In 2005, the US Congress passed the International Marriage Broker Act.
The declared intention of the law is to protect immigrant women who
settle in the US as spouses of US men.
US International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of
2005
(http://www.sexualfront.com/us-international.htm)
Congress sabotages international marriage
(http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_171102856.html?keyword=secondarystory)
Marriage broker law seeks to protect readily exploited
women
(http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_192093908.html?keyword=secondarystory)
Apart from other aspects, the US International Marriage Broker Act also
is a typical example of restrictive legislation, hypocritically imposed
to allegedly protect those it effectively restricts.
Those who are restricted are women from Third World countries for which
it would normally be a fortunate event to find a US husband, even if
the US husband is not a prime marriage candidate. This is the net effect
of the law.
Obviously, the law also restricts marriage brokers for whom it reduces
business opportunities, and US men who either honestly seek spouses
through an agency and have the intention to be good husbands, or search
for female partners with less noble, more pronounced sexual motives.
But for both the marriage brokers and the men seeking female partners
from abroad, the restrictive effect of the law is not as fundamental as
it is for women from the Third World, seeking a US spouse.
The world is full of business opportunities which mainstream moralists
consider seedy, and if indeed the International Marriage Broker Act
puts some of the less serious brokers out of business, they will find
other business opportunities that are on par. And men looking for women
will find other avenues, and these may not be more moral than looking for
a spouse via an agency.
The group of people one which the law will have the most decisive
effect are women from Third World countries for whom immigrating into the US
as a spouse of a US man (even a less than perfect one) would most
probably be a fortunate event.
I believe that these implications have been clear to those who passed
the law, and those who lobbied for it. This is why those who publicly
support the idea of protecting women who immigrate to the US as spouses
or candidate spouses are pretenders.
I do not generally believe in altruism. It's not a genuine biological
concept. Scrutiny into the research into alleged altruism in the animal
kingdom has usually yielded that the alleged altruism is but a
sophisticated form of egoism.
Altruism
(http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/biology/altruism-ansc-01.html)
Study Exposes Craven Motive of the Brave Meerkat Sentry
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/y/carol_kaesuk_yoon/index.html?s=oldest&offset=120&&&)
Full article here
(http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7091FFB385D0C7B8CDDAF0894D1494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fY%2fYoon%2c%20Carol%20Kaesuk)
People normally do not take prolonged action for the benefit of others.
In general, this would not be a viable biological concept. People take
action if it is in their interest, though the way it is in their
interest, or the way they consider it in their interest, may be rather
subtle. It may also be objectively wrong (in the Dark Ages, rich men would
give fortunes to monasteries in exchange for absolution, or a reduction
of the time they would have to spend in the purgatory... subjectively,
these rich men acted out of their own interest, but objectively, they
were wrong).
So, I want to examine in whose interest, subjectively or objectively,
the International Marriage Broker Act actually is.
We can expect the law to have a negative impact on net migration rates,
so anybody who is anti-immigration could be expected to be supportive
of the law. To claim that immigrants are kept out for their own benefit
is an old and common pattern. I remember that during the German
"Wirtschaftswunder" years, those who didn't want "Gastarbeiter" from Italy
argued that Germany wasn't suited for Italian workers and their families
because the weather in Germany was too cold. Revealingly, they didn't
campaign for a technical solution of the alleged problem (more jackets
and blankets).
Whom else to expect in the coalition that lobbied for and/or passed,
the International Marriage Broker law? You guessed it: feminazis, and
even large segments of the US female population.
I define feminazis as women who hold gender-racist views ("men are
evil") and are active in the public arena, where they typically lobby for
anti-male legislation, or are active in the legal persecution of men who
violate or violated sexual codes.
Typically, feminazis have a history of having been gravely disappointed
by men. Either they were not courted by the men they desired, or they
were abandoned, or both, and possibly more than once. If they were not
out seeking revenge against men per se, I would feel pity for them.
Many of the women who become feminazis actually are excellent wife
material. Loyal until death does them part. Alas, the times are not for
such material to be in high demand, and the men they were with probably
didn't value their extraordinary qualities.
Instead, the men in their lives likely preferred to have affairs, and
to later dumb them forever. So, understandably, the women were deeply
hurt, which led them to become activists with an agenda of opposing male
irresponsibility.
Now, don't blame the men!
Not for wanting to be with other women, in spite of having a loyal
wife. Not for wanting to have another female partner altogether after a few
years. Not for giving preference to younger women, who, if possible,
have never given birth before.
Blaming them for these traits would be the same as blaming them for
their baldness, or erectile dysfunction, or love handles.
No, I don't blame women either.
Not for being overly possessive. Not for integrating men into their
fantasies of lifelong romantic partnership. Not for demanding that their
men regard them as the only attractive women in the world, even when
they long have passed the time of being sexually palatable.
I also don't blame them for sacking breasts, their buttocks
circumference, or peach skin.
For all of us, whether male or female, have been shaped through
hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and this applies to our
physiques, and the ways we deteriorate, as it does to how our minds function,
and the ways our characters are less than perfect.
The keyword, whether for our bodies or our brains, is procreative
success. For males, the greatest procreative success was achieved by
impregnating as many women as possible, provided these women were still in a
position to bring up the offspring until the offspring, too, could
procreate.
In accordance to this formula, one of the greatest procreative success
stories were some Chinese emperors who kept harems with thousands of
girls and women.
1.5 million descendants
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4396246.stm)
For women, comparative procreative success can only be attained if they
give birth to an emperor ... not necessarily of China, but, for
example, the Ottoman Empire.
But before she could reap in the potential procreative success, she
would first have to see him through to adulthood, and the throne.
The sultanate of women
(http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/harem.html)
The minds of men and women, just as their bodies, have evolved as tools
of our genes to procreate themselves, and for no other purpose.
Certainly not to concur with Kant's categorical imperatives that we should not
apply to others what we do not want applied to ourselves. Evolution is
much more flexible.
It even has programmed for people to change their mind sometime during
their lives, including on matters as complicated as social orders,
depending on the procreative phase they are in.
Women who do not have grown up sons will typically favor social models
that provide a fairly high degree of restriction as to how many sexual
partners a man can have. After all, for women who raise children, it is
an important aspect of procreative success that the father is present
to share in the burden.
Women who have grown up sons are often more liberally minded.
Which doesn't mean that they would want to grant their male partners
the same privileges they happily accept for their sons.
Towards their daughters, parents (and in this case, especially
fathers), typically have different attitudes. Even fathers who themselves are
philanderers wish "responsible" male partners for their daughters (men
who dedicate themselves fully and exclusively to their daughters).
I personally have no problem at all with this kind of biological
ambivalence. And I don't believe that state intervention is needed. For there
are many other aspects that play a role. Anyway, it would be very
difficult indeed to override psychological parameters that have evolved for
hundreds of thousands of years.
I would define the following archetypal frames of mind for women and
men.
For women, the idea of a life-long partnership with a single man has
enormous appeal, no matter what the circumstances. Young girls dream
about this long before they know about sexual excitement. And women who are
rich in their own right, and certainly do not need men as supporters,
still cannot resist the idea of the bliss, associated with lasting love
and partnership.
All of this doesn't mean that they would not be tempted into sexual
adventures on the side.
Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0788160044/102-9502780-0044122?v=glance&n=283155)
For men, whether they find fulfillment in a single, lasting, and
exclusive relationship depends much more on the circumstances they are in.
In a poor society where everybody has to toil along just to meet the
requirements of shelter and nutrition, men will be more inclined towards
faithfulness than in a society where these requirements are easily met.
Likewise, in a society that provides a high degree of health for their
members, men are much more likely to be unfaithful (as are women). Men
who suffer from definite erectile dysfunction may not see much benefit
in engaging in affairs, which works against the more female model of
lifelong partnership. Viagra, and possibly the herbal tongkat ali, puts
them back into the game.
I have written on the wealth trap in another context. The increasing
affluence of a society works against male sexual interests because it
removes support considerations from the mating equation.
The wealth trap
(http://www.sexualfront.com/wealth-trap.htm)
The increasing affluence of a society also works against female mating
interests because men are less likely to stay in a partnership, even if
they do not have a replacement yet.
Furthermore, affluence works against male sexual interests because it
gives disappointed women the economic independence to pursue a worldwide
agenda of anti-male activism.
Scandinavian hypocrisy
(http://www.sexualfront.com/scandinavian_hypocrisy.htm)
The natural antidote to the wealth trap would be population growth.
Population policies
(http://www.sexualfront.com/population-policies.htm)
Because sexual envy is easy to incite, and because anti-male feminists
heavily utilize the media to stir anti-sexual emotions, the freedom of
the press also works against male sexual freedom.
Banning sexual reporting
(http://www.sexualfront.com/banning-sexual.htm)
By and large, the pattern which we can apply to examine in whose
interest the International Marriage Broker Act works, is similar to the
pattern that applies to the pro and contra groups for sex tourism.
Why sex tourism
(http://www.sexualfront.com/sextourism.htm)
Apart from feminists who lobbied for passing the International Marriage
Broker Act because it fits their agenda of restraining male sexuality,
those in favor include a large part of the US female population, at
least those females who are themselves on the mates market. They obviously
do not want young, attractive competitors from abroad.
US men are likely split on whether they are in favor or against the
Act. Those who are in a permanent relationship with a local woman in the
US will likely be in favor. Their decision to stay with a current mate
for an indefinite time may not be based entirely on prolonged
attraction, but may involve a good degree of compromise: stay with the partner
because doing otherwise would jeopardize their public career, or their
business. Silently, they may envy the sexual freedom of those who could
import a young beautiful bride from abroad (a privilege they don't want
to grant others because it is not available for themselves).
Men in the countries of origin of the brides available through
international marriage brokers definitely are in favor (unless they are the
fathers of prospective brides who speculate on a material windfall and
possibly a US visa). They don't want foreign men with a clear edge to
compete for the most beautiful local girls in Third World countries.
Foreign men in Third World countries who are not themselves US citizens
(like I myself) are mostly in a position to smile about the US
legislative effort, at least as long as their own countries don't follow the US
example. Though they do not suffer from US competition as badly as
local men, their likely attitude is that the fewer sexual competitors they
have, the better.
So, how about morals? Didn't everybody in favor of the act refer to the
moral necessity to have it passed?
US politics (and politics most everywhere else, but maybe not as
pronounced as in the US) have always been like that. Partisan interests are
sold as moral concerns.
But aren't there actual cases of abuse of foreign brides. Haven't they
be lied at, and even tricked? Of course they have. But this is in no
way exclusive to international brokered marriages.
The shadowy laws of Internet dating
(http://www.slate.com/id/2142899/)
