attractive, and even being a bit boring.

> > Females will be better off having sex for $100,000 per year from a
> > billionaire than having sex for $10,000 per year with a floor
mopper
> > right? Why not let the females choose?
>
> Females do choose. They choose to play the lottery with big jackpots
> for the lucky few winners rather than limit their maximum winnings
> so they can all have a little.

Actually, feminism of the past few decades has been about disempowering
wealthy and upper middle class men with the pretense of empowering
middle and lower class women.

> > However, such mutually beneficial arrangements are prevented
because
> > lesser cocks dictate that all sexual relationship has to be based
on
> > love that's supposedly shouldn't be shared. Bull shit...
>
> Alpha males plus all women would easily out-vote the lesser cocks.
> Women constitute slightly more than half the voters, and alpha males
> could spend millions of dollars on campaign propaganda to influence
> the swing voters.

This is assuming the beta-women will always vote against their
own, and their mates, best interests.

> If most women liked your plan, it would be the status quo right
> now.
>
> Instead, we find something different. In the most backward and
> politically unstable parts of the world, alpha males are free to
> accumulate many wives.

Alpha males here also may have many mistresses or "concubines"
which are better than wives, as far as he is concerned.

> But in those parts of the world, the
> shitty economic conditions limit the amount of wealth alpha males
> can accumulate.

The amoint of oil revenue generated in many Patriarchal nations
per capita blows away what we have in the states.

> Bill Gates would have been less successful in,
> say, Afghanistan. To protect what wealth he could accumulate,
> he would have to become a warlord and pay heavily to keep his
> private militia loyal. Paying beta males to fight other beta males
> does not generate as much wealth for the alpha male as paying
> beta males to work.
>
> Warlords can of course try to negotiate with other warlords
> and form a stable empire. However, centuries of experience
> with empires have shown they're easier to stabilize
> under official monogamy.
>
> In modern societies, official polygyny is frowned upon. The
> resulting rationing of females seems to have a calming effect
> on the beta males, reducing the frequency of political revolts,
> and freeing the alpha males to focus on producing more wealth
> rather than guarding their harems from numerically superior
> beta male marauders.

This is a laughable conclusion: The political instability of
many third world nations is due to instability of beta males
trying to steal women from harems.

The number of harems in these nations is probably so small
as to be numerically insignificant.   If anything, the alpha males
of these countries who prevent equality for women may
have a stabilizing effect by keeping birthrates high
and men relatively pacified.

What makes beta males in our society passive is that most
still have a decent standard of living due to technological
foundations created during the Patriarchal era of
the late 19th and early 20th century: Electricity, radio, the
automobile,
the train, the airplane, automated farming.  All of these
are due to innovations created during Patriarchal times.
If our society advanced at the rate it did during the latter
19th century, I imagine you might be posting from Mars
rather than Ohio? :-)

On the contrary: Where matriachy's are strongest are usually
the areas of our society that are most destabilized, such
as the inner cities, with suburbia following behind not
terribly closely.

> > The real problem is because the lesser cocks wouldn't get any. So,
> they
> > make laws against that. And then they trick females that the laws
are
> > there to protect females' interest. Of course not.

I can tell this isn't written by an alpha male since, as you point out
Dan, a peaceful society is in the alpha male's best interest
and he's always going to get plenty of tail anyway.

> In the long run it would be better for all concerned to build
> ultra-realistic sex robots and improve the efficiency of
manufacturing
> enough to allow even floor-moppers to afford their own harems
> of stunningly attractive artificial companions.

See all the reasons I mentioned above for why this won't happen.

> Then all men could focus on doing their best job, whether they mop
> floors or loot stock markets, and not waste their time squabbling
> over the woefully insufficient supply of young attractive women.

Provided such robots aren't illegal for them to own, they would
be put out of work by the technologies making them
obsolete.

Heck, I'm amazed this hasn't already happened.  We have search
engines that can pick out the best Danni porn pics but
we can't make a program that can drive a robot to pick grapes?

> Because at the end of the day it only takes a few minutes to
> satisfy yourself with them. It would be better to skip all the
> fuss and bother, and market the satisfaction directly.

Or better yet.  Rather than worry about oil supplies today,
instead focus on building fusion power generators
or anti-matter engines that can make all power
generation of today obsolete.

It's interesting that many of the issues that makes the oil
shortage especially problematic probably will be
resolved by the time fusion or these other technologies
are developed.

> The food analogy is the way we manufacture packaged foods,
> which makes eating much simpler and more efficient than
> expecting everyone to hunt for food and then dress it and
> cook it. Hunters cannot be very productive because hunting is
> too time-consuming and unreliable.

These two arguments are poorly tied together: You argue
that everyone being a hunter is inefficent because
of a lack of specialization.  .   Then you turn around
and pull a conclusion out of nowhere that it's time consuming
and unreliable.

It's not that it's time consuming or unreliable that may make
it inefficient but rather that like with any skill, it may
make sense to have someone else perform that task
full time rather than have everyone take the time to learn
it.

> Technology should do for sex what it has done for food. Men
> should not have to waste time hunting for sex. We are still
> like a bunch of primitive savages in that regard. There hasn't
> been any progress at all.

100 years ago, it wasn't very complex really.  Men went to
dances or had a circle of friends and aquaintences who
were more than happy to tell him of the many women
who openly and eagerly were available for pairings.
A man who wanted to end his bachelor status could
do so quite quickly and reliably within his social class.
In primitive societies, men have a guaranteed sexual
future planned for them by their parents.

In the 50's and 60's, men decided they wanted to become
"hunters" rather than having sex "gathered" for them
by marriage or traditional means.  It was considered
desirable to have multiple sexual partners, even
if it took time to procure them each individually,
rather than having a simplistic monogamous relationship.

> > Females like any other HUMAN beings will have their interest served
> > with CHOICES of what to do with their body. Prohibition of mutually
> > consensual acts between males and females will always hurt females
> > interest.

Now my ears are burning.

In the short run, the prohibition of prostitution has resulted in
making sex more valuable especially when combined with
the dropoff in reliable marriage.  In the long run, all women
now must work harder to pay taxes for poor impovershed women
who have children without a father to support them.

> What prohibition can you be talking about? Last I checked,
> fornication is perfectly legal in all 50 states.

Prostitution is a mutal consensual act.

> > Ladies, if there is enough of you that sign this petition, I can
use
> > this as justification to eradicate all such laws. Then rich smart
> males
> > will be available to you.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100