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:
He won’t xD That’d mean that he actually has fleshed his theory out and is confident about it xD None of our trolls ever can apply their grand-unifying theories…when it came to giving me dating advice, both Arks and Ion turned back into sounding just like everybody else here, “be yourself” “be honest” “be friendly” etc… suddenly all the game theory they pushed vanished. xD MRAL admitted “I can’t know an individual woman’s life” when I asked him to tell me my life despite saying before that he knew all women’s lives and how great and wonderful every woman he saw’s life was like. >_> NWO backtracked like WOAH when Sarah confronted him with her assault and told him to apply his victim-blaming on her. Ion also backtracked on being able to explain what “benefits and privileges” that I or my mom got as survivors of rape and abuse >_> Even Melletron just excluded you from his theory that women cause their own domestic abuse. They certainly talk big when it comes to “THE WORLD IS LIKE XYZ, ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS MEN ARE LIKE THAT, GAME THIS EVOPSYCH THAT” but when asked to apply it they flee into the distance xD
Even Melletron just excluded you from his theory that women cause their own domestic abuse.”
OR HAS HE! I don’t know anymore! He might have bundled me back in!
I dunno, I’m still seriously giggly about the whole… “Well, I guess you can give your daughter libertarian books but I dunno if they’ll do anything” theory. Also the “no homemaking skills theory” – Sure, I’m teaching her soldering… AND needlepoint… Both of which are useful in the home… It’s like he thinks I pulled her away from her princess dolls and said BE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE! UNNATURALLY! Because it’s just not natural for a girl to be curious about the world around her!
And yet Mellertron thinks both you and her should be shipped off to a brothel cuz you don’t have a husband and she doesn’t have a father. xD
Which reminds me, he never answered my questions about how these houses of entertainment are going to be so upscale in a free market economy and yet apparently hold most of the societies “unmarriageable” women.
For repeating, Meller, can you expound on a problem I have with your House system that is not moral, ethical, feminist, anything, but purely economics? Even purely Austrian?
http://manboobz.com/2011/12/01/new-form-of-anti-male-oppression-discovered-womens-magazines-in-checkout-lines/comment-page-12/#comment-93981
As I said there –
The HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT require a customer base too. And if so many women are crowding them, prices will be driven down, and overhead will be high on such large-scale high-brow ventures. You are going to have to see women actively being encouraged OUT of the courtesan field if the owners want to remain solidly profitable and maintain their position as up-market.
So, you end up with the very nasty awful ununionized coerced brothels you say you really don’t want, if it’s about the poor women needing a job, or, rather about CONTAINING the non-married females…
Or, you end up with much more independent options for women all over the spectrum, including sex work, and very little poverty with your HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT being much more of a niche option. So, basically, you either DO envision a great deal of dangerous, low pay, low quality, often coerced work for the bulk of sex workers and some upscale work, or you envision a society where most women are free to take on all sorts of other jobs, and sex work is a comfortable and flexible option for those who choose to make it their work. You can have upscale houses of entertainment and women doing all sorts of other lucrative jobs, or you can have upscale houses of entertainment and independent escorts and low-scale sex work where the “lower class” are economically or physically coerced, and the glut on the market makes prices low, allowing few opportunity for economic escape. Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a free market, because, you know, opportunity. Still…
You can’t just have ALL UPSCALE and it features the bulk of your society’s unmarried employed women. Sorry. Unless this is some sort of centrally planned subsidized brothel economy?
Can you explain?
Which reminds me, he never answered my questions about how these houses of entertainment are going to be so upscale in a free market economy and yet apparently hold most of the societies “unmarriageable” women.
Unmarriageable women can lay golden eggs.
Never question Lord Mellertron!
And fuck, we know gold is magically inflation proof… XD
If Meller ignores the economic questions about his brothels… Er HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT and just posts about gold and inflation and tells me to read the same five books I ALREADY READ, (While still ignoring the existence of the books I rec, even though they’re often hosted on the same site) TAKE A SHOT!
Meller doesn’t like addressing things we say because he’s learnt that it brings pain and anguish when he realizes how overmatched he is XD We’ve basically been training him… xD He knows if he goes for door B, he gets an electric shock.
He’s not overmatched! He’s super intelligent and well read! …I am seriously amused and kind of weirded out by his apparent ability to find, say… mises dot org, and it’s library, and yet only use it to read older books. I mean, when I tell him to read libertarian scholarship FROM THIS CENTURY, I”m not telling him to go far. It’s literally A CLICK AWAY. ON THE SAME SITE! And I link him right to them! But no, time warp Meller likes all his books nice and dusty, even on the interwebs!
Anyway, Meller… Look, my shiny new blog!
blackheartsredspades.wordpress.com
Come debate me on libertarian turf, y/n?
link no work!
http://blackheartsredspades.wordpress.com
“Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate.”
I’d say that sinking to that level to exploit vulnerable people is the very definition of “desperate.”
Zhinxy – I wondered about that! I don’t know how millions of women can all be high-class courtesans; is the courtesan market really that big? And the men who do hire courtesans will expect them to be exceptionally beautiful and graceful, which most women–even “wayward” ones–aren’t. It seems like we’d be facing a courtesan glut and tremendous poverty for all but the very top courtesans, unless they were heavily subsidized.
Anyway, once the men unencumbered from having women in their workplaces invent sexbots that can also give you a backrub, it’s all going to be moot.
Besides, if they can do that they can invent manual-labor-bots and skilled-labor-bots and customer-service-bots and bot-repair-bots and then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days. 🙂
Hoilly – “Anyway, once the men unencumbered from having women in their workplaces invent sexbots that can also give you a backrub, it’s all going to be moot.”
Also – We can actually install these robots in labs, or, in the break rooms off the labs, so that men may avail themselves of their faux-fleshy charms, and after having done so, may work alongside women without their fragile self control being harmed. UTOPIA! WITH SEXBOTS IN THE BREAK ROOM!
“Besides, if they can do that they can invent manual-labor-bots and skilled-labor-bots and customer-service-bots and bot-repair-bots and then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days. “
I’m totally down with this. Unless they become self aware, and then we’re enslaving them, and sci fi has taught me that always happens. XD
” It seems like we’d be facing a courtesan glut and tremendous poverty for all but the very top courtesans, unless they were heavily subsidized.”
BINGO!
Unless you can tell us why we’re wrong, Meller? 🙂
@HOlly: then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days
Until they rise up and kill us all! AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH! I know what’s likely to happen! TERMINATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Holly and Zhinxy: I think DKM actually thinks that once the ‘natural order’ is restored there will be very very few wayward women to wend their ways into his lovely brothels/service joints.
That’s another example of how he lives on a different planet: we KNOW all sorts of women doing all sorts of things (we can quibble over the amount of ‘free will’ involved, but that applies to men too) but he seems to be convinced that once the “true” women are freed of the feminist yoke, they will flee happily back toward servitude, leaving only us few, ugly, obnoxious, mouthy, shrikes to um……..yeah, well, I did say he’s on a different planet, right?
I just hope that women can share in the robot-enabled luxury and/or apocalypse.
I have this feeling that Meller will still want women to devote their lives to serving men anyway, just, you know, symbolically. I mean, what else are we going to do with our lives? Enjoy them? Silly woman, women don’t have subjective experience!
“Men don’t choose who they have sex with, nope!”
Not when they’re raped they don’t, no. It’s also questionable as to how much choice they have if they are in fact underage boys and the person who had sex with them was older and in a position of power over them. Under US law, in both of these cases if their rapist gets pregnant as a result they still have to pay child support to her. It’s for the benefit of the child you see, and obviously he or she benefits from being brought up by a female rapist enough that her victim should be forced to pay her to do so.
THIS CONVERSATION IS NOW ABOUT MRA TALKING POINT #362-A
PLEASE RESPOND PROMPTLY
Yes, I agree. People having to pay child support to their rapists is shitty.
Back to sexbots! I’m pretty sure Ithiliana’s right: DKM believes there’s a small minority of sluts who’ll fuck anything with a cock, and every other woman secretly wants to be a fluffy housepet. The idea of women who are neither seems to utterly escape his notice.
ROFLMAO
You want some cheese with that whine? What a butthurt bitch you are.
lauralot:
On the contrary, if all women’s bodies are dirty and gross, the difference between a homeless woman and the cleanest woman in the world is negligible.
Polliwog:
Not really, there are quite a few examples of Slavey defending something he’d said that is factually wrong as though anything someone says being wrong is the same as everything they say being wrong. So it’s clear that’s exactly how he thinks.
Slavey:
There are some things that are judged true or not by consensus. So all of us saying those things are true does, in fact make them true.
But I think you’re trying the perceived magic of “just because you say something doesn’t make it true” because you don’t know what that sentence means, you only know it’s used against you, and you’re flinging it right back.
I don’t know if it’s possible for someone to explain it to you, but I’ll try:
* Some things are facts. They are true. The truth of these things is documented. In many cases, it’s self-evident as well as documented.
* Merely asserting something to be true doesn’t make it true.This holds no matter what the somethig is and no matter who is doing the asserting.
* If something is true, someone who says it is saying a true thing, but this is a property of the thing, not a consequence of it having been said.
* If something is not true, someone who says it is saying something that is not true, but this is a property of the thing.
* The truth of a fact is not dependent on if having been said, or said by someone in particular.It is not dependent on having been documented either, but the documentation demonstrates that it is true.
* If something is not documented, and it is not self-evident, it may or may not be true. Assertion will not resolve that to “definitely true” no matter who is doing the asserting.
Holly:
It’s difficult, but I think I’m beginning to piece something together.
Words and phrases are magic talismans. Certain phrases don’t mean anything, but the kaballistically cause the person weilding them to win arguments. However, when he uses them, we don’t acknowledge that he’s won the argument. This can only be because of pejudice against him, personally, or against a group he belongs to, such as men.
Slavey:
So is he (if that’s his real gender) saying this is all a charade? That the thoughts and opinions of the NWOslave character are not those of the person typing the words?
Though even in that case, they are the thoughts and opinions of the character, so criticizing the character on that basis is still valid.
Holly:
And, furthermore, because of what he’s said throughout his tenure at Manboobz. I don’t know if he’s more confused or infuriated that the slate isn’t wiped clean with each post.
Holly:
Fun fact: I have never declined a direct offer of sex.
I haven’t noticed more subtle offers, if any. I freely acknowledge choosing, but in the form of whom to offer, not whom to accept offers from. And if I got offers from less attractive(-to-me) women, I’d probably decline them. If I got significantly more offers I’d have to decline at least some of them.
Yeah, that’s not rapey at all.
Yo, David, is Mr. Too Cool For a Name on moderation yet? I think he ought to be if he isn’t already; he’s clearly just trying to rile as many people up as he possibly can.