Source: Facebook

WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS?

Let’s go thru the logic:

AFAIK Marriage consists of the following contractual properties.

1) insurance by the community that they will not interfere in the corporation you have created for the production of offspring, in exchange for not forcing them to pay the cost of paying for your offspring by moral hazard.

2) the right of killing, harming, or demanding restitution from those who interfere in that corporation and create the hazard for the members of the contract, and their offspring.

3) a contract of exclusivity between a man and a woman for sex, affection, care-taking, children, economic cooperation (household cost sharing).

4) Grant of general power of attorney to the spouse in all matters, of property, life, and death

I have no problem with (meaning I don’t seen an argument against) prostitution, call girls, courtiers, or ‘paid’ mistresses (or studs). This poses no threat to the corporation that consists of the family, nor the contract between the community and the members of the corporation.

I am not a fan of unpaid mistresses unless you can easily afford them and the offspring that they produce. Ergo, the difference between polygamy and ‘mistresses’ is arbitrary, other than polygamy means sharing the same household) and paid mistresses not. The question is whether one can create a marriage contract with more than one woman and I think the answer is no, but then we can certainly create ‘lover/mistress’ contracts outside the marriage (or instead of them). And I would prefer we do this rather than continue this nonsensical debate over the redefinition of marriage. We use different corporation structures (c, s, llc, partnerships, sole proprietorships) and there is no reason we cannot create marriages with similar decreasing requirements.

Normatively we required you pay for your legitimate offspring but not your illegitimate. And you continue to pay for your legitimate and illegitimate offspring as a means of retaining the sex and affection of a woman. This provides the correct incentives to all. For a woman she dooms herself and her children to relative poverty, so she keeps men at bay and does not interfere in other marriages. But if she is willing she can gain offspring, sex, and gifts, from superior males. For a man, this means he can pay for sex without incurring responsibility for offspring, or sacrifice his family. Male sex is a need. Female sex is a want. Motherhood is exhausting, and servicing men is an option while servicing children is a necessity. This is the way we evolved.

Moreover, a mistress that you pay for sex and affection is only logical for a man. A woman has access to child’s affection, and a man far less so. Men will kill each other over women and so that’s a different thing. Both a mans and a women’s status is harmed by male infidelity. Risk is increased for the economic unit that is the family.

The french and italian (latin) models seem effective: a lot of extramarital sex in exchange for preservation of the family unit, with the presumption that there are high costs for either embarrassing the spouse and family, or interfering with that relationship. This is possible because of the retention of the intergenerational family (traditional family). Which provides insurance to one another. The traditional family, in turn, is possible because of lower geographic mobility (less big sorting going on), and the retention of older generations in low cost geographies out of the city, and younger generation employment in the high cost cities; the limited use of suburbs rather than family sized urban apartments, and suburban/rural ‘grandparents’ homes. (the germans do this the best it seems.)

Conclusions:

(a) marriage is irreplaceable as a means of long term economic cooperation. You will be more prosperous if married and poorer if unmarried.

(b) a man must produce, in a short time, during his productive phase, sufficient reserves to carry him through late life. He can produce those reserves through investment in family that will care for him in the future, or in capital that will provide care for him in the future. For women, they are much more fungible in society and are lower cost in old age. men specialize and adapt poorly, women generalize and adapt highly.

(c) children always ‘belong’ to a woman unless she is unfit. A man trades sex, affection, care, shared costs, and support in exchange for exclusivity. A woman for the same plus the care for her offspring.

(d) If you interfere in the marriage you demonstrate willingness to take up the costs of the man or woman you seek to replace. In other words, you are liable for damages (which are empirically, quite substantial).

(e) If a marriage dissolution is voluntary, then all exchange and all responsibility, and all corporate relations end. Period. Individuals may negotiate money for access etc if they choose. No child support, no spousal support.

(f) Community property never exists and never can, and never should. End marital community property entirely. Make this a negotiating point in relationships.

(g) Prenup contracts must be the most enforceable contracts of all contracts, without exception.

(h) yes to paid sex and affection. yes to uninsured polygamy (non-marriage). yes to monogamous (insured) marriage. yes to ‘casual encounters’. No to interference in the corporation that insulates the community from the costs of your reproduction.

IMHO these questions are largely irrelevant, because we all fool around quite a bit. The question is only what insurance we provide and what behaviors we demand in order to prevent fooling around producing costs that are imposed upon others.

Empirically, and rationally, the latin model traditional family is superior to the germanic absolute nuclear family. or said differently, the absolute nuclear family is too fragile as a general rule for other than the genetic, cultural, and occupational elite.

History has solved this problem for us by gradual empirical means. If you have a marriage and women who bear children you will survive. If you do not you will be conquered and defeated. If you wish to be conquered and defeated then you may not make that choice for others. And so we must revolt and separate so that those of us who do not wish to be conquered defeated, displaced, and removed from history, and the future, are not conquered, defeated, and displaced by the weak among us.

Curt Doolittle

The Natural Law of Reciprocity

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.