There is this mistaken idea going around that we now have a “deregulated sexual marketplace”. This is incorrect. There is a dude calling himself steveo who is angry with good reason who has pointed this out on Susan Walsh’s blog. In addition to myself, Hungry Hungry Hippos has also noticed that we don’t have a deregulated sexual marketplace and explains why very well:
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but if there were truly a sexual free marketplace, then women wouldn’t also be receiving transfer payments from betas who would normally only provide them with resources in a pair bond. These transfer payments take such a huge variety of forms(“family law”, affirmative action, a vast majority of state employees being female), but if it were possible to cut all of them off, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that would enfranchise a pretty huge portion of betas, possibly even as much as the institution of “sexually socialist” monogamy. It’s like the beta suffers both from the removal of monogamy AND from a shit ton of taxes being levied on him in an effort to make transfer payments to women.
The government is giving subsidies to women that distort the sexual marketplace so there is no “deregulated sexual marketplace” right now. This causes vajazzling in a figurative sense of the term. Vajazzling is when a woman superglues crystals to her vagina. If you take a look at the link, the women doing this actually think men like this (as in they think it raises their value with men when it really doesn’t). Socialist subsidies to women are vajazzling in a figurative sense since those subsidies give women the false belief that their value has increased. With literal or figurative vajazzling, a woman’s value has not increased in reality so we have a misandry bubble that will soon pop.