Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


At some point it may make sense to develop a new Marriage Contract for over 50% of all marriages end in divorce and there seems to be much unnecessary strife between men and women.

The below work-in-progress is a proposed new contract. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and may be incorporated.


PREMISE:

During the Age of Church and State, when the King wanted his Harem to be as large and disease-free as possible, life-long marriages made sense -- at least for the King. They also made sense for the pastor and preachers that needed to increase their donor base. Yes the only way for the Church to really profit was for it to go into partnership with the State, and together, decree Sex to be the object of Satanic activity.

After all, were the King's Subjects to be freely !@#$ each and all -- as pre-agrarian society had been doing for 195,000 years -- the King's harem would be dismally infected with all manner of Satanic sexually transmitted diseases. What then would give the King his pleasures when taxing and slaughtering other Kingdoms became boring? Thus were born the "!@#$ Laws."


THE !@#$ LAWS:

The !@#$ Laws decreed that there shall be no !@#$ unless prior consent was given by the King. Thus the acronym, [sign in to see URL]., comes from the royal command: Fornication Under Consent of the King.

The !@#$ Laws, in effect, conferred a license to !@#$, much the same as the modern-day driver's license confers a license to drive. The Subjects of the Kingdom simply paid a small fee to the King's treasury and they were granted a license to !@#$, hence inevitably bear children because there was no birth control. This became what's known today as the "Marriage License" -- the right to !@#$ in the eyes of the King, or the state.

But !@#$ in the eyes of the King would soon prove to be insufficient. After all males and females had been !@#$ for the past 1 billion years -- and !@#$ as homo sapiens the past 195,000 years. Given this,
 many of the King's subjects revolted. "Why do I need a '!@#$ license' when we have been !@#$ for thousands of years?" Cries like this went out from every bedroom window every night through out the Kingdom. To the King's "!@#$ Laws" the subjects would say "!@#$ you" -- meaning that that they had the right to !@#$ "you" or me or anyone they wanted without a license. Thus the origin of the phrase "!@#$ you" is no derogatory at all but merely an expression of one's right to freedom.


THE CHURCH LENDS A HAND:

It soon became evident to the King that his Harem was going to suffer. If he could not pair up his Subjects in the bonds of Marriage pursuant to his new !@#$ Laws, how could he ensure that every man in the Kingdom fucked only one (1) of his women?! And make no mistake, all of the women in the Kingdom WERE the King's women, his property. The King only lent them out. And he lent out the women that were only good for "babymaking." The rest -- the most choice women -- would remain in his Harem, disease-free and ready to !@#$ the King and all his officers at the slightest command.

Unfortunately, no matter how many heads the King chopped off, men and women in the Kingdom continued to !@#$ each other without authorization, without a license. The King's Harem was down to but a handful of diseased women and the King was pissed. Even his officers and soldiers were getting restless. After all, if the King expected his soldiers to fight wars, the least he could do is pay them -- and payment with a piece of diseased-pussy was no payment at all. Yes, the King's Army was about to engage in the in the Pussy Revolt of 1372 when suddenly the King got an idea: he would summon his buddies in the Church.

The Church at this time was having its own problems: not enough God-fearing donors. Thus, when the King summoned the Pope he had a deal made in heaven to offer. And the deal went like this: if you tell your parishioners that they will burn in hell were they to !@#$ outside the Marriage Contract, the Kingdom will share !@#$ license revenues with the Church. This will supplement the Church's donations and the King and his soldiers will benefit with a more disease-free Harem.

So the deal was struck. The Church would lend a hand to the Kingdom. And as part of the deal, it was agreed that the terms would never be written down or discussed at any time by any person. It was to be a secret verbal contact between the Church and the State and no historic record would ever be made or kept under punishment of death. Further, any and all manner of disinformation and "authorities" would be encouraged to come forth and confuse the issue and the deal.

Continued ...


Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/15/2018, 12:25 am
1/15/2018, 12:11 am Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 2


TODAY'S PRO-MARRIAGE CONTRACT:

Since the King and the Pope made their deal, the modern-day Marriage Contract has not changed much, except that billions of men and women have been brainwashed into accepting it as a normal way of life. Worse, they have accepted that some creature that lives in the sky -- God -- will come down to Earth and punish them for !@#$. And the punishment will be even worse if they !@#$ without a !@#$ License, i.e., a Marriage Contract, duly certified by a representative of the Church or the State.

Even though modern-day anthropologist tell us that homo sapiens is descended from the bonobo and not the chimpanzee, and that men and women are not monogamous -- and have not been so for over 200,000 years -- the !@#$ Laws prevail in law and in society. Thus any woman who likes to !@#$ -- especially !@#$ more than one guy at a time -- is labeled a "slut" or a "whore". At the same time any guy who likes to !@#$ is labeled a "cheater," "asshole" or "stud."

But where have all the harems gone? If there is no King how could there be a harem? The answer to where are the harems is this: everywhere. Everywhere is the harem, everywhere except on the marriage bed. Today, the !@#$ Laws have been translated into the Anti-Prostitution Laws. But what does this mean and how did it happen?

Under the Anti-Prostitution Laws males and females may NOT charge for sex. This disadvantages mostly the woman because it's a sellers market for the woman.

Under the Marriage Laws -- i.e., the former !@#$ Laws -- the male pays all the female's expenses in exchange for exclusive access to her pussy. This advantages the mostly the woman because of the presence of the Anti-Prostitution Laws.

Given these considerations it should be easy to see that the Church and the State have been selfishly manipulating men and women for thousands of years. Consider these other manipulations:

The current Marriage Laws grant married couples special tax benefits that unmarried couple don't get. AND in order to be considered "married," the couple has to consist of one male and one female. This is changing in many places, but this has been the basic situation for a long time.

The current Marriage Laws make divorce often an expensive and onerous ordeal. Lawyers and courts benefit greatly by the dissolution of a household, but so do a thousand other industries when every communal object in a married household suddenly must be duplicated for two single people living in separate apartments. If you don't think the real estate industry and the condominium industry back the current Marriage Laws, think again.



THE QUESTION OF MONOGAMY:

At the same time the Marriage Laws are manipulating citizens with all manner of revenue-generating schemes, the Anti-Prostitution Laws foster the Marriage Laws and guarantee a revenue stream from the Institution.

In short, since men and women are NOT monogamous, it is NOT possible for a man and a woman to fulfill the Marriage Contract which requires them to be monogamous for the duration of their lives. This makes the Marriage Contract a contract of adhesion because Society forces an impossible agreement upon the man and the woman under penalty of ostracism. And in case of those who believe in religion -- under threat of burning in hell.

Thus, millions of men and women around the world believe they will burn in hell if they try to !@#$ more than one man or woman before or after their marriage. This is the legacy of the !@#$ Laws -- the deal struck between the King and the Pope, the Church and the State.

And forget being monogamous till death parts a married couple -- anthropologists now tell us that the average pair-bonded relationship is 3 years -- just long enough for kids to learn to walk. And this has been true for the past 200,000 years. Thus, possessive !@#$ out there take note: when your man looks at another !@#$ -- it's nothing you have any genetic right to get angry about. That is unless you have him bound up by that nice little pussy-biased Marriage Contract we discussed earlier.

And this brings me to a major point: the modern-day Marriage Contract is used as a "justifier" for divorce. It's used by both sexes, but especially women, because women are more likely to suffer in silence and endure their marriage vowels. This, however does not mean they are any less suppressed than the male, it only means they are more willing to suffer. This however, builds up tremendous hostility and resentment toward the male and is thus the cause of much of the stress between men and women in today's Society.

The Marriage Contract thus foster stress and distress between men and women who are only obeying genetic codes set forth in their bodies over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

YOU are being punished for your DNA.

YOU are being punished for the sexual expression of your DNA.

The CHURCH and the STATE are profiteering off your misery.

If this isn't Society committing grand-bigotry I don't know what is.

THE ANTI-PROSTITUTION LAWS:

If the CHURCH and the STATE were to butt-out of the personal affairs of men and women -- decriminalize Prostitution -- men and women would figure it out on their own. They would reach a natural equilibrium. They would be happier. Marriages would last longer because much of the reason for their failure would be removed.

All men and all women are different and have different sexual desires, kinks and and proclivities. It's thus a miracle if two people can be matched up at all. Add in the Church and the State attempting to dictate a one-size-fits-all legal system and moralistic and it's no wonder we have the chaos we have. The Church and the State have no right to dictate terms between a man and a woman.

If a woman wants to sell her body into long-term bondage (marriage) or short-term bondage (Prostitution), she has that right. The State nor the Church have any right to dictate or bias the term.

Therefore the Church and the State have no more right to decree Prostitution illegal than they do to decree Marriage legal.

The reason the State has decreed Prostitution illegal is because of the Marriage Lobby and the Political Lobby.

Prostitution is thus criminalized so that men are in essence forced to get married. If sex is not available on-demand, or a la cart, the males of Society must purchase it wholesale, i.e., under terms of the Marriage Contract. Given this, we are still not much more advanced than the days of the King and his Harem.

Today, however, all women are in the harem but they may be freely accessed by any male in the country. Why do you think it's call a !@#$-try.

Under today's unspoken !@#$ Laws, the female may not charge for sex because the State does not want her to have any economic advantage over the male. Were she to have economic advantage, she would not be so easily coerced into the Marriage Contract and become the male's property.

Of course, the Church has served the State by spinning and obfuscating these economics for centuries. The Church spins marriage as a loving arrangement between a man and a woman, an arrangement where they are licensed to have as much "free" sex as they desire. And as long as they do not eat the apple from any other trees -- i.e., !@#$ anyone NOT licensed by their Marriage Contract -- they will NOT burn in hell.

Every little girl -- and every little boy -- from their earliest age is indoctrinated into this belief system. It pervades all of Society and every !@#$-try. There are no other options. This was really the first phase of globalization.

Other options or lifestyles are considered weird, alt, off-beat, degraded, anti, kink, bad, evil, blah blah blah. Yes the Church earned its donation from the State. And it gets this donation to this very day. Why do you think churches have tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the "Citizen !@#$ Laws" today known as the "IRS Code"?


Continued ...



Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/15/2018, 12:25 am
1/15/2018, 12:12 am Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 3


THE NEW SEX DEAL

So here we all are in the 21st Century. And we all arrived here by !@#$, so keep that in mind as I develop my next points about the Institution of Marriage.

In short, the Marriage Contract is not irrelevant -- as some extremists like to spout -- it simply needs a re-write. It needs to be updated and take certain things in to consideration like we don't have Kings ruling over us any longer and we live in to and past our eighties. We also have the cures to most of the diseases that ravaged the King's Harem and Kingdom.

So with these things in mind, the new Marriage Contract I propose should maintain all of the spiritual values a couple in love or lust wants, while at the same time not be so slanted against our biological nature.

As you know, or should know by now, anthropologists have determined that homo sapiens is NOT related to the chimpanze. We are related to the bonobo. Bonobos are promiscuous and chimps are monogamous. Now get real ladies, which better describes your husband or boyfriend: promiscuous or monogamous, bonobo or chimp? And while you're gleefully contemplating the males in your life, realize that YOU are no different. You are just as promiscuous and non-monogamous as your hubby or boyfriend. You just have been conditioned by society -- and its !@#$ Laws down through the centuries -- to hide and control your promiscuity better than the male. Just like you hide and control your farts better than males. You also know how to suffer quietly and handle pain better than males. But in the end, you are no different. How could you be when your DNA is basically the same as the male's? The only differentiating factor is therefore the environment you were brought up in -- i.e., the brainwashed you received since you were a tiny little girl.

So, given both the male and female of today's society, and every society, for the past 200,000 years are both promiscuous and NOT monogamous -- how is it that we all allow such an insanely unrealistic Marriage Contract to govern our existences -- a contract of adhesion concocted by horny, blood-thirsty Kings and their evil, co-conspirators in the Church?

The Marriage Contract of the 21st Century takes our true nature in to account. So let's start building the Contract now from the ground up.


1-NIGHT AND MULTIPLE-NIGHT STANDS:

The smallest unit of bonding -- other than the kiss, the back seat quicky or an hour with a hooker -- could be said to be the 1-night stand.

Let's thus start with this and work our way up to the "til-death-do-us-part Contract with all its scary provisions.

Any modern Marriage Contract should have as options the following:

1) the stand duration such as 1-night stand, 2-night stand, 4-night stand;

2) consecutive or cumulative;

3) option to renew;

4) option to extend;

5) option to cancel;

A 1-night stand is just that, the couple get together for one night at her/his house or a hotel and !@#$ all or part of the night. This contract is great for the male or female that just wants to test out his or her playmate and possibly move on. The problem with the 1-night stand -- and the problem there has always been with the 1-night stand -- is usually either the man or the woman wants to have another "stand," either the next night or the next weekend. Inevitably someone goes without and there is resentment. Women are always afraid that the male will get "clingy" and the male will often feel that the woman will get "possessive." And these two negative things WILL happen.

This is why the 1-night stand is impractical and unworkable and should be scrapped along with the !@#$ Laws and the current Marriage Contract.

If, as we have considered previously, male and female homo sapiens are promiscuous and NOT monogamous, then !@#$ for one (1) night and then calling it quits seems inconsistent to say the least. Add to this the factor that anthropologists say men and women are not only promiscuous but "hyper sexual," a 1-night stand seems more ridiculous than ever.

Yes, that's right, anthropologists say we are not only NOT monogamous BUT promiscuous, AND even HYPERSEXUAL. (See SEX AT DAWN). Given all this, how are two promiscuous AND hyper-sexual beings going to just !@#$ for 1 night and be happy? They are not. They will not be happy and they will leave all manner of physical issues unexplored and on the table, more accurately the bed. He will always wonder if he licked her clitoris sideways instead of up and down whether she would have enjoyed it more. And she will always wonder whether she should have swallowed his cum, perhaps he would like her more. All of these issues can be solved by experiment on the second night of a 2- or more-night stand as it takes a certain number of hours to fully explore the human body. This thus, and appropriately, brings us to the 2-night stand and the 4-night stand.

This 21st Century Marriage Contract gives the hyper-sexual couple the contractual option to !@#$ for either 2 nights or 4 nights, consecutive or cumulative, depending on which option is selected.

With the 2-night stand the couple can go away to a hotel on a Friday afternoon, party and then !@#$ each other's brains out all Friday night and then again all Saturday night. With the cumulative option selected, the couple can be assured of !@#$ at least twice within a given term -- most usually the month for the 2- or 4-night stand.

The 4-night stand is exactly like the 2-night stand except it takes place over four consecutive nights, two consecutive weekends or four separate nights within a given month term. Whatever option the couple select, the couple can be assured the element of predictability. The 4-night stand contract assures the couple that they are going to be together for at least 4 nights one way or another. AND they guarantee sex to each other, with or without the orgasm option checked. This way the couple will have a greater likelihood of getting to know each other than they could in today's ad hoc, insane, if not nauseating and immature, dating world.

After a 4-night stand, the couple will know whether they want to execute an option to repeat or step up to the 8-night stand.

Again with the 8-night stand, the same principles apply. The nights can be consecutive or cumulative and they can be used over a 1-month term or any term the couple wants to set. The orgasm option can be set or relaxed. A man and a woman may simply want to guarantee that they will get together at least 8 times in the year, perhaps every major holiday and a few birthdays -- so they stay in shape and don't get old. And 21st Century Marriage Contracts make nice gifts. But more on that later.

Once a small contractual building block is determined in the 21st Century Marriage Contract and put into practice, larger and larger contracts can be dreamed up and built. For instance:

3-weekend stand;

21-day non-consecutive value pack;

50-mutual/consent days per year contract;

!@#$-blowjob swap pack;

The Dear John last !@#$ Special.


Additional arrangements, could be:

1-year !@#$ & friendship contract;

3-year !@#$ & friendship contract (with or without option to renew);

10-year or 1500 !@#$ (which ever comes first) contract;

18-year !@#$ + child contract (all expenses paid);

18-year friend + child contract (share expenses 50-50).


HAPPIER, LOVED AND FUCKED MEN AND WOMEN:

A civilization is as happy as it is loved and fucked.

If the women get all they want, while the men don't get laid, it's not a happy civilization. If the men get !@#$ women and then dump them or treat them like !@#$, it's not a happy civilization.

Since it's obvious that males and females on the planet, at this time, have no idea how to treat each other, it's time to bring out the training wheels. The training wheels consist of the 21st Century Marriage Contract which replaces any all earlier contracts and !@#$ Laws, whether expressed or implied, written or oral, as such may pertain to the subject matter hereof.

Help perfect the Institution of Marriage, a good and worthy institution for raising kids, but somehow the devil has gotten into it.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION . . .


Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/15/2018, 12:43 am
1/15/2018, 12:13 am Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


I have not read all of this but I just wanted to say that, since that nonsense about humans being evolved from Bonobos was disproved the last time you posted such claims, you really should not have repeated it.

Try to stick to facts, James.
1/15/2018, 8:35 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


There has been nothing disproven. Try to stick to reality Extropia.
1/15/2018, 4:24 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


James, Have you tried Steemit?
1/15/2018, 6:25 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


I did ck it out a bit.
1/15/2018, 6:34 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


Your ideas are judged in terms of coin.
1/15/2018, 6:55 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


>Even though modern-day anthropologist tell us that homo sapiens is descended from the bonobo<

This is disproven BS, James. It’s disproven by the fact that Bonobos still exist and therefore we cannot be descended from this species. They are evolutionary cousins with whom we share an common ancestor that was not a bonobo or any other modern primate.

1/16/2018, 3:21 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE -- Genesis and Remedy - 1


>This is disproven BS, James.

What study disproved it Extropia?

>It’s disproven by the fact that Bonobos still exist and therefore we cannot be descended from this species.

I don't know about this.

>They are evolutionary cousins with whom we share an common ancestor that was not a bonobo or any other modern primate.

Okay, I will dig out my reference books and try to fine some exact data on this. If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected, but it's likely this is a debated subject so whose experts do you want to believe?

I am relying on the research in SEX AT DAWN. Have you read this particular book?



Last edited by James Jaeger, 1/16/2018, 1:18 pm
1/16/2018, 1:13 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top