What are the laws regarding polygamy in US

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, so at least in the United States, you are not talking about legal marriage. That makes more sense. No need to involve the public court system. And even the involvement of a private court would be optional. You could just write up a piece of paper that says, we're married ... or even skip the paper and just declare your marriage verbally. I suppose, though, that writing up a legal contract could protect both spouses from any abuses within the marriage.

It is amazing, to me, that prostitution is legal in Indonesia, and that you can set up a sugar daddy relationship using that law. It's definitely one advantage to living in Indonesia.

Question: What does PPM stand for?
PPM is pay per meet. Usually I pay women to do hand job. It's basically setting the tone of the relationship that I provide financial support and they provide sexual service.

Then I convince them that I'll repeat order them for life and I offer bonus for giving me children. So it's a bit like life time contract. However it's more natural. Basically we split the contract into smaller pieces.

The idea is relationship is just transactions we do again and again because we're both happy. Seen that way, I can bypass government.

Most people do not like commercial relationship or polygamy. The reason is actually not obvious but a bit plain if we understand evolution theory. Most men are not rich. If women choose who they want too many would choose the most handsome, smart rich men. Books like unplugged alpha says that 80% prettiest women will aim for 20% of best men (and share the men) and the rest grab for scraps.

Of course, realizing this, we have so many laws enforcing monogamous laws. For example, child support in western civilization is huge for richer men.

I do not think sugar relationship is considered prostitution even in Indonesia though I wouldn't be surprised if some equating that.

There are muslims that declare themselves married for a day. Some says it's prostitution another says it's marriage. What puzzles me is, who the hell care.
 
Mod note: this thread is not reflective of the principles of polyamory and if the discussion continues to devolve into misogynistic or misandronistic rhetoric such as the book mentioned above, the thread will be closed.

There are more appropriate places on the web to discuss commodification of sex, and although this is an international board, the question was about the USA, and prostitution is illegal in almost every State. While sugar is obviously practiced, contracting it would almost certainly fall under prostitution laws and would not hold up in a court of law.
 
Mod note: this thread is not reflective of the principles of polyamory and if the discussion continues to devolve into misogynistic or misandronistic rhetoric such as the book mentioned above, the thread will be closed.

There are more appropriate places on the web to discuss commodification of sex, and although this is an international board, the question was about the USA, and prostitution is illegal in almost every State. While sugar is obviously practiced, contracting it would almost certainly fall under prostitution laws and would not hold up in a court of law.
I see. In what way does this discussion go to misogynistic or misandronistic rethoric? I do not see anything hateful here. But people say this a lot to me and I really do not understand.

The contract is something along I will be responsible if a child is born. So I don't offer marriage but I don't mind doing what's reasonable for our children. I don't offer such contracts now because it's impossible to enforce. But my son from a sugar baby is obviously well fed with plenty of toys and 2 baby sitters. I love my children. Around 80% of my money will go there. I do not trust government rules to manage it. The rules may look like benefiting women but my money can end up going to others' children instead of my children if we use governments' rules.

The rest does not really need contract because they are simple transactions.

Do I represent top 20% of the men? Let's put it this way. I live in a poor country. My wealth put me on top 1%. My look maybe top 20%. My IQ is top 2% at least.

However, my political correctness is bottom 10%. People accuse me of misogynistic and I have no idea what did I do that make them think I hate anyone. Usually women try to get me committed in something big, and then uses "societies' value" to say I am wrong. Which is why I fear commitment and want everything to be explicitly transactional and small steps.

My current sugar baby threaten to kill me if I get another woman and she says that because she loves me. I just lost all interest on her because of that. She apologizes but I see this as passive aggressive nonsense.

So if a woman seek a rich man that provide financial support for her and our children then yea I am in. I am only interested in high IQ pretty woman that's young enough but above 18 though. Women that want high IQ men so they can have high IQ children is a great match.

If a woman seeks to be accepted by society, or marriage, or sanctity, or government, then no. They should find someone else. Women wanting to be the only one? Big NO.
 
Last edited:
In what way does this discussion go to misogynistic or misandronistic rethoric? I do not see anything hateful here.
As started in my previous note, the book you mentioned (Unplugged Alpha) and its ilk are reductionist to the point of creating harmful narratives about the worth of men and women to each other. Such books (or podcasts or websites) encourage a disdain (if not outright hatred) for the opposite sex. They are also not reflective of the vast majority of relationships.
 
My current sugar baby threaten to kill me if I get another woman and she says that because she loves me. I just lost all interest on her because of that. She apologizes but I see this as passive aggressive nonsense.

She's not passive aggressive in the slightest. Seems like she's plenty clear about what she wants, what she doesn't want and what the consequences are. Wondering why you've chosen to involve yourself with someone who very clearly doesn't share your values.
 
As started in my previous note, the book you mentioned (Unplugged Alpha) and its ilk are reductionist to the point of creating harmful narratives about the worth of men and women to each other. Such books (or podcasts or websites) encourage a disdain (if not outright hatred) for the opposite sex. They are also not reflective of the vast majority of relationships.
What?

I don't understand. The guy that write the book is rich. Maybe richer than I am. He really gets women. What is harmful narratives?

Actually the book is based on evolutionary psychology. The idea is that our species actually evolve to be polygamists. Men are bigger than women. Women like rich smart men. Men like young beautiful women (when legal).

That the reason why we have monogamous norm is because left to free market, many poor men will not have a wife.

That is why I am asking question about how the law in US works. In one hand you are capitalistic and have capitalistic constitution. I think individuals have a right to choose who he or she has sex and have children on any reasonable terms.

On the other hand there are people that opposes to polygamy, polyandry and transactional sex because it's not "love". I am confused. So I want to know how the law legally works in US.

I do not think I am the only one confused with this absurdity. I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal...es_that_do_not_recognize_polygamous_marriages in Canada. It says that any acts of sexual relationship with multiple people is "polygamy" and illegal punishable by up to 5 years.

So in one hand, we have "freedom" to choose who we have sex with. And on the other hand the state can say, "You got to choose singles"

And I think that's absurd.

I am a libertarian and I am questioning this.
 
She's not passive aggressive in the slightest. Seems like she's plenty clear about what she wants, what she doesn't want and what the consequences are. Wondering why you've chosen to involve yourself with someone who very clearly doesn't share your values.

She is a sugar baby that needed money. Like in US, most people in Indonesia think that the best way for women is to get married. I disagree. I think transactional sex and polyamory, is better. Women can get richer men. Men can get more women. I think the true purpose of monogamy is to artificially creating poverty.

So I tested my idea. I notice that her IQ is high enough. She is a college student in public university and must have passed some tests. So good enough to produce my children. I fucked her.

During that time I am clear that I have other women I like. She also said she wanted to marry her ex teacher that took her virginity. So I do not think monogamy is an issue and I really really want to have more children. My dad has only one grandchildren and my money will be useless without children.

She got pregnant after only 3 weeks. At first I didn't know if the child is really mine. Prenatal paternity tests (followed by normal paternity tests) confirm this. So I am good at my words. Hell, not really a promise. I told her I am rich. We don't really have specific deals. Legally I can just run away. I don't. The child gets everything reasonable money can buy.

Because I am a libertarian atheist, I do not care about religious dogma or what governments want. All I care is those are things I should avoid.

Of course because I took care of my children well and her mom, another sugar baby wants to give me children too.

And we have this conflict.

Fortunately I am not legally married. So I will arrange stuffs. Call lawyers. I do not think it's appropriate to just abandon her. She gave me a child and we actually care about each other.

What I think is absurd is the idea that men can just knock women up and leave and that's legal in Indonesia. I saw kids begging on the street. In US, it's also legal for men to just knock women up and have governments paying welfare.

Yet, guys like me that don't run away is blamed for transactional sex and polygamy. I think that's absurd. I want to be responsible for my children. And if a woman wants me because of my money, that's fine. Why people are hostile to me?

I am not a muslim. However, there is a muslim that says if rich men have multiple wives, poverty will be gone. I partially agree. I do not think the woman need to be a wife though. If a woman is a wife, someone else create rules on what a wife should be. I think individuals should make rules on what relationship should be.

So I asked around and compare opinions.

As for why I like transactional sex. I don't. I do not want to pay for sex for the sake of sex. I can do that too easily. I always want loving relationship. I obviously want to be shared. I don't mind sharing though now I see this to be too problematic.

I do not see why love or sex must be one on one.

In ancient time, we do not have paternity tests. So usually a woman can only have one husband because otherwise we don't know where the wealth of the father go. Usually, in ancient time, the woman cannot have sex outside marriage under pain of death. So ancient marriage is not based on love either but based on transaction with strict penalty.

Now, we can do paternity tests. I will always know who the father is. I am of course, will only be responsible for my blood line. So what's the point of marriage and monogamy?

Transactions have other benefit. Women need to know I'll stick around financially supporting children. I also need to know that I am not scammed by women that just want money. There was a period of time where a woman says she likes "generous men". I ended up spending money on her. Not much. Only $4k for 2 sugar babies. They both don't like me. To be exact, one gets jealous and help another one to scam me.

The prettier and smarter one is willing to be gangbanged for $37 as long as I am not in it because I am too "stupid". Since then, I want to make sure that I have a chance with a woman before spending money.

How do I know? Offer money for hand job. Notice I don't even want to have sex with a woman I don't know. But I need to know she's willing to do something sexy for me. If a woman says she's not a whore, used to get paid a lot, bla bla bla, I know she doesn't like me and move on. With this method, I can "interview" a lot of women and end up with really really high IQ and beautiful sugar baby. And I am happy with the result. I am happy that at least I am not wasting time and money on women that will not like me anyway.

Then it comes to me. Relationship is transactional anyway. I spend money because I thought, wrongfully, that women like generous guy. Why not make it explicit and clear. Making sure I am not wasting money on scammers again.

I read articles like this https://adamlanesmith.com/2019/03/24/are-transactional-relationships-bad/ it says that relationship lasts when each side gets a value.
 
Last edited:
How does your system work if the women are rich and the men are poor?
Or even if women have equal access to the independence, education, jobs, and other resources that allow men to aspire to wealth?
 
So, only intelligent, rich men have value? And only intellegent, young, beautiful women have value? Seems a bit messed up.

What I DO agree with you on is that men should be responsible for their children. It's good you feel that way.

I think the fundamental difference in the mindset between you and many members of this board may not yield information you find useful. Not speaking for everyone, but I sense you are baffled by the responses you are getting.
 
So you pay for sex with women.

The down side being they don’t like you and band together to scheme you out of more money.

But on the plus side they are cheap.

But then again on the downside you are raising a child with someone who doesn’t like you, and doesn’t respect you.

Up to this point, what you have taught us about being a top 20%er in the redpill lifestyle does not sound appealing at all….
 
You ain’t redpill my man. Being an alpha isn’t about being chumped by prostitutes. A true alpha doesn’t need to pay for sex. Your a beta pretending to be alpha, and you don't represent what rp is all about.
 
As started in my previous note, the book you mentioned (Unplugged Alpha) and its ilk are reductionist to the point of creating harmful narratives about the worth of men and women to each other. Such books (or podcasts or websites) encourage a disdain (if not outright hatred) for the opposite sex. They are also not reflective of the vast majority of relationships.

That’s not accurate. Redpill isn’t about disdain or hatred, it’s about trying explain common relationship problems for both sexes. Like why weak men might get waked all over, or why promiscuous women might have trouble finding men who take them seriously in a relationship.

In my opinion rp looks at evolution to understand common mating strategy differences in men and women, but does not to say it works that way 100% of the time. A lot of redpill guys want to be the alpha for a pleasant and agreeable woman. So they give advice about how to find that, and how to avoid disagreeable and bitter women. It’s all about relationship preference. Can you relate to having a relationship preference?
 
I warned y'all about this thread devolving.

This is the end of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top