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:
Kladle: Don’t be a snitch.
&makomk:
If an adult woman has sex with an underage boy in the US, gets knocked up, has the child and files for child support, then technically the boys parents would be on the hook until he’s 18. But in reality that’s not how the law works. Because she committed statutory rape the boy and his parents are totally exempt from child support and she alone is responsible for supporting the child. My sis is an attorney and she can confirm this. Seriously though, stop whining about this subject. Everyone here is sick of hearing about it.
I’ll second Kladle.
Boring troll is boring.
Can we at least edit his comments to be funnier if he’s going to stick around?
I’m with CassandraSays. (I wish we could make him open source editable Wikitroll, come to think of it… )
I third the idea of putting him on moderation.
Men don’t get to pick who to shag. I’m gay and even I know that. Men pursue women. Women decide if they want the pursuer or not. Men may choose and pursue what woman to charm but in the end, it’s the woman who choses the chooser/pursuer. She decides in the end. MRA dudes are plain ol’ jealous of the sexual power of women because 1. they ain’t got that kind of power and 2. they got to behave like civilized men if they want a sliver of a chance of getting the goods, of getting a woman to give them the cookie. Yeah, it sucks being a man in that regard but only if you aint got game. I reckon the mra dudes ain’t got no game. That’s why they’re pissy and whinny.
Monsieur sans Nom: can you actually point to a case which actually went the way you claim it would? As far as I can tell, every time this has come before the courts – and it has numerous times – they’ve consistently ruled that even if the child was conceived as a result of its father being raped he still has to pay child support. I think I’ve come across one state where in theory, due to a recent law change aimed at protecting female rape victims, it looks like a statutory rape conviction against the mother in regards to the child’s conception should mean the father doesn’t have to pay child support, but I’m not sure how effective this is in practice, especially given how hard it is to get statutory rape convictions against women.
Even if this were universally true, which it’s not, men pick who to pursue. No, they don’t get to sleep with every woman they pursue, but women don’t get to choose who pursues them. So everyone gets veto power of choice, but no one gets “I’ll take that one, please” power of choice.
Well makomk, can YOU cite a case where an underage boy was compelled to pay child support??? Most statutory rapes involving a male “victim” and an adult woman are quite often cases where the boy initiated sex and the woman accepted. I find it laughable how butthurt so many MRAs are by the lighter sentences adult women get for statutory rape. Even if she’s the adult and he’s the *kid*, she bears the bigger biological burden when it comes to the consequences of sex. Sexual acts involving an adult woman a prepubescent boy are extremely rare. Most cases involve teenage boys.
Funny how you folks call me a “troll” because you disagree with my posts and I actually know how to win arguments(when I do you swear at me). I guess some people just haven’t learned to accept being wrong about things.
When do you win arguments? I must have missed that.
When we swear at him. He just said.
NWO: @Tatjna
My comment was in reply to Katz. Your name was never mentioned.
Was Katz talking to you? No. Then why did you think you had permission to speak?
Molly Ren–December 22@ 1:22am
Is it POSSIBLE for women, even FEMINISTS, to be that cussedly blind? Nobody was suggesting that men are not, or could not be homeless. The majority of homeless in every major city, according to police reports, dating since the ’70s, indicate that men (okay, single men) are the substantial MAJORITY of homeless.
Happy now, Molly Ren?
I was talking about the plight of homeless women–as homeless WOMEN–for the simple reason that the simple, clear, glaring point of the article refers to the vulnerability of single, homeless, unprotected women being victimized by men (who probably can get sex no other way) with what amounts to sexual cannibalism. The fact that homeless men face other problems, some even worse, more life-threatening and less open to remedy, is very important, but belongs in another post, discussing other articles, and probably on other blogs or websites.
I was simply trying to keep my response on point to the article her on manboobz! Would that your replies would be intelligent enough to do the same!
Zhinxi:
Once your blog http://www.blackheartsredspades.com is online, I would be glad to participate. It would be nice to talk without interruption from the children, wouldn’t it?
Awesome. I’ll work on setting that up then. Thankyou, Meller.
FTFY
😀
Meller: Men with strong paternal instincts may indeed be usefully and safely (both the child’s safety and his) employed in babysitting services, especially, but not limited to, if they had siblings that they took care of themselves when at home.
FTFY
I already said that occupations and professions independent of women’s sexuality could be encrouraged
Care to list them? If so could you please explain why they are independent of sexuality, and all others aren’t?
Look at the posts which you feminoids have scribbled against your antifeminist critics! If one wonders about what would cause an otherwise peaceful and easygoing man to explode in a tantrum of fury, one can only speculate on the effects any of your posts would do to a man –especially if spoken in front of his friends–who had the slightest amount of self-respect or self possession. There isn’t the slightest bit of effort on the part of women to understand his point of view, much less to see the enormous amount of hurt, both emotional and sexual, that must have been inflicted upon him by women in the name of gender equality and feminism!
I have, and don’t see the same thing you do. I see a pretty clear understanding of his POV, and it’s not one that does “him” any good. Take yuorself. You say violence against women is bad… but it seems to be becaus it reflects poorly on the man’s self-control; he let a woman drive him over the edge with her provocation. You say rewards are better than punishment, but you don’t actually say one can’t beat one’s “woman”, only that one shouldn’t.
Then you get all pissy when we point out the actual content of your words.
Me… I am dude. I’m (as you keep reminding me) a soldier. I’ve spent a lot of time training to be actively violent. Never have I been induced to strike someone as a result of something they said. Some have said some pretty vile things (stuff to make your little fantisies of murders and fuckslaves look benign). The only person to come close was a man, saying that people ought to just shoot prisoners of war.
Restoration of some kind of patriarchy is one of the ways that earlier kinds of society dealt with the problems of unwed and onowned women of child breeding age and above. You don’t like it, but you have nothing better, and neither does anyone else!
Unwed and unowned?
Are you serious? Why yes, yes you are. I have something better… equality. All persons being free and equal; able to do what they want with whom they want.
Sort of like Liberty for all.
You want slaves. We don’t. That offends your delicate little sensibilities.
Which bothers us not at all.
Ami Angelwings–December 22, 2011 @ 2:09 and 2:10am–
It is frankly a little embarassing talking about the specifics that you request about why having men (or even teenaged boys) and women (or teenaged girls) in close and ongoing proximity to each other.
A wise man once said that you should not be surprised if fire results from the presence of dry straw on one hand, and sparks on the other hand…
Need I say more?
One may add that there are few more powerful distractions for men then the presence of attractive (or even not-so-attractive) females and few stimuli more likely to generate rivalry for the attention and (hopefully) affection of the females. If there are married couples involved, it can become even more of a mess (for both males and females) very quickly, no matter how innocent and innocuous the original socialization. Jealousy and all that!
I hope this all-too-brief overview answered your questions regarding the feasibility of close male-female interactions–even without overt sex!
So Meller thinks that men can’t control themselves. Hey Meller, is this because they are unevolved, weak-willed, or naturally rapists? Just wondering?
Also, don’t use female as a noun. It’s incorrect and makes you look ignorant.
Men’s entertainment centers, would, like service providers with ANYTHING, vary widely in the quality, reliability, and diversity of entertainment services provided, as would the women hired, the quality of the training, supervision, ambiance and environment, food and drink, and everything else. Not ALL Entertainment centers would be high-end luxury establishment-and those wouldn’t have much to do with the women that are the subjects of discussion here anyway, for obvious reasons. Most entertainment centers would NOT be the coercive sex-slums that you suggest either. Like all market services, they would run the gamut from fairly cheap, discount-intensive-high turnover retail to custom tailored, fit-for-a-king, personalized services for (generations of) millionaires, and everything in between…
Zhinxi,. I don’t think that women would invade and occupy male vocations, professions, and businesses anywhere nearly as much in a genuine free market (one more reason that most feminists had, and have, a decidedly socialistic tendency) but there would be SOME female accountants, scientists, journalists, engineers of various types, mechanics, welders and metallurgists, woodworkers, architects and draftsmen, and so on.
To this would be added the women–probably the great majority–who would work in more traditionally feminine crafts and occupations, taken from the home and domesticity in a lot of ways, from childcare provider to pediatric nurse (Okay, I KNOW that science and math are involved in Pediatric RN and Physicians Ass’t, so don’t rub it in), from kitchencraft (Coffee and Tea services, cooking and/or baking, sweets ‘n’ treats, and so on, cleaning services and domestic assistance, etc. This doesn’t rule out the more sex-related professions, or the hostessing and companionship these centers would do best in offering, but it certainly shows that you would NOT have an “overabundance” of low-level prostitutes contrasted with a few very high level courtesans. Indeed, it is really trying to compare apples with oranges here. The high end, ultra-luxury exclusive Entertainment palaces would be Cartiers or Tiffany’s to your Jack-n-the-box surprise, or the Waldorf-Astoria–at its best–to Howard Johnsons.
The fact of the matter is simply that there are sexual factors, as well as other habits, inclinations, talents, aptitudes, and preferences, that go into our selections of career training, choice of occupation or profession and so on. Maybe the choices involved aren’t altogether gender-specific, but the human sex template and gender identity, powerfully hardwired as it is into our primary genetic and chromosomal system (XX for females, XY for males) and reinforced from the moment of conception with the presence of sex hormones (both male and female-based), although in different ratios for boys and girlsin the womb, is so unyieldingly “engendered” into each of us, from long before birth, that to ignore its inevitable effects, LONG BEFORE any gender socialization can take place, is sheer folly! That is what most feminists try to do.
And now I find myself wondering what sort of thing you’d find in a women’s entertainment centre in Mellerworld. Knitting pattern books? But wait! In Mellerworld, knitting is work! How will we entertain the womanslavebots when they are not sexin’? Enquiring minds want to know!
Tatjna–a.k.a. smartass–December 23, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
The pressures occuring in “coed” environments work on both females (oops, I mean girls and women) and men to considerable degrees, whether men “control themselves” or not. There are also rivalries among the ladies for male attention, there emerges a “pecking order” of access (can anyone spell ‘sexual harassment’) intensifying existing rivalries and hostilities among both groups of F’s and M’s. The quality of work perfomance certainly is unlikely to improve under these conditions, or anything like them.
As far as “female” being used as a noun–we are talking about living human beings here! The last dictionary that I looked in, human beings were “nouns”–even female ones! Using ‘nouns’ to refer to “nouns”-names describing persons, places, or things, is hardly ignorant.
Guess again!
Check again, Meller. Female and male are adjectives, used to describe something. You can have a male horse, a male plug connection or a male human, but when you say something is ‘a male’ it is wrong because it does not tell you what the noun is. We are only assuming that ‘a male’ means a male human when you use it as such, and one such as yourself should not be so slack as to allow us to assume anything.
Meanwhile, please explain to me why my presence in the dagging gang did not create a drop in production as you would predict based on your theory that sex trumps everything else in the workplace. We were working hard, wearing minimal clothing and ‘showing off’ our bodies in a physical envronment, yet there was no sexual harrassment or even chest-beating. Maybe we were all asexual?
Since you, along with the other manboobzettes, INSIST upon running this into the ground, I will speculate that, yes, you, like many feminists, are effectively frigid and asexual, and are incapable of stimulating or pleasing (heterosexual) men. I didn’t want to get nasty about this, but the problems associated with close proximity of, and “co-ed” arrangements of sexually active or mature men and women are so self-evident that it should be unnecessary for me, or any observer, to cite warnings about such sexual proximity or rivalries becoming inevitable in such an environment!
Maybe you, and other feminists, ARE indeed so unattractive to (heterosexual) men that you do not arouse any sexual passions, any desire for physical contact, and no rivalry with normally sexed heterosexual women. This says nothing about the folly inherent in a general policy of of mixing men and women in close proximity in schools, laboratories, factories, houses or worship, offices, etc.!
tatjna, I didn’t want to get nasty about this! Most feminists are either, as a rule, hypersexed and frantically promiscuous uber-sluts who feel that they have something to prove with their own sexual activity somehow being related to her personal “freedom”, or, on the opposite hand, far too many of you are frigid, bitter, and often over educated man-haters whose effect on heterosexual male arousal is about the same as sarin nerve gas.
Feel better now? I don’t know what you, and other feminists raising this point here, proved by making me write this way, but you have my answer!