IMPORTANT: THE DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING DIRECTION https://t.co/r7YWhHSmlj

Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:31:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450847264461791234

IMPORTANT: THE DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING DIRECTION https://t.co/r7YWhHSmlj

Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:31:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450847264461791234
THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY
I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value.
In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male.
Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so.
We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.
This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living.
In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons.
Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:30:48 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134572883970826
THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE
— “we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.” —
As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior.
Family = Assets in a Private Corporation
Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage.
So the idea that we invented the corporation for capitalism is just another leftist fraud. We can ONLY produce commons by reciprocal insurance of demonstrated interests (investments, assets, property), and the family, the tribe, the polity, the state, were all corporations.
That’s what a corporation means: a collection of assets protected by limited liability and insured by the polity against the imposition of costs, whether by harm or privatization, by others. The family is the first corporation we insure. Because it’s the first reason men kill.
And destruction of the MARRIGAGE MARKET IS THE PRIMARY REASON MEN REVOLT. Yep. it’s an evolutionary necessity. It can’t be otherwise. It’s the most common reason for revolution in history. Becaues it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:26:50 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134321297810820
Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450826587310546949
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:14:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450827652424740868
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450826587310546949
–“we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.”–
Family = Assets in a Private Corporation https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450823892017238022
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:09:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450826587310546949
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450823892017238022
As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 13:59:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450823892017238022
Reply addressees: @SepteusT
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450819159881781250
There is nothing special about this strategy because it works with everyone. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450669518934745095
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 04:02:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450673745702658049
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1450669518934745095
(Appears from what I’ve seen – weight, movement, fitness, diet, and plastic-chemicals related. Heading rapidly to zero. )
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 01:35:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450636761751822339
Reply addressees: @EBasilion @strongstate
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450634889586528256
Eva … Let’s soften that as romantic love as the incentive to marry has largely been a failure. In other words, marriage requires a portfolio of interests, of which romance is but one, and one we must convert into friendship, mutual support, and care as eros and romance decline.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 01:19:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450632754253664258
Reply addressees: @EBasilion @strongstate
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1450631690439778308
@neofugue1@newspeaktranny@r7booster
(a) you’re fantasizing.
(b) why wouldn’t women do what they always do which is ally with men more desirable than you to bring about conditions favorable to those women and the men they attract? They would. They have.
(c) If you can’t construct a step by step plan to bring about a given condition then you’re just larping.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 23:01:37 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107130683203664340