Yes, I would count OnlyFans as a pussy union, not a scab, since no actual pussy is being given out. More accurately, it substitutes pussy with a vastly cheaper good at a similar price, multiplying the productivity of women's sexual capital a thousandfold. So, no OnlyFans.
So, we agree, then?
[UWSL]Not if you get rid of gynocentric family courts and restore father's rights. This is how women worked in, say, [/UWSL]
London in the 1700's[UWSL]. Women could either find and belong to a family-oriented beta-civilization type man, or be played by alpha-harem type men and work as prostitutes. Remember, back then custody of children belonged to the father, a large concession which made having children worthwhile for family-oriented men.[/UWSL]
"Gynocentric family courts" I agree that "she divorces him and takes half his money" is a problem, I would get rid of "family courts" altogether and just have a standard operating procedure, and/or base it directly on the individuals' preferences.
Also, more than just "alpha-harem type men" bought prostitutes. There were men that could neither afford (or were not willing to start) a family but we're not "alpha", I'm sure they benefited from prostitutes. Even family men bought prostitutes sometimes.
My point is, were these prostitutes having children? If not, could it have been weeding attractive female genes out of the gene pool? If so, was it with "alpha harem type men"? Either way, it still goes to prove my point about unsustainability.
[UWSL]No man, child support [/UWSL]is[UWSL] welfare. Child support flows from beta men to bad-actor women. [/UWSL]
True, but like you point out, it also flows from "alpha" men to bad-actor women, and, furthermore, under traditionalism, childcare also flows from beta male providers to bad actor women barely being kept in check by traditionalism. And what do you think prostitution is, other than money flowing from beta men (sometimes) to bad-actor women? You think hookers are upstandingly moral individuals? I agree with them being bad actors, though.
[UWSL]It causes women to go after “alpha” men who are more attractive but less productive, [/UWSL]
How? What is the mechanism of action?
[UWSL]with the promise that 1. those men would theoretically be forced to pay a pittance, or 2. even worse, some beta man will be pinned with child support for being a “parental figure” to another man’s child (many such cases).[/UWSL]
So, my question is, is there not a clear logical incentive for women to go after rich guys? I agree that women should have to take a paternity test (show proof of biological fatherhood) to receive anything, however.
[UWSL]The core mechanism of civilization was to force women to mate with beta men to draw out the productivity of all men. Unchecked welfare for women, in general, frees them up to abandon betas and flock to alphas.[/UWSL]
Agreed.
Overall, I believe that when a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.
The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.
Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this conversation). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.
I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.
