When Men Pay Taxes, Women Become Promiscuous.

Since the last century, the unprecedented growth in the budget of Western governments has radically changed gender dynamics. This expansion of the government was caused by women’s right to vote, and women’s subsequent voting patterns. The resulting multiplication of public services has progressively replaced men’s traditional role, which alleviated the complementarity and interdependence of men and women at the individual level. Yet, men are, as a group, still the sole providers of tax money. 

The transfer of dependence of women from a man, to the government, affected promiscuity values. Women’s sexual attitudes vary according to their perceived economic dependence, both at the cultural level, and at the individual level. Women’s promiscuity attitudes depends on what they can obtain in exchange for sex within a given environment.

In essence, when men support the government, women’s sexual attitudes loosen. 


Few people seem to acknowledge the fact that feminism is a political ideology that is primarily aimed at reshaping our legal system. The equality that feminism pursues is defined by equality of rights, which are granted by the government. As such, it has always been a doctrine directly tied to the government and its authority. 

The voting patterns of women since the suffrage movement have been identical throughout the Western world: women vote for bigger governments, that provide more entitlements. In the United States, 10 years after women started voting, the government had doubled in size (source). And since then, women have always voted for bigger, more powerful political platforms with more benefits (source).

As you can see, WWI barely changed the government’s size. Women’s right to vote doubled it in 10 years.


A big government orchestrates the wealth redistribution from men to women, for two reasons. The first being that government services disproportionately benefit women. The second being that as a group, only men contribute to support the government. 

Indeed, women are the primary beneficiaries of governmental programs. Women use more education services (source). Women receive income support the most. Women have paid maternity leave (source). Women receive child support (source). Women receive alimony (source). Most public sector employees are women (source). Women have shelters (source). Women use health services more often (source). Women benefit from billions in feminist programs, campaigns, lobbies, and laws. 

And most importantly, these are services that women use (source)

While the government steadily increases in size due to women’s voting patterns, the government is ironically financed only by men. In a fiscal contribution study, researchers have found that women use so much services and work so little that they cost, on average, $150,000! On the other hand, men pay enough taxes to reimburse the services that they use (source). 

That’s a gender gap that needs to be addressed.

Since as a group, only men pay taxes, and most services are used by women, the government serves as a re-distributor of men’s money into services and money for women.

The woman is free from the man, but as a group, women are still completely dependent on men. Men are still the providers of society, but instead of having full autonomy over their money, the government takes a large chunk of it to finance services that will mostly be used by women. 



The sexual value of women fluctuates according to the basic market rules: supply and demand. That is why women’s sexual attitudes vary radically around the world, while men’s stay constant (source). Because their sexual value is determined by the local market. Women use their sexual value as a currency for social exchange (source). For instance, historically, men used to obtain a woman’s sexuality in exchange for being a lifelong provider. 

In a society where women are not entitled to financial entitlements, women are motivated to keep their sexual value at the highest to have a more valuable exchange currency. Men will be more willing to invest in a family when they have paternity certainty.

In a recent experiment, researchers from the Brunel University found correlations between women’s perceived financial dependence and her anti-promiscuity values (source). The more women felt like they were dependent financially, the more they endorsed anti-promiscuity values. This was also found at the state level. At the state level, median female income was strongly related to promiscuity morality. 


We could extrapolate these results at the national level. It is common knowledge that the most feminist countries (e.g., Canada, Sweden), have the highest tax rates (53% and 57% respectively) in the entire world. 


As the government grew in size, it assumed men’s traditional social role. Put another way, the government is now in charge of the responsibilities that men took to be valuable to women.

Bodyguard. Provider. The state can do it a thousands times better than any man. While the state obtains more resources from men, men lose opportunities to be a valuable partner. In the West, children are extremely dependent on the government, and completely independent of their father. In a child’s life, from neonatal health services, to daycare, to kindergarten, to primary school, to high school, to college, to university—men are completely useless, aside from the fact that they are the ones supporting these services. 

When men pay taxes, they become useless to both women and children, at least on the individual level. Men have no exchange currency that isn’t outbid by the government. This leads to the loosening of the sexual morals, because women have nothing to exchange their sexuality for. 


Women’s agency as a group has transfered their need for a provider from men, to the government. This has consequently alleviated any obligation to be valuable to men in order to obtain men’s resources… including the historical tradition of ensuring men paternity certainty. 

This is a bitter reminder that sex is never free. When money isn’t regulated, sex becomes regulated. When sex isn’t regulated, it’s because money is.  

This is why there are so many feminist, communist women. Deep down, they know that when money isn’t a viable currency, their body will be the only currency. 

What, you never noticed the link between communism and female promiscuity?

Antifa girl, porn actress and communist activist. Unsurprisingly, college student too.

Read my latest banter: Male taxpayers are literally rape survivors.


41 thoughts on “When Men Pay Taxes, Women Become Promiscuous.

  1. Well yeah. We all know theres a lot of whores out there but the biggest whores in america are the politians that sell our freedom for their personal gain. Is there and real reason any one person needs millions or billions of dollars while 57% of the country cant eat and pay rent in the same month cuz of the favors done for thhe corps who pay our whore politians. Ifin you cant get laid dude cuz of your attititude towards your sexism. Perhaps you should line up and put your money down too


  2. wtf is this neoliberal cuckservative house nigger bullshit the rich cause the problems but house niggers like you just lick their balls and blame everyone else

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Great article. It deserves millions of views. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; Islam may be cancer but they have it correct when it comes to women.


    1. It’s almost as if women feel sexually free when they have an army of men to serve as tax slaves for them with the government serving as their pimp.


      1. Ime, tell me how you came to hate your father (after all, women who say what you do, as a rule, have some grudge against their father or some other male authority). Did he yell at you for fucking Jamal?


      2. Do you consider yourseld a “Nasty Woman” who welcomes refugees? Support Thug Lived Matter? Call Islam a religion of peace and feminism?


  4. Hey OP, since you are from the Netherlands (and I as well) do you maybe have some statistics concerning the Netherlands in specific ?


    1. No I’m sorry, I looked thoroughly. I didn’t find this kind of analysis for any other country. But the earnings gap in Holland must be massive since 61% of employed women work part-time for an average of 26 hours (and men 38 hours on average).


  5. I am a conservative American woman. Your point is not lost on me. However you seem to indicate that the only thing women have to offer is their bodies. You should probably balance your research with information about why women have voted for, and benefit from, social services. I would think that orphans, widows, poorly paid single women, elderly women and prostitutes of the past would have been much less destitute and very grateful to receive what modern society has allowed. If every woman could have a man as her benefactor you would have a better argument. What are the reasons why that is not possible? If you have a better plan than what you are saying is the problem then let’s hear it.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Thinking about the mentality of modern feminists and liberals/leftists today, I can see how this is true. They denounce the value of men while demanding to be taken care of by government.


  7. I noticed many of your points years ago, and you have done a very good job of putting the pieces together to form a cogent article. As an engineer (nearing retirement), I have always been interested in the how and why of things including animal and human behavior . The ‘Human Zoo’, and the ‘Naked Ape,’ by Desmond Morris , are excellent books, for the layman, on this.
    You will probably get a lot of flak from liberals, as most can’t seem to grasp “cause and effect”. Science is beyond most of them, so they compensate and flaunt their belief in it.


    1. Hi I’m not a liberal at all but this phenomenon is common sense that since the break down of the family unit if people are not in committed relationships where they support each other financially or one supports the other financially, then they would be promiscuous. It also common sense that women use more social services than men because they often have children. Not to mention the fact that often whole families use social services. Anyway this post is interesting but slanted to make women seem somehow more promiscuous than men since the breakdown of the family unit.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Anyway this post is interesting but slanted to make women seem somehow more promiscuous than men since the breakdown of the family unit.”

        I’m guessing you haven’t been paying attention to your female cohort. The sex is obnoxiously free and easy to obtain (but with legal trap doors) to the point that many men are refusing to have sex at all because it’s just not worth it.

        Men used to take responsibility for the children in a divorce so that concept is flexible culturally.

        Go on to any “cam girl” site, or porn site and step back and consider that the velocity of ladies flowing through those places is extremely high. Now consider that that’s a minority compared to the ones using Tindr, or just plain facebook for sex. You sound like a high quality woman with high standards but you seem to have been well protected from what’s actually going on with girls/women today.

        It’s men who are turning their noses up at sex and holding on to their value by remaining chaste now. The entire situation has flipped. The risks for a woman choosing a partner poorly were so high it was important to not give it away easily. Now the risks for *men* in choosing a partner poorly are so high that men are the ones that are hard to pin down and going outright MGTOW and other variations. Thus the explosion in “Where have all the good men gone?” feminist articles.


      2. Women devour significantly more in gibsmedats and have significanctly more pogams pandering to them even when accounting for marital status and children.

        Woman do so not from some ridiculous conspiracy holding them down or victimology, but from being born weaker, less capable in matters concerning civilization. Your woman is too weak for more manual labor based jobs, not smart enough for STEM related jobs that aren’t service based or more concerned with living things, lacks the leadership seen the likes of Fortune 500 CEOs, etc. She just does what suits her abilities: Suck on the Government Teat, hop aboard every pogam she can find, and divorce whip.


    1. If you’re trying to build and maintain civilization (read: not a mud pit in Africa) then you need to rip sexual choice away from women. There’s no doubt of it now.


  8. I think you’ve 1 mistake: “The more women felt like they were dependent financially, the more they endorsed anti-promiscuity values” – shouldn’t it be promiscuity values?


  9. Nice article. I think I would re-frame it some. This is really an issue of NORTHERN women becoming more promiscuous when tax revenues rise as % of GDP. Tropical women have never constrained sex that much. So I think this gets back to the Sex at Dawn argument: Man used to live in polyamorous tribes, and marriage developed only with agriculture — when men had assets to hand down. Men didn’t care so much about lineage (and hence female promiscuity) when they didn’t have assets. Women don’t care about lineage when the overall society is rich enough that they don’t need men.

    The question then is will MEN care about lineage in an age when all of reality is turned into a masturbatory fantasy and there is nothing heroic for your sons to do anyway? I don’t know. I’m a man and I have assets and I would like to have kids to give them to. The logic of your piece points to living in a poor, northern country and finding an attractive chaste woman. Problem is I like where I live now even though it is a sociological sewer. Hmm.


  10. I have offered my own counter-analyses of the narrative you present:

    There’s extensive prior background, but the main point re Government Spending begins after the 5:54 mark.

    Your insistence that women’s preference to vote Democrat as a supposed support of your claims that they largely support an increased welfare state breaks down when you realize Bill Clinton actually cut back a lot of Public Assistance [something the GOP brags about that they were able to get him to do] and that Hillary chided Bernie by calling his proposed social services “Pie in the sky.” There’s every indication she would have followed in her husband’s footsteps.


    1. I also think there is evidence that a well-funded Social Democracy has a different effect on women than the one you present:


      I would also like to point out speaking as a US Citizen: Government legislation is what gave men the right to vote, also. Not to mention it gave antidiscrimination protections to black & gay men, as well as workers’ rights to the predominantly male workforce of the early 20th century. The reason why we enjoy the 40ww is because of Worker’s Rights groups that fought for it, as well as job safety & other protections [and no, it was NOT Henry Ford who created the 8-hour day. He came much later~!] The whole history of progressive movements and the labor union movement, along with gay rights & the struggle against Jim Crow, covers a lot of ground. Ironically, it was the right wing anti-government types who used government coercion to break the Great Railway strike and the Pullman strike. It was the limiting factor by the US Founders that determined only propertied men could vote – a clear power grab by the 1% in order to keep the reins of power concentrated in the hands of a few.


      1. Finally, in noting that you yourself are a resident of Netherlands, I have to assume that some of your views on how taxes work is based on the fact that you are a citizen in a Non-Monetarily Sovereign State. Simply put, that means you don’t use your own currency. The US *is* Monetarily Sovereign, and as such the way we do taxes and spending is going to fall differently:

        The chairman of the NY Fed in 1946 admitted that Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete:


        The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Economist, Broker and Engineer Warren Mosler:


        Hey, it’s not the Taxpayer’s Money:


        Taxpayers do not fund anything:


        What is Modern Monetary Theory:


        A Libertarian reads L Randall Wray & becomes convinced of MMT:


        Can Taxes and Bonds Fund Government Spending by Stephanie Bell-Kelton:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s