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:
Oh, sure, you don’t want to get nasty. You always want to get nasty, but you’re too mealy-mouthed to do it right.
You’re awful too, Meller.
No is making you write your obscene glurge, Mellertoad. You do it because you want to.
Oh, now I get it. I have successfully managed to work outside the home without my workplace turning into an orgy or a fight because I am a hideous ice queen who can’t get a man. I guess this would be the case for all the other women who are currently working.
Wow, there are a lot of ugly and fridid women in the world! I guess I should go tell my partner that it’s ok, I’ve seen the light, I now know that I am unattractive and unable to arouse him and he can stop pity fucking me and go find himself a compliant sexbot instead.
Oh hang on. Before I do that I just need to get my facts right. I can buy that I’m a hideous bush pig and that every man who’s ever found me attractive has been suffering from an inexcusable lapse in judgement, but given that in my country, women make up 47% of the workforce and there’s nary an orgy or mass fight in the papers these days, that must mean that pretty much ALL of us are ugly and asexual. Even the non-feminist ones.
Or maybe you are living in some kind of fantasy world peopled entirely by imaginary friends and dolls that comply with your warped worldview because no actual real people will. Gee, I don’t know which is more likely to be right – you or the rest of the population?
hellkell-23 December 23, 2011 @3:01pm
I am only nasty when pushed to the wall–by feminists like you!
Who asked you anyhow?
Okay. We start around January 20th? Very flexible
You can quote anything I said on manboobz, I can quote anything you said on manboobz. I will actually leave out, say, your stormfront postings.
There will be seperate comments threads for people who identity as libertarian, and for general comments. This way, we can talk to each other without interruption, and we can get feedback from the tribe of loonies as to your position and mine. We will be able to respond to commenters in those threads, but they won’t interrupt our conversation.
I’m willing to discuss with you how many responses we each get to make, and how long we talk on a topic.
At the end I’ll ask the libertarians what they think about this libertarianism of yours. And mine.
Deal?
Aw Meller, did I push you to the wall with my militant insistence that I’ve never been in a workplace orgy? You poor poor thing. It must be incredibly difficult for you, to be harrassed to breaking point by people asking you questions. Maybe you should go have a lie down.
Meller, you’re not the boss of this board. You put your foulness out where anyone can comment on it, and people will. Deal with it.
Meller, you’re a nasty man in general, no need to push you into a wall (the poor wall).
Go play with your dolls.
Lol, I’m sure you enjoy speculating about the sexuality of feminists, don’t you? Well, this one just spent a very nice evening with a quite avidly hetero male last night 🙂
I’ll spare you the titillating details that you’re no doubt fishing for, but I’ll tell you this much: We had a very, very good time. Several times. Each. And then again this morning lol.
So speculate all you want, but I am not ugly, or frigid, or incapable of getting a hetero male off. And even if I was any of those things, it wouldn’t make my position on any subject incorrect.
Remember: stereotypes are bad because they are shortcuts in thinking. Lazy, crude and the mark of someone with a small mind. Don’t say I never did nothing nice for you, either.
I like how the over-educated label goes to the frigid shrews. So you can either be a hypersexed bimbo feminist or an overeducated shrew feminist, and never the twain shall meet. I suppose the hypersexed, overeducated shrews and frigid bimbos are by default cuddly, real women then?
Especially considering that from DKM’s point of view an “overeducated” woman is one who knows how to read.
I’m also intrigued by how I’m a bitter man hating feminist wrongy wrongerson, but also worth talking to away from “the children.” XD
Which we shall do, yes, Meller?
Shadow–23 December 2011 @ 3:26pm
Cuddly, affectionate, pretty and feminine women are outside the feminist box altogether! They all have more worthwhile things to do with themselves to bother about “equality”, all sorts of “rape”, sexual harassment litigation, womens’ crazy careers, and so on…
“How can I please the man in my life?” is paramount in her thoughts. Being yielding, adorable, tranquil, affectionate, lovable, and docile are the signature qualities of this lovely creature. Feminists, of both types, on the other hand, YEECH!!
There are a number of websites and networks which can help you if you wish to evolve into a real woman, as cited above:
http://www.thesurrenderedwife.net
http://www.fascinatingwomanhood.com
While they address the needs of fundamentalist Christian women most overtly and explicitly, their good advice is usable to women–and the men in their lives whether they are religious or not.
HAVE FUN!
@Holly
You wrong DKM so!! If I remember right, he was perfectly willing to accept that women should be allowed to learn to read in order to peruse the many ways in which they can learn to be better and housewives and even maybe a few ways to scintillate that oh so special man (married to you of course) in the boudoir
you know, actually, this is odd of me to say, but… I think you’re doing those movements a disservice? I mean, really, both those sites are… Well, I don’t agree with them, but they’re almost feminist compared to a lot of the stuff you say around here. Seriously.
Lolll, ninjaed by the man himself. DKM, I don’t think you’d be quite so comfortable with a man such as myself learning to evolve into a real woman
also, both your urls are pointing nowhere.
here is doyle’s site
http://www.surrenderedwife.com/
I can’t find an official fascinating womanhood site. After andelin’s death, there may be power struggles in the fold XD
Shadow – @Holly
You wrong DKM so!! If I remember right, he was perfectly willing to accept that women should be allowed to learn to read in order to peruse the many ways in which they can learn to be better and housewives and even maybe a few ways to scintillate that oh so special man (married to you of course) in the boudoir
….
My favorite bit was when I specifically asked about giving my daughter libertarian books. He hemmed and hawwed a bit and then said it was all right, better than the crap she gets at school, but he didn’t know what effect they would have, as women are kind of inherently anti freedom and stuff XD
Hey Meller, you never did explain to me what the positive side to marital rape was. I know that if I were a real woman, I would intrinsically understand this but clearly I need instruction.
@Zhinxy:
I didn’t grow up in the West so the first time I heard of Rand was when The Simpsons mentioned her, and the first time I heard of libertarianism was when I started reading a couple of feminist blogs so my understanding of it is beyond limited. From what I’ve gathered though there is a lot of emphasis on individual freedom and individual responsibility over rule of government and laws and such. I think he may be worried that, like her mother, your daughter may decide that she herself is an individual and a person, and that this freedom shit may apply to her as well. DKM often seems to believe that personhood is not determined by self-awareness, but rather by being a white, penis-carrying, woman-dominating American.
Besides, women these days really don’t seem to understand freedom. What greater freedom is there than subdjucating yourself to someone else?!!!!!!
p.s. thanks for the Gallant and Goofus link, but you gave me a sad. There was something deliciously absurd about the newly converted George Sr attempting to biblicise (not sure if this is a word but it lovingly rolled off my mind’s tongue) charicatures of his sons and then having Ron Howard narrate it
I too had trouble today accessing the original fascinating womanhood website. Since lady Andelin’s unfortunate passing, there may be reasons for its suspension while things iron themselves out there, but I think that it will come back stronger than ever!
At any rate, the wisdom in the books is timeless, whatever happens to the website! Any woman can only benefit from them, whether she is traditionally religious or not, and whether she is inclined toward feminuttery or not!
As far as “marital rape” goes, there is no positive or negative side to it! Man and wife are (at least spiritually) one, therefore a man can no more “rape” his nearest and dearest than he can “steal” from his left pocket by putting his wallet in his right pocket.
Needless to say, I should think that his wife’s enjoyment of, and pleasure in the sexual act would be of paramount importance to the husband, and he would be impelled to be as gentle, considerate, and as loving to her as possible, to get the best sex out of her that he could! She would, I should think, respond to actual rape with the same horror, loathing and disgust that any woman would, and no husband in his right mind would want to inflict this on his better half for an instant! He would WANT her love, her appreciation, and her admiration, certainly NOT agony or terror, and hence actual rape, even if attempted, would be utterly contrary to its own purposes!
wwops. html fail XD
Ah right, so you’re an idealist who deals with the fact that reality doesn’t fit his ideal by pretending it doesn’t exist.
There’s a word for that – delusional. Thanks for clarifying which category you fit in.