It’s simple.

Don’t have them.

Scrap enforced monogamy entirely.

Have sex when you feel like it with the nearest consenting adult, and when you feel its time to have a child, have/adopt one and do right by him/her/it. The only reason single parents are single is because the potential demands placed on potential surrogates scare them away.

If women didn’t demand exclusivity and lifetime contracts the children could get an idea of masculinity piece meal through momentary exposure to dozens of healthy supportive relationships.

And you just assumed that because this hypothetical woman has access to dozens of men I meant she’s having sex with all of them didn’t you.

The same of course applies in reverse but single fathers, thanks to custody battle disadvantage, are somewhat rare.

Monogamy; the attempt to find one single person to replace the entire set of opportunities presented by the complementary gender.

No rational thinking being can possibly and realistically expect to find a single individual that will satisfy all needs possibly met by a member of the opposite sex. (Adjust terminology to include homosexuality as needed.)

It’s like signing up for a career when you turn 10 and being held to it.

Choosing that career correctly would be a herculean task. Our solution? Don’t hold them to it. Do what suits you. Have a career or don’t, have one job or 5, change jobs once a year, or retire a 50 year veteran, work for someone else, or start your own business, etc etc etc.

The restriction is what creates the problem. So, remove the restriction. Duh.

Get The Company out of the bedroom entirely. Meet your needs as they arise, respect those around you, demand and earn respect.

When the very structure of society since the dawn of agriculture demands that men compete for the basic human needs of sex and food, you can expect men to compete.

If you want cooperation, make that demand consistent across all of society. But no, women want men to be antler bashing thugs in one way or another in almost every area of life.

Women these days either seem to revel in the gladiatorial games (every fight video on the net has some girl cheering in the crowd “kick his #$% honey!”) or they act all shocked and superior. And yet they are more than happy to announce their search for a winner.

Well, in 99% of cases for there to be a human winner there has to be a human loser. Men are generally required by women to fight. A woman’s role in society these days is to a large degree a shame dispenser designed to keep men acting their part. To see an idealized/exaggerated example, watch Batman Begins/Dark Knight.

If we arrested and convicted every perpetrator of every instance of assault, there would be more men in prison than out. Is there an able bodied man over 20 in the United States today that hasn’t been in a fight? How about women?

What is a bar? A place to hunt a mate. Ever heard of a bar fight?

Fighting is, thanks to the demands of monogamy and television, nearly unavoidable.

Example, if a couple is sitting in the park having dinner and some random guy walks up and calls the woman something sexually profane, what percentage of women would approve of or even openly demand a physical response be meted out on their behalf?

Women like to talk about sensitivity and all the other enlightened demands you would expect of a generation exposed to Dr Phil, but in the end. The ladies tend to go home with the Alpha, no matter how he asserted himself.

Marriage is about state enforced sexual bondage and nothing else, and it’s in the female’s best interest. They win in custody battles, they win in divorce court, they win at child support, they win during the marriage. Go read up on Genghis Khan’s love life to see what men are programmed to do.

A prohibition on sex with anyone outside the marriage is the definition of marriage. Therefor marriages are about sex and nothing else.

Assuming you have a spouse, name me one thing that you can do with a friend that you can’t do with a spouse. Nothing. From hang gliding to humping like bunnies, everything I can do with a friend, I can in theory do with a wife.

Thus a spouse can be perfectly equivalent to a friend. Now, name me one thing that you can’t do with a friend that you can do with a spouse. Sex. That’s all. By definition the only thing I can’t do with a friend when I have a spouse, is have sex. Marriage is thus about sex, it’s the only universal rule, its what defines a marriage. “Commitment” sexually. “Loyalty” sexually. “Mutual respect” of sexual prohibitions. But the game is rigged.

Marriage and enforced monogamy generally are always sexist by definition. Binary relationships are by definition immune to democracy because there is no deciding vote, therefor its always a power struggle unless you married a clone.

And since marriage is about sex, and by hormonal/genetic definition men want sex with different women more than women want sex with different men, and since testosterone is the sex hormone in both genders and men have more, and since women prosper hugely in court when men are caught cheating, state enforced monogamous marriage by definition Heavily oppresses men and favors women. Thus, talk of equality in marriage in America is its like talk of religious freedom in Vatican city.

If you make 10,000 children sing one song, someone’s going to ask about your motive, about manipulation, oppression, and brain washing.

But if you make 10,000 children sing 10,000 different songs, each of their own choosing, then who’s going to notice?

That’s what we have today. A society saturated with propaganda, where you have near infinite choice, but very nearly all your choices serve The Company agenda.

Praise for monogamy and the ethic of competition in America today is as insidiously commonplace as praise of racial purity and national socialism was in Hitler’s Germany.

And for exactly the same reason.

Power.

I grow bitter that I’m the only one apparently that sees this.

Monogamy chops up spontaneous social groupings and injects sexual tension into every facet of our lives. It turns men against one another and turns women into objects to be fought over and won.

I don’t care how good this is for the gene, its devastating to humanity.

We have moved past natural selection people. We are not dumb animals to be tricked and lured. Are we? Are you?

Should we have our doctors hide our medicine in our food as well? Are we that in need of training?

Every aspect of this we agree is loathsome.

We denounce the objectification of women, needless conflict, apathy, envy, the concepts of ownership being applied to people, oppression, greed and yet enforced monogamy is composed of these things.

We applaud freedom of choice and expression, and the value of love, yet forced monogamy is counter to these things.

Let us be clear about what monogamy is. Sexual slavery.

Wedding are about sex, and nothing else.

Oh but its about love and companionship and all those other great things they say but its not.

Name me one thing that you can do with a friend that you can’t do with a spouse. Nothing. Thus a spouse can be perfectly equivalent to a friend.

Would you not agree that it’s absurd to say that having two friends dilutes friendship? Can you not love multiple friends equally but differently?

Now, name me one thing that you can’t do with a friend that you can do with a spouse. Sex. Thus a friend can not be perfectly equivalent to a spouse.

Sex.

That’s all. That’s the only difference between a spouse and a friend.

I can even have sex with multiple friends.

Marriage is a single rule cloaked in euphemism, deception, and flowery vague language about who you can sleep with, enforced by the state, the corporations, and the church. The Company.

We chafe under the invasion of society into our sexuality in all other arenas of life.

Why does this area get a pass?

Why is every song about earning the girl or luring the man?

And Perhaps the most important question… What does The Company care who you sleep with? Why are they so damn interested?

Because by forcing monogamy they accomplish hordes of their goals at your expense.

Demand your freedom. Tell The Company to get out of your bedroom. Choose for yourself what love is, and what you’ll do with your body with consenting adults.

You’re being played. You’re being owned. And you’re defending you’re abusers.

Might I strongly suggest you all watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4178207272137043694 Hitler’s Children – Dedication

Controlling girls controls society. Every solider and worker gets his own private girl that’s all his. That’s what marriage has ALWAYS been about.

That’s what it’s still about. And it’s disgusting to me. Women are PEOPLE. And you don’t divvy up people like uniforms.

A good friend of mine asked me my opinion about a post he made expressing his frustration at the underhanded behavior of some people with which he has constant contact. In his struggle to understand the myriad injustices caused by and exploited by the unethical among us he has fallen into an all too common logical trap.

The intention of this post is by no means to ridicule or belittle him. But instead of offer up my most dispassionate analysis of why I disagree. This work is in effect an essay on why race should not be an issue.

I have been given by fate and chance the luxuries of interest, environment, and time, to study these issues. I strongly believe that if my friend had been so lucky there would have been no need as we would already agree.

The man who wrote this is a good intelligent and decent man, a real stand up guy, a hard working father, and a loyal friend. This is a classic example of the simple fact that being mistaken does not make you a bad person, and that there is strength in change.

By asking for my opinion he has made it clear that he is open to new ideas, and that’s more than I can say for 90% of you people.

Here is the full text of his post. I have not edited it in any way. My text on the other hand is polished to what I hope is perfection, so don’t be a grammar/spelling nazi.

i know plenty of black people sitting on their ass waiting for the welfare check. it’s like their biggest dream is to find a fat, white woman that gets government assistance and child support from some unlucky dude. they’re parasites to the whole human race. the only thing that they’ve contributed to society is stupid shit like that “no child left behind” bullshit. just because little jerome couldn’t study cause mommy was out smoking crack all night, that means my kids are held back from reaching their full potential in public schools. come on, it’s been, like, 150 years since lincoln freed the slaves… just get a job already. if you really want the truth, just look at mother africa, herself. a beautiful country with abundant resources, and they’re all living in poverty, highest rate of aids, and illiteracy. parasite or human? you be the judge

Here are my responses to each part…

i know plenty of black people sitting on their ass waiting for the welfare check.

I’m sure you do, but given that there are 350 million people in the United States, even if you knew 10,000, that wouldn’t be significant. However, you can safely assume that there are a large number of black people on welfare, as there are white people and other races on welfare. The question then becomes are there a disproportionate number of black people on welfare, and again even if so, a new question arises, for what reason is there a disproportion?

Without answering these questions the sentence becomes little more than propaganda, that is a statement designed to produce an opinion without providing just cause. The logical flaws of the sentence are biased sampling, generalization, simplification, and the false dilemma.

it’s like their biggest dream is to find a fat, white woman that gets government assistance and child support from some unlucky dude. they’re parasites to the whole human race.

Clearly you are aware of the unjust nature of child support but I urge you to not blame those that exploit the opportunity, they are just people walking down the street who find money. Blame the people or systems that create the opportunity. Who and what exactly that means in my opinion is beyond the scope of this response.

the only thing that they’ve contributed to society is stupid shit like that “no child left behind” bullshit. just because little jerome couldn’t study cause mommy was out smoking crack all night, that means my kids are held back from reaching their full potential in public schools.

This paragraph is complex because it touches on so many issues. Firstly there is the assumption that education equals intelligence or that study equal intelligence. Also it touches on the difference between intellect and knowledge. To sum that difference up, a library knows more than me but is it more intelligent? Or in computer terms, hard drive space vs processor speed.

Also this paragraph betrays an over simplification of the politics of education with regard to right vs left and the real purpose of education in society. To avoid getting into a political debate let me ask you a question that I hope will cut to the point. Do you really think congressmen from any party or district actually care about children?

You also assume that failing more students who can not produce results on very possibly flawed standardized tests would somehow increase the intelligence of your children. That makes assumptions about standardized tests, about the nature of intelligence, and what it takes to enhance it. You also assume that increased intelligence will equal a happier and richer life, which is a complicated issue all by itself.

Further blacks have contributed a great deal to society, that much can not be rationally argued, but I think what you mean is a certain cultural element, which for the purposes of this rebuttal I’ll call thug culture. A culture I might add contains a great many white people as well. It is a classic generalization error to confuse one set with another when those sets over lap in a given target group, or put differently, correlation does not denote causation. Example:

More rich people own dodge vipers than poor people. Does that mean buying a dodge viper makes you rich? Just because viper ownership is correlated with richness does not mean it causes richness, just as just because being black is correlated with thug culture does not mean being black makes you a thug.

come on, it’s been, like, 150 years since lincoln freed the slaves… just get a job already.

I’m not sure I see what slavery has to do with the job market except that maybe you are implying the post slavery era created a sort of grace period where in blacks could be safely expected to not advance culturally and that that grace period is now expired and therefor any failure to advance on their part is now safe to blame on them as a people.

This idea has a host of problems. For one, is the concept known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some damage is permanent. Slavery happened very early in this country’s history, it was with us from the very beginning and even that is a gross simplification. History can be seen as a single complex event, and arbitrarily starting at emancipation in one country that only represents %5 of the population of the planet when the body of the event is millennia old and spans the globe is a recipe for misconception.

Still more, you assume that getting a job is a function of pluck and determination, this is known as the Horatio Alger mythology. He was an author that wrote rags to riches stories aimed at increasing patriotism among young boys. Employment is a complex social psychological and cultural topic. One of the millions of justified potential causes for an aversion to employment (of which I could speak for hours/pages) is one I call the Boot Camp Effect. This is where simply being in a job is corrosive to ones personal identify and sense of self worth.

No one in my opinion in a country as wealthy as ours should have to chose between the death of who they are just to feed and cloth themselves.

Participation in mainstream job culture requires a person to suppress themselves if they fail to internalize that culture.

Being a white male from the south, which is an old and powerful culture in this nation (just look how many judges military and police have deep southern accents regardless of jurisdiction), you are not in a position to viscerally/emotionally understand what the complete suppression of your culture for the privilege of wage slavery feels like. I am a cultural alien, I reject virtually everything about society so I think I do know, but that’s irrelevant.

In short many elements of the black culture have huge amounts of personal identity and pride to lose in the face of “a job” as compared to you. A job costs you far less than it does many of them.

To try and help you understand, imagine if getting a job, any job, required you to dress like a woman and literally crawl around all day begging strangers? Or maybe to tailor this response to you personally what if getting a job required you to play the part of the thugs that frustrate you. …to in every way dress and act “black”? Would you feel justified in abstaining from this choice? Would you blame the system that forces it on you?

Speaking as a man with a couple crushing phobias I would like you to understand something. That how you feel doing a certain thing is not how someone else may feel doing the exact same thing.

if you really want the truth, just look at mother africa, herself. a beautiful country with abundant resources, and they’re all living in poverty, highest rate of aids, and illiteracy. parasite or human? you be the judge.

Again, Africa has had a huge disadvantage from an industrial progressive perspective it’s entire life. It’s indigenous culture was utterly destroyed by the more technologically advanced, and ideologically brutal, cultures of the era.

Colonial interests, raw greed, religious interests, strategic concerns, climactic issues, and of course plague have constantly ravaged that continent. To blame it’s current standing on the people alone, let alone their race, is like blaming a rape victim for having an orifice. It’s true, but it’s also absurd.

Do you similarly blame the native Americans? They were also a continent beset by outside forces thanks to resources exterior cultures felt were being wasted, when they bothered to justify their theft at all.

Would you tolerate someone coming into your house and telling you that you were wasting your things and therefor they had the right to take them and sell them to someone else?

What we’re talking about here is the clash between styles of life. Technological culture gave us a strategic advantage, it enabled us to take what we want, and we took it. I don’t think personal failings come into it except on our part for failing to take responsibility for our power. Indeed I could argue that the desire for a simpler life as opposed to the development of industrial society was prophetic.

Would I be justified in killing the Amish and taking their land just because I can? Are the Amish fundamentally weak as a people because they choose not to industrialize? Does the Amish choice makes all white people similarly weak? Is it in fact weakness at all?

Summation:
Your current positions and statements treat race as a dominant factor in situations that are complicated beyond imagination. Any single facet of each are worthy of lifetimes of study.

May I suggest you break down your position into statements of fact, simple, clear cut, either or questions. Work out the steps of your logic. Ask yourself at each point, on what assumption does this depend?

I think you’ll find that on closer inspection even you don’t agree with some of the things you said. You just haven’t had the time to really pick it apart.

I really hope this has been helpful. And believe me I share your frustration at misuse of government funds. I think we both know hosts of exploitative cruel people that seem to prosper by their very lack of ethics.

But really, it’s not a race thing. It’s a money thing and a jealousy thing.

If anyone has problems with any of my logic feel free to post it. I will answer.

At its core the dilemma is one of ability and cost.

Put simply the paradox is that in order to have the power to change things one must aid the system enough to coax it into allowing you power since taking power is virtually a non option and yet aiding the system is precisely what a revolutionary can not do.

The best case scenario from the personal perspective of the revolutionary is waking up to horror, that is being a cog long enough to get in deep and then turning it all around and using the power to trash the system.

But this option hinges on chance and ignorance to grant power and then free the revolutionary to act, plus it comes with random debt since we don’t know what was done prior to the awakening. Indeed there is a real risk of psychological collapse from guilt, not to mention organizational opposition. This is clearest in whistle blowers and ex mafia. People who want “out” and are later crushed for their ethics.

Virtually every path to the ethical acquisition of power has been tried and closed off.

The Company cannot allow those with the desire to do good to fill positions from which they can actually do good. This is the genius of capitalism and why it is universally corrupt. Again, put simply, those that desire power shouldn’t have it.