There is a debate in my country where forced sex within marriage is rape or not.
In one hand it's forced, so it's rape so it should be illegal. That's the logic. The muslim conservatives don't like this though. They said religions say it's okay.
On the other hand, people can legitimately wonder. If she doesn't want to have sex why is she marrying?
There is a well understood understanding that marriage agreement include "unlimited sex buffet".
Let's look at similar problems.
Or what about if you hire an employee that doesn't want to work? What about if you loan money to someone that doesn't want feel like paying latter.
Think about it. Imagine you buy a bread from McDonald. However, McDonald doesn't have to give you any bread.
It may sound like it's a good deal for McDonald. Is it? No. McDonald can ask for more money from you if it can show that it have to give you the burger.
That is why many libertarians think that one of the main purpose of government is to enforce contract. Enforcing contract allow people to make win win deals that require enforcement.
A woman that commit to have sex to a man for a long time can get richer smarter males. That's win win. That's reasonable contract.
Marriage is very expensive for rich smart males in democratic countries. Alimony and child support is pretty much proportional to earning potential. Marriage means a lot of commitment from the men. What about from the women?
If after that you may not even get sex, if your wive can have sex with the milk men and told you to just watch and you can't divorce her because that means you lost your house, you should ask an important question. Why would you want to get married?
And the simple rational answer is you don't. Most kids nowadays are born outside marriage. And that's fine for me.
I don't know if libertarians would agree with me on this or not. However, I do not see any benefit of marriage that I cannot get from normal sugar relationship? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Some people, the social conservative, have this fetish that government and religions must be some of the "fuck buddy". Then they complain latter when governments policies or religious interpretation is not like what they think it should.
I still have a hard time understanding social conservatives. They're often crazier than libtards.
Me, I have a different fetish. When I see governments, I run away. When I see religions, I stay away as far as I can. I don't know. I don't really want to know. I just wanna run. I ignored all reasoning that involve religions
A woman can make more money from men if she commits to have sex with him.
How do you address this need?
Just like employee can make more money from employer if he commit to work.
Of course, we don't always need governments to enforce our contract.
We can split contract into smaller pieces.
Instead of, Jane, let me marry you, I can say, Jane, here is $100 if you have sex with me tonight. If you don't run away, there will be another $100 the next day. Let's make our own arrangements.
That would be a good deal too.
But that's illegal. That's prostitution.
So what?
Western civilizations are losing children. Their best and brightest aren't breeding. You better figure something out that will work.
Many think that sex is part of a deal. So it shouldn't be called rape.
Is sex really part of the deal? People promise to live together, "till death due us part", "for better or worse" bla bla bla. They never explicitly promise they agree to have sex with one another. Why not? That's just what's so puzzling for me. I like my contract to be clear and explicit, especially for "material terms".
Hell, I don't care about better or worse till death due us part. Too touchy feely for me. Nothing in the bible says explicitly that anyway. I am not religious. However, even if I am religious I see absolutely nothing in the bible that says we got to do it till one of us die or something along that.
I read the bible. I think torah society is closer to muslim or arab society to be frank.
Another arrangements should be why not let the girl decides before marriage. Will she always agree to have sex or not? And then we have the usual governments' role in allowing contract and enforcing reasonable, non fraudulent, non coercive contract?
This can lead to another big problem. Imagine if the girl agree to "marry" by mistake? Imagine buying software and one of the term and condition is agree to have sex?
The idea that you can make any contract you want can lead to problems where some people will make deceptive contracts. It doesn't protect you from your own mistake.
I don't know what libertarian positions here. Should people make any contract they want and how does libertarians deal with deceptive contracts?
Another solution is for the state to create many "standard contracts". Because the state specify this is the kind of contracts I will enforce, deceptive contracts can be eliminated. The state simply make some contracts illegal.
This will lead to another problem. The state can prevent people making reasonable contracts that are not deceptive in anyway.
Anti prostitution laws are one such laws. The state can declare any contract where sex is one of the consideration illegal.
So I like the final way. Let the state decides what sort of contract you can make, and then you move to such states.
To be frank.
Out of 5 choices, I do not know the right answer. I like the split contract into smaller pieces kind of thing. No body goes to jail for being a sugar daddy yet. Legal enough. It's the most practical ones now.
We have normal contracts when buying bread, when loaning money, when hiring employee. Why when something involve sex it has to be this complicated?
Just vote. I want to know your opinion.
In one hand it's forced, so it's rape so it should be illegal. That's the logic. The muslim conservatives don't like this though. They said religions say it's okay.
On the other hand, people can legitimately wonder. If she doesn't want to have sex why is she marrying?
There is a well understood understanding that marriage agreement include "unlimited sex buffet".
Let's look at similar problems.
Or what about if you hire an employee that doesn't want to work? What about if you loan money to someone that doesn't want feel like paying latter.
Think about it. Imagine you buy a bread from McDonald. However, McDonald doesn't have to give you any bread.
It may sound like it's a good deal for McDonald. Is it? No. McDonald can ask for more money from you if it can show that it have to give you the burger.
That is why many libertarians think that one of the main purpose of government is to enforce contract. Enforcing contract allow people to make win win deals that require enforcement.
A woman that commit to have sex to a man for a long time can get richer smarter males. That's win win. That's reasonable contract.
Marriage is very expensive for rich smart males in democratic countries. Alimony and child support is pretty much proportional to earning potential. Marriage means a lot of commitment from the men. What about from the women?
If after that you may not even get sex, if your wive can have sex with the milk men and told you to just watch and you can't divorce her because that means you lost your house, you should ask an important question. Why would you want to get married?
And the simple rational answer is you don't. Most kids nowadays are born outside marriage. And that's fine for me.
I don't know if libertarians would agree with me on this or not. However, I do not see any benefit of marriage that I cannot get from normal sugar relationship? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Some people, the social conservative, have this fetish that government and religions must be some of the "fuck buddy". Then they complain latter when governments policies or religious interpretation is not like what they think it should.
I still have a hard time understanding social conservatives. They're often crazier than libtards.
Me, I have a different fetish. When I see governments, I run away. When I see religions, I stay away as far as I can. I don't know. I don't really want to know. I just wanna run. I ignored all reasoning that involve religions
A woman can make more money from men if she commits to have sex with him.
How do you address this need?
Just like employee can make more money from employer if he commit to work.
Of course, we don't always need governments to enforce our contract.
We can split contract into smaller pieces.
Instead of, Jane, let me marry you, I can say, Jane, here is $100 if you have sex with me tonight. If you don't run away, there will be another $100 the next day. Let's make our own arrangements.
That would be a good deal too.
But that's illegal. That's prostitution.
So what?
Western civilizations are losing children. Their best and brightest aren't breeding. You better figure something out that will work.
Many think that sex is part of a deal. So it shouldn't be called rape.
Is sex really part of the deal? People promise to live together, "till death due us part", "for better or worse" bla bla bla. They never explicitly promise they agree to have sex with one another. Why not? That's just what's so puzzling for me. I like my contract to be clear and explicit, especially for "material terms".
Hell, I don't care about better or worse till death due us part. Too touchy feely for me. Nothing in the bible says explicitly that anyway. I am not religious. However, even if I am religious I see absolutely nothing in the bible that says we got to do it till one of us die or something along that.
I read the bible. I think torah society is closer to muslim or arab society to be frank.
Another arrangements should be why not let the girl decides before marriage. Will she always agree to have sex or not? And then we have the usual governments' role in allowing contract and enforcing reasonable, non fraudulent, non coercive contract?
This can lead to another big problem. Imagine if the girl agree to "marry" by mistake? Imagine buying software and one of the term and condition is agree to have sex?
The idea that you can make any contract you want can lead to problems where some people will make deceptive contracts. It doesn't protect you from your own mistake.
I don't know what libertarian positions here. Should people make any contract they want and how does libertarians deal with deceptive contracts?
Another solution is for the state to create many "standard contracts". Because the state specify this is the kind of contracts I will enforce, deceptive contracts can be eliminated. The state simply make some contracts illegal.
This will lead to another problem. The state can prevent people making reasonable contracts that are not deceptive in anyway.
Anti prostitution laws are one such laws. The state can declare any contract where sex is one of the consideration illegal.
So I like the final way. Let the state decides what sort of contract you can make, and then you move to such states.
To be frank.
Out of 5 choices, I do not know the right answer. I like the split contract into smaller pieces kind of thing. No body goes to jail for being a sugar daddy yet. Legal enough. It's the most practical ones now.
We have normal contracts when buying bread, when loaning money, when hiring employee. Why when something involve sex it has to be this complicated?
Just vote. I want to know your opinion.
Last edited:
