Sorry, it should be ‘title or name’.

Can you explain why a man should pay for something (marry for sex) that another man got for free (no marriage, but access to sex)?

BTW, 4 partners for a girl is a fuck-ton of promiscuity.

This article really seems to be about promiscuity, not about prostitution (aside from the sugar babies). Calling female promiscuity “prostitution” or “whorishness” when no money is given stretches the meaning of those words. “Prostitution” paints female promiscuity as transactional. In reality, it is thrill-seeking. It’s important to distinguish the status-seeking and economic goals of sugar babies from the hedonistic goals of party girls. Conflating these behaviors only muddies the waters.

To use the technical terms from evolutionary psychology, we could say that women’s liberation has given women greater choice in mating strategies. Some humans are wired mostly for long-term mating strategies. Some humans are wired for short-term mating strategies. Most are wired for both depending on the situation. When people have choice in mating strategies in modernity, they are able to manifest short-term mating strategies to a degree that they didn’t in more restrained times.

Is it is a good thing or a bad thing that women are manifesting greater short-term mating strategies? Well, you’ve shown a bunch of examples where it’s bad. But I think your picture focuses on the worst outcomes, rather than on the median outcomes for middle-class women. Among middle-class women, the problem I’m seeing isn’t women living by themselves, or even having 4 partners: it’s feminism.

Feminism is pushing women into cubicles. Feminism encourages affirmative action. Feminism creates a state that allows divorce theft and shielding women from consequences of their actions. Feminism leads women to believe that they have more time on their biological clocks than they do.

Although women have tendencies to short-term mating strategies, human history shows a long line of long-term mating strategies. As another commentator noted, most women want to have children. Women are descended from a long line of women with pro-natal attitudes.

In a less stupid social environment, it’s quite possible to imagine women’s hardwired pro-natal attitudes reasserting themselves. It’s possible to imagine modern women following short-term mating strategies when young (pickup artists refer to this as “the carousel”), and switching over to long-term mating strategies as they get older. As long as women don’t stay on the carousel so long, then why couldn’t this system work? I’ve never seen a convincing explanation of this.

Without feminist meddling, I think we could get Western women back to at least replacement level fertility, without needing to roll back the clock quite so far and restrict women’s living situations.

(Of course, I’m only talking about women from populations with average and above IQ and low time preference here. I subscribe to Steve Sailer’s theory that sexual norms which work for one population can be disastrous for another population.)

Obviously, you have reasons for believing that this approach can’t work, and that a more traditional approach is necessary. Since I’m not coming from a traditionalist background, I can’t quite see where you’re coming from.

I would also like to point out the other consequence of modern female choice: greater competition among males, particularly competition in socially unproductive ways.

It is interesting, this prophesy of the whore of Babylon. Fits very well into the assumption that we are approaching something cataclysmic. I did not know that information on North Korea having a higher birthrate though. Fascinating.