NOTE: The title of this post is sarcastic. If you found this post through a Google search because you’re actually looking for tips on how to exploit desperate young women, you’re a piece of shit, and this post is not for you. Go away, and go fuck yourself.
Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:
Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.
Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!
Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.
I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.
According to AD, all you have to do is to:
Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.
Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:
Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.
The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.
You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.
Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).
And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.
Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..
But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:
Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.
How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located
in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.
Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!
There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.
Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?
Just remember to keep to your budget!
Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.
And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:
Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.
You have hit the jackpot!
Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!
Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.
Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!
Just remember:
They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.
Now that’s a motto to live by!
Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.
Simon invoked the c-word, before tossing in some racism:
Mate you are one deadset sad cunt. It’s no surprise to know you’re Indian.
Cathater broke out the other c-word:
Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.
Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.
Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.
Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:
This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.
Savrola returned to the theme of race:
There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.
Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.
What to do?
Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.
ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …
If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).
We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.
Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.
Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.
Men, the forgotten victims once again.
This post contains:
Maybe one day you’ll produce a cogent rebuttal to what I said. Apparently you don’t comprehend what a “strawman” fallacy actually is.
Men and women have sex with each other. Both parties get to choose who they sleep with. When they conceive a child, both parties are responsible for supporting it.
And that’s… terrible?
Are you willing to have that debate next month,Meller?
Because I would say that I Do have something better, and it’s, you know…Libertarianism?
Anyway, I’m on mobile so can’t write a proper /longer response.
Don’t worry, it’s also terrible if she doesn’t want to have kids; then she’s murdering his DNA.
Biology 101, people:
Women, as the female of the human species, play the role that the females of many animal species play which is to select which male genes are passed on from one generation to the next.
Do females have genes?
Apparently they do not have genes. The x chromosome is a myth. (not really)
Men don’t choose who they have sex with, nope!
SCIENCE.
We do, but we only get to choose whether or not shag the women who pick us out first. Why must you wimminz insist that there is natural sexual equality among
humanz? A lil birdy told me you too know this is not the case. Tsk Tsk
A little birdy told me that both men and women can make advances on people, and both men and women can exercise veto power.
The little birdy also doesn’t want to get dragged into the interminable “women can always get laid no matter what, men can’t have sex with anyone ever” argument because it is very very bored of that one and that argument quickly loses even tenuous connections to reality.
Good birdy.
@omnomnomnomnom
I also fail to see how the scenario you’ve described is awful. I’m GLAD that some women have the choice to raise children however they want, whether or not they are romantically involved. I wish that our society was more tolerant of single parent adoption/surrogacy, so that more men could have this option as well!
Uh, Om Nom Nom. When I hit on boys, they are capable of saying “no” if they do not want to have sex with me. This is how human relationships work.
In the rare event that boys hit on me (it happened FOUR TIMES! I counted!), I also have the capability of saying no. (Which I exercised all four times. Sorry, dudes.)
M Dubz:
IDK why you perceive what I said to be a complaint, or why you’re attaching the qualifier “awful” to my claim. A fact is a fact; and how I or anyone else may feel about is another story.
My point is that there really would be no need for women to coerce men providing them with sperm for offspring, since so many men are eager to deposit sperm in a woman already. So bobbyjo’s argument is not logically valid.
And ozymandians, I think it rather naive of you to believe that equality is how most human relationships work. Not saying it’s nonexistent, but it’s surprisingly uncommon.
Meller, you said my comments were specifically man-hating and yet you have no examples. Poor form.
Meller – “As far as the “male-wages breadwinner” model being desirable or not, it was certainly desirable enough to those couples who availed themselves of it.”
Sigh. And the state corporate crony capitalist divisions between “work” and “home” were founded on land grabs, social engineering, and a host of other factors. I told you a million fucking times, I think that family business (using a broad and inclusive definition of family) is the most desirable and natural set up, and in a free market, would dominate as it has for most of human history. Neither men NOR women “going off to work” is the way things should be – Not that it wouldn’t occur, but it wouldn’t be the norm, and certainly not the way anyone should have to win bread for themselves or their families. No man SHOULD have to be off feeling alienated, and NEED to be cooed to by homemaker or courtesan, because a man should have value and bargaining power in his labor.
(Honestly, you claim you read fucking Tucker? )
And For The Sake Of All That Is Individualist, Meller! – These paeons to “our schools and universities”, “our workforce” … Read them back to yourself. If that sounds like libertarian appeals to you, well… Honestly, I think you’re pretty far beyond help.
Anyway, debate outside of here so we can really deal with these issues, y/n?
I wonder how NWOslave feels about DKM’s latest screed. Meller’s basically denied that men can be homeless… Or is suggesting that NWOslave would have never been in that position if he’d just gotten married and stayed in the kitchen.
Om Nom Nom, you know what? I actually do view much of human interaction as transactional. And this is not a bad thing. And being that you’re going LOOK AT ME AND MY REALIZM! I IS NOT NAIVE! I TELLZ THINGS AS THEY IS. UNLIKE YOU NAIVE SMILEY GOOBERS!
you are not contributing anything worth buying, and the market is oversaturated.
Om Nom’s views of all human interaction being red in tooth and claw is really making me wonder where he’s posting from. A men’s prison? A war-torn country? Maybe he belongs to a violent gang?
As far as more masculine occupations, vocations and professions, most of the work done is best done by men, and making women more available would simply intrude sexual tension and disruption where it need not be.
Hey Mellertron xD Have you ever worked in a lab? I’m curious cuz you’re such an expert on it 😀
I have. And my mom’s a scientist, and she’s worked in a lab for 30 years. :3
Perhaps you’d like to tell me about the social dynamics in my lab, and in hers that I’ve observed (since she took me to work a lot as a kid, hey women can hold jobs AND raise children! XD ) :3
So tell me Mellertron, sexual tension and disruption in science labs expert 😀 How was it like?
For a bonus! I’ll give you the % of men and women in each lab, and you tell me which ones got the most grants and which professors had the most papers published and I’ll tell you if you’re right or wrong? 😀
Okay? 😀
You ARE the expert after all. xD
Hey Meller, I’m pretty sure when I was working as the only woman in a dagging gang, sex was definitely foremost in the men’s minds as they sweated over shitty sheep’s arses alongside me, and that it affected their tallies. Oh wait, it didn’t. You are full of it.
Also, you don’t agree with us, stop trying to pretend you do, nobody’s buying it. Oh, and at some point you might want to try (oh god I don’t even know why I’m asking this) explaining exactly what you think is the ‘positive side’ to marital rape.
I probably could have done more last week against that horrid piece of legislation than I have done. I stand corrected! I got more wrapped up in feminioid inspired controversy (over technology and society, no less) here than I should have done, and, even worse, got involved in it to people who are far too wrapped up in current scientific paradigms for them to be in any position to appreciate my concerns even if my attention here was warranted–and you’re correct zhinxi, it was not! I apologise!”
Well, honestly, truly, and really, it was your loss. I mean, we’re all royally screwed in a larger sense, of course, but if I needed reassurance (And I think I did) that despite the noisy confusion in the center of it’s wacked out soul, despite Catoids and Randroids and the hypervigorous trolls, despite vulgar corporate apologetics and the conspiracy theories and the privelege blindness and the assorted headdeskery, this is still a beautiful libertarianism and worth being a part of? Well, great fucking week for that.
We are, however, all royally fucking screwed.
Also, really, answer Ami!! XD