Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Nonmonogamy is not just one thing. There are many types and flavors, some of which I like, some of which I don’t like but I know work well for other people, and some of which I don’t recommend at all. In my books, I have covered various forms of nonmonogamy, but I have never actually presented a comprehensive list. I will do that for you to today.
-By Caleb Jones
Nonmonogamy is very different. The types of nonmonogamy are so numerous and varied that they are radically different from each other, and appeal to radically different types of people. For example, I think open relationships are great, polyamory is good, but I would never be a swinger, and if I was a polygamist with multiple wives I’d probably kill myself. And I'm sure you could find a million people who believe the literal opposite of what I just said.
Once you reach the point where you emotionally accept that monogamy doesn’t work (it’s easy to reach that conclusion logically, but getting your emotions, Societal Programming, and Obsolete Biological Wiring to acknowledge it is the hard part) it then becomes your job to identify which type of nonmonogamy is long-term conducive and most compatible with your personality. (Or, if you’re a recovering Alpha Male 1.0, which form of nonmonogamy will irritate you the least.) To help you out with that, here is every form of nonmonogamy I am aware of; as comprehensive of a list as I can give you.
Threesome-Only Relationship: This means that you are only allowed to have sex with other women when it’s in a threesome with your GF/wife. It’s essentially monogamy, to the point where it’s been called “kinky monogamy” or “monogamish.” I don’t actually consider this nonmonogamy, since as soon as your GF/wife doesn’t want threesomes anymore (something that is 100% guaranteed to happen if the relationship lasts long enough), it suddenly becomes monogamy. Therefore, I do not recommend threesome-only relationships and I have never seen them work out well in the long-term. It usually just turns into monogamy (and you know where things go from there).
Fuck Buddies / Friends With Benefits / FB’s: This is, obviously, when you’re having sex with two or more recurring women in a very casual, friendly, nonromantic relationship. There are no rules, no structure, and no dating, just friendship and sex. Obviously I’m a huge proponent of FB’s and I think every man should have at least one or two. I have several myself, and always will.
Swinging: This is when you and your GF/wife, as a couple, have sex with other couples. You going out and having sex with women independently of your wife is not allowed (and if it is, I don’t consider it swinging). Going to sex clubs, swinging clubs, and sex parties is common with swinger couples. Swinging is not my thing. I have never done it and have no interest. Having sex with some dude’s wife while my wife gets fucked by him is fine I guess, but its not something that turns me on. That being said, I have personally known a decent number of couples who are swingers and who really, really like it. Some of the happiest long-term couples I’ve ever met were swingers, including within my extended family.
The danger of swinging is that it has the potential to become monogamy (what happens when your GF/wife doesn’t want to swing anymore?) but unlike with threesome-only relationships, if the man stays Alpha, he can convert the swinging relationship into an OLTR or similar (whereas this is almost impossible in a threesome-only relationship).
Polyamory: This is when you are with at least two women in close, romantic, MLTR relationships, and these women are also dating other men in MLTR’s at the same time. Maybe you even all know each other, or maybe you don’t. I think polyamory is great, though I’ve only done it a handful of times. The downfall of this system is that the potential for drama and jealousy is a little high, but if you use the relationship techniques I describe in my Ultimate Open Relationships Manual, you’ll be just fine.
I think this system is fine as long as there’s a large enough group of women to handle the inevitable LSFNTE’s that will occur. While my Alpha Male 2.0 love of freedom would personally make me a little uncomfortable with this kind of arrangement (I should be able to fuck whomever I want), I have no overall objection to it, and know several people who have done it and enjoy it.
MLTR’s: You already know what this is if you’re familiar with my content. This is when you’re dating and having sex with a woman in a romantic, emotional context, but you are allowed to get romantic and emotional (and sexual) with other women as well. It’s romantic, but not exclusive in any way and you can do literally whatever you want when she’s not around. Obviously I love MLTR’s, have had many over the last ten years, and highly recommend them to all men who don’t have an OLTR (unless you just want casual sex, then stick with FB’s, which is also fine).
High-End MLTR: This is when you have multiple MLTR’s, but one of them is by far your favorite, and almost a girlfriend but not quite. It’s still not exclusive in any way, but you can do a few things with her you can’t do with other MLTR’s, such as meet her family members, use the term “boyfriend” and “girlfriend,” and a few other things. High-End MLTR’s are only for guys with a decent amount of nonmonogamous relationship experience. For those guys, they’re great. I’ve had several of them and they were all wonderful.
Open Relationship or OLTR: This is a serious girlfriend relationship where you are sexually open, but emotionally exclusive. You can have sex with other women, but you can’t date or have romantic feelings for other women, and the same applies to her and men. This means that all the women on the side must be FB’s, one night stands, or similar.
The upside of the OLTR is that unlike most other forms of monogamy, it’s true pair-bonding, which is what most men crave, particularly as they get over age 35. The downside is that much like polyfidelity or swinging, you’ve made some commitments to your special lady and therefore some restrictions on your freedom; you can’t just run around and do whatever you want like you can with MLTR’s. Obviously I think OLTR’s are great, but they are only for older and more experienced men, as I talked about in detail here. Younger men attempting them is rarely a good idea.
Polyexclusive OLTR: This is an OLTR where you’ve promised to only have side-sex with a few certain individual women (FB’s) that your OLTR is aware of and approves of. The same applies to her; if she wants to have sex with other men, she can only do so with specific, individual men you approve of, and no one else (other than you of course).
This kind of thing is fine for older men or men with lower sex drives. It’s acceptable only if you build into the system a way to get new women if one of your current FB’s leaves, which they will. A lot of men who attempt polyexclusive OLTR’s forget about this. Their OLTR allows them to fuck Ashley and Suzi, which is great for a while, but when Ashley moves away and Suzi gets married and monogamous, then you’re screwed, so you need to account for this.
OLTR Marriage: This is when you are de facto married to your OLTR, regardless if the marriage is legal or not. You both live together as husband and wife and are working towards a very long-term or even forever marriage. You are allowed to have sex with FB’s on the side as usual, and your finances are 100% protected and legally separate from hers in legally enforceable ways in case of a dispute or divorce/breakup. Having children is allowed as well. I have an OLTR marriage myself, so obviously I am a huge proponent of OLTR marriage for men over age 35 who’ve been around the block and wish to settle down. With its sexual and financial protections, it is literally the only safe form of marriage in the Western world today.
Polygamy: This is when a man is married to multiple wives (legal or not). The wives can only have sex with him, he can have sex with the wives, and is technically not allowed to have sex with anyone else (though, being a man, he might cheat). While this sounds like a man’s dream come true, in the real world, polygamy is always marked with constant, never-ending drama, one-upmanship, and infighting. As I’ve said before, one traditional wife is bad enough… do you really want three?
Polygamy does not work in the Western world at all, and only works in certain regions of Africa and the Middle East (and it’s a cluster fuck over there too). Also, wives in polygamous relationships tend to be average-looking or ugly (though often, the men in these relationships don’t care). If your goal in life is to crank out 20 children and you have a lot of money and you don’t mind constant drama in your life, then I guess go ahead with polygamy if you live in a region where you can pull it off. Otherwise, stay the hell away.
Beta Polygamy or Polyandry: This is often misidentified as “polyamory” when it’s nothing of the sort. This is when one Dominant woman has two or three pathetic beta boyfriends. She fucks them (sometimes), and they’re only allowed to have sex with her. These weird relationships are often used as examples in the more right-wing, pro-monogamy corners of the manosphere as “See? Polyamory is for betas!” Again, it’s not polyamory, but a form of polygamy where the woman has multiple husbands/boyfriends instead of the man doing it.
Mediterranean Marriage: This is a de facto open marriage where the man marries a woman while lying to her and pretending to be monogamous, then spends the rest of the marriage cheating on her. The woman knows the man cheats, hates it, screams at him about it constantly, but stays married to him anyway for family, financial, or religious reasons. Mediterranean marriages are fucking nightmares from hell, and I literally don’t understand why these Alpha Male 1.0’s do it. I do not recommend them at all unless you love drama or you’re Hispanic (those Hispanics love these fucking things; don’t ask me why).
Sexless OLTR Marriage: This is when a man is married to a woman who has permanently turned off her sexual being, so she no longer has sex with him, nor anyone else. Because of this, the man is allowed to have sexual relationships with women outside of the marriage. The woman stays with the man because of the kids, or for religious or financial reasons. These sometimes can become weird MLTR-OLTR hybrids, where the man has full-on “girlfriends” on the side who are considered more than just FB’s, since the man literally can’t have sex with his wife.
I’ve seen a handful of these marriages and they can work if the man is a strong, capable Alpha and the woman is reasonably low-drama. Otherwise these marriages often crumble, particularly when the last kid moves out of the home. That’s it, every form of nonmonogamy actually practiced in the real world. There are a few other types of nonmonogamy that are theoretical and/or fantastical, but I don’t include those. (I will be happy to edit this article and include any other forms of real-world nonmonogamy that I’ve forgotten, if any.)
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Ash Pariseau 2018-02-19 05:58:27
Never realized there were so many different types. Thanks for laying it out.
Magok 2018-02-19 06:25:57
Mediterranean marriages are fucking nightmares from hell, and I literally don’t understand why these Alpha Male 1.0’s do it. I do not recommend them at all unless you love drama or you’re Hispanic (those Hispanics love these fucking things; don’t ask me why).I think is because a mix of religion/culture, Hispanic have a strong catholic influence, divorce is forbidden and although the bible condones adultery, if a man has sex with a woman outside his marriage, he is committing a sin, but, hey he is a human! This is different for women, technically if they cheat they are sinners too, but women are much frowned upon in the bible. So culturally, is normal for men to have desire for other girls, girls are supposed to have lower libido (SP at its finest) So that, and the freaking "telenovelas", which are never ending crap shows with shitty plotlines, aimed for women which they always portray dysfunctional relationships that tolerate insanely amount of stupid drama, so they see drama in relationship like is a normal thing. Thank God, the influence of television and religion is slowly losing it influence with internet.
Kurt 2018-02-19 07:32:08
Beta Polygamy: This is often misidentified as “polyamory” when it’s nothing of the sort. This is when one Dominant woman has two or three pathetic beta boyfriends. She fucks them (sometimes), and they’re only allowed to have sex with her.Why not just call it polyandry?
Gang 2018-02-19 07:44:49
I do agree that your description of the swinger lifestyle represents the kind of agreement that the most of swinging couples are engaging with. However, swinging in the dictionary definition isn't mutually exclusive with other sorts of nonmonogamy. So what you call swinging, I would call "swinging only" for instance. What do you call swinging with a FB, MLTR or OLTR, as in participating in typical swingers activities such as the 2 of you in a swinger's club and having group sexuality together. Or meeting couples and having group sexuality (4some). Aside from that relationship, within the rules of the FB, MLTR, or OLTR you can also fuck other women on your own (and she can also fuck other men of course)? I like swinging and if a hot woman was into that lifestyle I would see much more point in doing a very high MLTR end or OLTR with her, meaning we participate in swinging activities (FFM, MMF, 4somes and more) but we also fuck other people separately. In term of probability to pull this off, do you consider this scenario feasible or some form of guy disney / unicorn hunting? Is there any material you may have come across with that describes some form of system to pull that off in a way that complements your books? Or alternatibely, how would you pirsue this in a systemic manner?
Black Adder 2018-02-19 08:50:41
The Mediterranean marriage cracked me up because it’s so true. (I’m Portuguese)
CTV 2018-02-19 09:01:55
I always hear about Mediterranean Marriage being practiced with Hispanics, being in live in SO CAL. I wonder if this is why they go for white boys so much thinking they'll actually be monogamous (especially Conservative types). If so don't come round here lol. Hey Black Dragon I saw the Beta Polygamy. Isn't his just Polyandry though? Or did you call it Beta Polygamy for a reason?
CTV 2018-02-19 09:43:04
I think is because a mix of religion/culture, Hispanic have a strong catholic influence, divorce is forbidden and although the bible condones adultery, if a man has sex with a woman outside his marriage, he is committing a sin, but, hey he is a human! This is different for women, technically if they cheat they are sinners too, but women are much frowned upon in the bible. There has to be an element of Catholicism that influences these dynamics. I feel as if The Sopranos was trying depict and highlight this all the time within the Italians, at least the ones in The Sopranos. Tony was an Alpha 1.0 who would constantly cheat on Carmela. Divorce being forbidden with Catholics.. they'd just stay in the Toxic AF relationship and the drama would just fester like a ping pong ball and get worse and worse. While the whole time Tony would've been way better off being an Alpha 2.0, but we know he'd never be down with Carmela fucking another guy. I know this was kind of an over simplified example HAHAHA, but we should def analyze this further later.
No more Mr. nice guy 2018-02-19 09:52:32
I agree with the other guys about polyandry versus beta polygamy. No need to invent a new term when an existing term will do perfectly well… ...Unless you do indeed mean something different - in that case, more explanation is needed. Also, cheating is not monogamy, as you have said several times. So isn’t that another form of non-monogamy? But overall, very comprehensive!
hollywood 2018-02-19 11:21:17
I'm confused by your description of Polyamory, where you say you've tried it a handful of times. Isn't this essentially what you promote with MLTR's? The woman being able to be with other men just as you are able to be with other women? I guess what is the difference between your definition of Polyamory compared to MLTR? In MLTR the women typically are not also in their own separate MLTR's? Im finding that the women I am with are often still searching for a beta to lock down in to monogamy pretty much the entire time I'm with them. They usually cut the beta off relatively quickly or LSNFTE me, but I can see one of them possibly having another MLTR besides me. So in that case if she does, that would be Polyamory?
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 11:22:19
Why not just call it polyandry?and
Hey Black Dragon I saw the Beta Polygamy. Isn’t his just Polyandry though? Or did you call it Beta Polygamy for a reason?Because I wanted to make it clear that system was for beta males only. As I said in the article, it's often portrayed in the manosphere as a "typical" example of polyamory or open relationships, and it is not. It is not a system I recommend for any man seeking advice on this matter. But to avoid confusion, I added the term polyandry to the description in the article.
Also, cheating is not monogamy, as you have said several times. So isn’t that another form of non-monogamy?Technically it is, but in my view it's not. Cheating monogamy is a highly dysfunctional version nonmonogamy, and it almost always eventually turns into a Mediterranean marriage-type relationship (which I covered), since cheating men always eventually get caught assuming the relationship lasts long enough. Including cheating with types of "nonmonogamy" would be confusing to too many people.
Anon 2018-02-19 11:59:30
What's the difference between polyamory and just having some MLTRs? Is it only in the fact that those women have MLTRs of their own? Does the man even care whether his MLTRs have MLTRs? My understanding was that polyamory involves loving multiple people as opposed to just fucking. As for possibly missing structures, what do you make of men that get off on having their wife fucked by other men (usually called hotwifing)? P. S. It's funny that should you add more types to the post and update its title accordingly, its URL will keep containing the number 14, such is WordPress unless something is done manually.
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 12:27:40
I’m confused by your description of Polyamory, where you say you’ve tried it a handful of times. Isn’t this essentially what you promote with MLTR’s?I understand the confusion. MLTR's means you are dating one or more women in a romantic and sexual context, and you are both allowed to see other people in a sexual and romantic context if you want. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. It doesn't matter if you are or she is seeing other people, either way it's a MLTR. Polyamory is when you have one or more (usually more than one) MLTR's and all of them are seeing other men as MLTR's right now. Maybe you even know these guys (but you don't have to). So polyamory is a sub-type of MLTR. All polyamorous relationships are MLTR's, but not all MLTR's are polyamory, since maybe your MLTR doesn't have another guy she's seeing romantically; maybe she's just seeing you, or maybe she has an infrequent FB and that's it.
As for possibly missing structures, what do you make of men that get off on having their wife fucked by other men (usually called hotwifing)?That's subtype of OLTR marriage. Yeah, I should probably add that, but the problem is most of those marriages quickly end up being normal OLTR marriages since the guy is going to eventually fuck another woman besides his wife.
P. S. It’s funny that should you add more types to the post and update its title accordingly, its URL will keep containing the number 14, such is WordPress unless something is done manually.Yeah, nothing I can do about that without making things complicated (using forwarded URLs and shit). I don't care.
paternity tester 2018-02-19 12:52:18
I don't get the difference between MLTRs and polyamory either
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 14:26:45
I don’t get the difference between MLTRs and polyamory eitherRead my comment right above yours.
Anon 2018-02-19 15:13:08
Polyamory is when you have one or more (usually more than one) MLTR’s and all of them are seeing other men as MLTR’s right now. [...] So polyamory is a sub-type of MLTR.Sounds like a distinction without a difference. Does this affect your behavior in the slightest? Does your relationship with an MLTR automatically change should she lose her other man for any reason? What little consensus there is seems to point at openness (as opposed to don't-ask-don't-tell) as the defining characteristic of polyamory, also maybe greater degrees of love and affection. Like what JOTB said of his girlfriend, that she expresses friendship through sex and it's alien to her to be close to a person and not to fuck the person.
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 17:31:25
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.There's a difference... to certain people (though not to me). Also, I have been attacked a few times by polyamory purists for equating "poly" and "polyamory" with MLTR's since, they say, MLTR's "aren't real polyamory." Stupid, but this is yet another reason why I break this out.
Does this affect your behavior in the slightest?For men like you or me? No. For many other men? Yes; there is a huge difference between them having a MLTR who isn't fucking/dating other men and having one who is.
Does your relationship with an MLTR automatically change should she lose her other man for any reason?No, but it does increase the odds of her getting oneitis and/or Disney desires for you. (This is one of the reasons why I usually prefer FB's who have boyfriends.)
What little consensus there is seems to point at openness (as opposed to don’t-ask-don’t-tell) as the defining characteristic of polyamory, also maybe greater degrees of love and affection.I agree, but that's only for women who are already poly experienced, not normal women you're trying to bring into this world for the first time, which is what my systems teach.
Like what JOTB said of his girlfriend, that she expresses friendship through sex and it’s alien to her to be close to a person and not to fuck the person.Exactly my point. That is a pure poly woman who is very poly experienced and is most comfortable with that system. Those kinds of women are rare, which is why men should not attempt to screen for such women. But sure, I understand and don't disagree.
Mark 2018-02-19 17:32:19
Damn Heres me at 24 who thought everyone saved themselves for marriage, and god was I wrong. How do you get involved in all this?, where do you start
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 17:36:49
How do you get involved in all this?, where do you starthttps://blackdragonblog.com/2015/12/21/10-steps-to-get-started-with-your-first-nonmonogamous-relationship-for-beginners/
Marty 2018-02-19 18:26:59
I like swinging and if a hot woman was into that lifestyle I would see much more point in doing a very high MLTR end or OLTR with her, meaning we participate in swinging activities (FFM, MMF, 4somes and more) but we also fuck other people separately. In term of probability to pull this off, do you consider this scenario feasible or some form of guy disney / unicorn hunting?This is exactly what I have. I got the idea before I found BD's stuff through a mate who did the same thing. I am now helping one of my mates find a girl that he can do the same with. He has a current FB who looks like she is keen and will be up for it. So he is looking at upgrading her to MLTR now because of that. IMHO following BD's system allows you to find a hot woman like this. However, there are two extra keys to it. You have to be focused on getting to this result. So you have a particular frame that you bring into your relationship with all girls. And on top of telling your FB's and MLTR's that you won't be mono you also tell them you are looking for someone who is open to this lifestyle. Just like lots of women have never even thought of Non-mono as an option. Most won't have thought about this stuff as an option either. But lots of them are actually open to it if they like you and are highly sexual. In a sense you don't find girls like this you make them. The second key is to look/filter for Bisexual girls. There are a lot more of them out there than most people think. And they love it when they get a guy who is happy to let them be free with it. The majority of swinger couples we have met the girl is Bi.
Blackdragon 2018-02-19 20:35:38
What do you call swinging with a FB, MLTR or OLTR, as in participating in typical swingers activities such as the 2 of you in a swinger’s club and having group sexuality together. Or meeting couples and having group sexuality (4some). Aside from that relationship, within the rules of the FB, MLTR, or OLTR you can also fuck other women on your own (and she can also fuck other men of course)?An FB, MLTR, or OLTR.
I like swinging and if a hot woman was into that lifestyle I would see much more point in doing a very high MLTR end or OLTR with her, meaning we participate in swinging activities (FFM, MMF, 4somes and more) but we also fuck other people separately. In term of probability to pull this off, do you consider this scenario feasible or some form of guy disney / unicorn hunting?It's no different than wanting a typical MLTR or OLTR.
Is there any material you may have come across with that describes some form of system to pull that off in a way that complements your books?No.
Or alternatibely, how would you pirsue this in a systemic manner?The same way I describe as usual.
MilanRados 2018-02-19 23:09:23
Hey BD, Do you think that most men do not enjoy female company outside of sex? I do not like spending time with women outside of sexual encounters and can go weeks without talking to a woman in a non sexual context? Also what do you think of Alan Roger Currie?
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 01:08:53
Heres me at 24 who thought everyone saved themselves for marriage, and god was I wrong.Um......may I ask what shithole you live in? India? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?..........Alabama? If Alabama, may I ask what cult you're a part of? Mormonism? The Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you own a TV? If so, have you ever watched a single movie or TV show in your life? What kind of school did you go to? Did you ever have a single friend?
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 02:37:46
BD, my girlfriend has been begging me to correct you here:
MLTR’s means you are dating one or more women in a romantic and sexual context, and you are both allowed to see other people in a sexual and romantic context if you want.And then:
Polyamory is when you have one or more (usually more than one) MLTR’s and all of them are seeing other men as MLTR’s right now.Incorrect. You just gave two separate definitions of MLTRs, depending on whether or not the woman chooses to exercise her freedom under the MLTR construct or not. That's not pure polyamory. Pure Polyamory - Having multiple, and equally serious, OLTRs (not MLTRs), whom you are equally in love with. Polyamory literally means "love of many." There are people who are capable of being madly in love with more than one person at a time, but most of us are not. I'm certainly not and my girlfriend certainly isn't. So when you say this about my girlfriend:
That is a pure poly womanYou are wrong. She's never been in love with more than one person at a time and she has never had more than one primary OLTR boyfriend at the same time. Yes, she's very poly experienced, but she's not pure poly. Her and I follow the OLTR model, except, unlike you, we make a distinction between friends with benefits and fuck buddies: Fuck buddy - A casual acquaintance whom you only meet for sex and never contact again until it is time to schedule another meeting for the purposes of sex. Friend with Benefits - A true and sincere friend whom you also have sex with, either regularly or occasionally, while also doing other platonic activities with (the same as you would with a completely platonic friend). You have no feelings for your friend with benefits beyond friendship and it is not necessary for you to have sex every time you meet (unlike a fuck buddy). In our OLTR, we are emotionally exclusive (meaning we are each other's only primaries), but we are allowed to have friends with benefits (called secondaries in our community) and fuck buddies and one night stands (called tertiaries). I currently have one of each (one primary, one secondary, and one tertiary). My girlfriend has one primary (me), two tertiaries, and six secondaries (four of whom she only actually has sex with four or five times per year, while the other two are regular). A few months ago, my girlfriend upgraded her lesbian tertiary to (regular) secondary status. Note: But we are, of course, not allowed to have MLTRs, since an MLTR means you're actually dating multiple people and may have feelings for them beyond friendship (if not quite love). That violates OLTR rules, and we're certainly not pure poly with multiple primaries either. Note II: This does not even count the semi-regular partner switching/group sex we engage in with other couples from her Wiccan circle, some of whom are more poly exclusive - meaning they don't tolerate secondaries like we do, but are okay with tertiaries, whereas others don't even tolerate that unless both primaries participate at the same time (swinging). Note III: This also doesn't include the bi-annual swingers parties my girlfriend attends by herself. As you know, I went with her once and didn't really love it, so now she goes by herself. So yeah, she's not pure poly at all! I couldn't handle her being in love with someone other than me. Parish the thought!
Freevoulous 2018-02-20 02:46:03
From personal experience, plus BDs description, I cannot guess why any Alpha Male 2.0 would NOT be a Swinger. If you are after your own (sexual or otherwise) happiness via the path of least resistance, this is the easiest way to go. - by far the easiest sex with most varied partners of all the options listed - very little seduction skills needed, compared to non-swinging OLTR - organised structure of Swing events means yo do not have to worry your head over dating, schedules etc. - Your SOs insecurity or jealousy is countered by the fact that she gets to play too, and quite possibly gets more out of it than you do. - easiest to keep an appearance of Socially Approved Normalcy, and not upset the family. - the older you get, the more people your age swing, so this is a lifetime game, unlike seduction for MLTR/FWB which requires sugar-daddy game after a certain point. - the common counter is that your woman might decide she does not want to swing anymore, and cockblock you, but this is exactly the same thing that could happen in any sexual relationship, and you should respond the exact same way (shrug and walk away from the relationship).
Marty 2018-02-20 03:02:28
@Freevoulous Your points are exactly why I swing. I seriously love it. If you are able to get a very young hot bi OLTR like I have it makes it even better. As you will end up with lots of very young swinging partners. I've had way more hot young women than I could have ever got through game or online stuff. And its SO much easier. Your last point is spot on. I've made it very clear to my OLTR that if she was ever to say no more swinging our relationship would be over instantly. Or I would immediately start getting FB's on the side. So there is no chance of mono ever and she knows it. @JOTB Your friends with benefits category is interesting. We are finding this in swinging. We end up with couples that become quite good friends. We start hanging out with them like you would a normal friendship. Going to their birthday parties, meeting their family etc. Even going away on holidays together. Doing lots of things where we never have sex and just being friends. But we still fuck on a semi-regular basis if the situation warrants it. We love it. The best of both worlds. They probably still qualify as FB's though. Its just that the nature of the friendship allows you to have a deeper relationship that's never going to turn romantic. The sex is still just sex and nothing more.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 03:44:41
Like what JOTB said of his girlfriend, that she expresses friendship through sex and it’s alien to her to be close to a person and not to fuck the person.Correct. She can't feel anything for you but distance and coldness (at least on a personal level) if she isn't allowed to have sex with you. Sex is her way of warming up to you and considering you even an acquaintance. No sex and you don't even exist for her, unless you're a blood relative. HOWEVER, once she has sex with you and you become her friend, or acquaintance, it isn't necessary for her to have sex with you regularly. Many times, she does prefer regular sex with the people she knows, but other times, only occasional sex (even two or three times a year) is enough for her to consider you a cool friend, while she gets her regular sex (preferably daily - I've never seen her go longer than a week and a half without having sex with someone) from her closer friends and boyfriend. She just requires that initial bond in order to crossover into acquaintanceship, or friendship, territory. But once you're there, you're good, unless you totally disgust her, or suck in bed, in which case, you're back to being a stranger.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 04:12:09
In a sense you don’t find girls like this you make them.There are more girls like that than most people think.
The second key is to look/filter for Bisexual girls.Absolutely!
There are a lot more of them out there than most people think.Actually, I believe that being bisexual is an inevitable result of a high female sex drive. Female heterosexuals have medium to low sex drives. Lesbians have even lower. And then you get to the asexuals (gold diggers, prostitutes, porn stars, strippers, sugar babies, etc...) who think they're doing you a favor because sex means nothing to them, so they expect materialistic resources in exchange! At least that's been my experience. The higher her sex drive, the more bi she is. The lower her sex drive, the more heterosexual or homosexual she is, until you get to asexual death - the sex for money gold digger! Shudder! This is, of course, completely distinguished from the male sex drive, which operates completely independent of sexual orientation.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 04:41:10
very poly experienced and is most comfortable with that system. Those kinds of women are rare, which is why men should not attempt to screen for such womenThey may not exactly be the majority, but I'd like to remind men that there are more of them than most people think. But they won't reveal themselves to you until they are 100 percent sure that you're the type of guy that can handle the discretion and responsibility that comes with this knowledge and will never, ever judge her or slut shame her. Such men are rarer than these "rare" women (and the tradcon manosphere is not helping, only seriously hurting). Not trying to pat ourselves on the back, just being objective. Most men are slut shamers, at least to some degree, who will think that such a woman isn't "serious relationship material," or "not the type you bring home to mom." Interestingly, I happily introduced my girlfriend to my parents without incident and they liked her (although my parents have no clue what we're up to, obviously). But anyway, like I said, most men can't psychologically handle this knowledge or make their peace with such women. And many of these women certainly don't want to be cut out of serious relationships or having babies. So they'll marry a mainstream man, fall in love with him, have his babies, be happy, and have sex with men like me on the side without him knowing it, while that man thinks that women like his wife don't exist, or are very rare. I have nothing but tremendous sympathy, compassion, and respect for these female cheaters. Everyone is in an open relationship. The only real question is: Do you know it? I would be willing to bet lots of money that most of the men who think these types of women are unicorns, extreme rarities, or fictional have met, and been personally or professionally acquainted with, at least five or six of these women in their lives, but they will never know it. Perhaps she was your school teacher in second grade. Your dentist, your first female boss, or your monogamous girlfriend's mother who helped cover for her daughter when she herself was cheating on you. Either way, more than likely, these women are already in your life, and you would be blown away if you were to ever find out that they are the ones who are like this, instead of the ones that you may have suspected! Just an educated guess that I would be willing to put lots of money on!
FiveSix 2018-02-20 04:43:04
In the last version, opening the marriage can revive a dead bedroom. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-20 05:03:01
Mediterranean Marriage: This is a de facto open marriage where the man marries a woman while lying to her and pretending to be monogamous, then spends the rest of the marriage cheating on her. The woman knows the man cheats, hates it, screams at him about it constantly, but stays married to him anyway for family, financial, or religious reasons.What about the opposite? The marriage/relationship is monogamous, but the woman is the one who's cheating with one other man, or multiple men, and the husband/boyfriend (ideally) never finds out, since, if he does find out, he would leave her, which would break her heart. Extreme discretion is an absolute necessity here on the part of the side lover. Anything less would be an act of cruelty against her. Also, don't forget the "don't ask, don't tell" arrangements, in which the couple agrees to have sex with others, but only so long as they don't tell each other about it and agree to lie to one another and live in denial. If one of them gets caught in bed with another, the other one yells at them for their lack of discretion and "letting them know about it." Oh yeah, and two exclusive girlfriends/wives and one man, or two exclusive boyfriends/husbands and one woman, is called bigamy. Polygamy is three or more. The man having three or more sexually exclusive women is polyginy, while the woman having three or more sexually exclusive men is called polyandry.
Marty 2018-02-20 05:12:40
And then you get to the asexuals (gold diggers, prostitutes, porn stars, strippers, sugar babies, etc…) who think they’re doing you a favor because sex means nothing to them, so they expect materialistic resources in exchange!I know you have your extremely strong sex positive theory about girls like this. But seriously to say these sort of girls are "asexual" or that "sex means nothing to them" is pretty silly.
Antekirtt 2018-02-20 06:42:17
Women who get paid for sex are not asexual. It's just an obvious way to have your cake and eat it too. Even animals (eg chimps and penguins) have forms of prostitution. You can have a sex drive and simply notice that people with lower SMV, or who perceive their SMV as lower, or who don't have time or want to skip seduction, would readily pay you to circumvent that; so you fuck them and you get paid. "Hookers at the start were lesbians who needed to pay their bills" is just another blank slate-ist myth where a phenomenon that already exists in the natural state is instead given a contrived cultural explanation.
O 2018-02-20 07:05:57
"Once you reach the point where you emotionally accept that monogamy doesn’t work (it’s easy to reach that conclusion logically, but getting your emotions, Societal Programming, and Obsolete Biological Wiring to acknowledge it is the hard part)" how to do "the hard part" ?
Anon 2018-02-20 08:25:02
Women who get paid for sex are not asexual. It’s just an obvious way to have your cake and eat it too.That varies. A call girl called Svetlana Zakharova that was involved with Eliot Spitzer has this to say:
Since I quit [prostitution --Anon], no blow jobs, either. If you’re dating somebody and he didn’t live good before, and you start giving him blow jobs and doing different positions, you can spoil him. I don’t want to spoil someone that much.https://medium.com/matter/sex-is-sex-but-money-is-money-e7c10091713f
joelsuf 2018-02-20 08:36:03
Do you own a TV? If so, have you ever watched a single movie or TV show in your life? What kind of school did you go to? Did you ever have a single friend?Bruh. All of those promote de facto Disney monogamy constantly. TV tells you that if you don't pursue monogamy you are a fuckboy or a slut, school used to tell people to despise sluts but embrace fuckboys. But now school tells people that any man who doesn't pursue de facto monogamy is a rapist, but chicks shouldn't be "slut shamed" (even if they are using sex to get favors). And your friends and family! Holy God damn CHRIST do they pressure you to be monogamous! And of course, according to them, the stuff BD calls Mediterranean Marriage is "part of the deal." Only chicks cheat more than men and men get more needy and clingy than chicks nowadays so I would reverse the sexes involved in Mediterranean Marriage. Also, I would argue that pretty much any monogamous marriage degenerates to Mediterranean Marriage eventually.
I do not recommend them at all unless you love drama or you’re Hispanic (those Hispanics love these fucking things; don’t ask me why).This may sound racist, and its really just some weird observation of mine: It seems that nonwhites are always addicted to drama lol. At least that's how it is here in the US at least. I rarely ever see white couples argue in public. But nonwhite couples? I've witnessed them shouting at each other in public and even physically fighting haha.
Blackdragon 2018-02-20 09:14:50
Do you think that most men do not enjoy female company outside of sex?Not at all.
I do not like spending time with women outside of sexual encounters and can go weeks without talking to a woman in a non sexual context?Okay. Most men are not like you.
Also what do you think of Alan Roger Currie?I debated him for four hours right here.
Pure Polyamory – Having multiple, and equally serious, OLTRs (not MLTRs), whom you are equally in love with.99% of normal humans cannot love multiple lovers equally. If you love 3 women, I promise you will love one of them more than the other two. Those people who don't, and literally love all of them the same, are the bizarre 1% exception to the rule. Again, your girlfriend is very unusual (in a good way) and is not the norm at all. As always, this is a blog with hundreds of thousands of readers, therefore I write to the masses here, not to the 1% exceptions, and not to your girlfriend.
Her and I follow the OLTR model, except, unlike you, we make a distinction between friends with benefits and fuck buddies: Fuck buddy – A casual acquaintance whom you only meet for sex and never contact again until it is time to schedule another meeting for the purposes of sex. Friend with Benefits – A true and sincere friend whom you also have sex with, either regularly or occasionally, while also doing other platonic activities with (the same as you would with a completely platonic friend). You have no feelings for your friend with benefits beyond friendship and it is not necessary for you to have sex every time you meet (unlike a fuck buddy).I think those definitions are great and don't disagree with them. Yet again though, most normal people attempting your definition of friend with benefits are going to run into serious drama and problems with the people they're attempting them with. You and your GF are practicing nonmonogamy at a very advanced level, which is great. Your frame and definitions would work well with an insular poly community who were already very experienced with this stuff. But that's not the audience of this blog (by and large). I'm helping laymen men get into this world, not (necessarily) men already well versed and experienced with this world. As I've said before, when you achieve a highly advanced level in a particular area, you can start breaking the rules a little if you want. PF and I have broken a few in our OLTR marriage, but I have 10+ years experience doing this stuff so I can do it.
From personal experience, plus BDs description, I cannot guess why any Alpha Male 2.0 would NOT be a Swinger. If you are after your own (sexual or otherwise) happiness via the path of least resistance, this is the easiest way to go.Because as soon as your GF/wife doesn't want to swing anymore, you're monogamous. But again, that's the only problem with it.
In the last version, opening the marriage can revive a dead bedroom.It can, but it really depends on how far gone your wife has become by the time you attempt it. If you've been sexless for six or eight months, then sure. But if you've been sexless for four years, she's likely at the point where she may never fuck you again regardless of what you do.
What about the opposite? The marriage/relationship is monogamous, but the woman is the one who’s cheating with one other man, or multiple men, and the husband/boyfriend (ideally) never finds out, since, if he does find out, he would leave her, which would break her heart.That's just a successful cheater. The woman I lost my virginity to had a marriage like this; she cheated sporadically over decades and her husband had literally no idea. I already addressed cheating in a comment above.
Also, don’t forget the “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangements, in which the couple agrees to have sex with others, but only so long as they don’t tell each other about it and agree to lie to one another and live in denial. If one of them gets caught in bed with another, the other one yells at them for their lack of discretion and “letting them know about it.”That is an OLTR marriage, just with a more restrictive set of rules.
Oh yeah, and two exclusive girlfriends/wives and one man, or two exclusive boyfriends/husbands and one woman, is called bigamy. Polygamy is three or more.True. I'm avoiding those distinctions just to keep things less confusing. Again, you're coming at this from a very advanced level.
“Once you reach the point where you emotionally accept that monogamy doesn’t work (it’s easy to reach that conclusion logically, but getting your emotions, Societal Programming, and Obsolete Biological Wiring to acknowledge it is the hard part)” how to do “the hard part” ?Read this book and this one, in that order. They'll show you exactly how.
This may sound racist, and its really just some weird observation of mine: It seems that nonwhites are always addicted to drama lol. At least that’s how it is here in the US at least. I rarely ever see white couples argue in public. But nonwhite couples? I’ve witnessed them shouting at each other in public and even physically fighting haha.Change "nonwhites" to blacks and Hispanics, and it's factually accurate. It's not that they like drama more, it's that they're more emotional races. It's biological; some races are more emotional than others, even within subraces (compare the emotions of the Japanese to Koreans, for example).
Gang 2018-02-20 09:24:43
However, there are two extra keys to it. You have to be focused on getting to this result. So you have a particular frame that you bring into your relationship with all girls. And on top of telling your FB’s and MLTR’s that you won’t be mono you also tell them you are looking for someone who is open to this lifestyle.Now you're talking! That's great 🙂 Questions: Are you on the Alpha 2.0 forum under the same username? A-How do you build up the swinger frame exactly? What do you do and say? Can you elaborate with examples? B-When do you verbalize that you are looking for someone interested in the swingers lifestyle? Immediately, or you do it at the same time with "The Talk", or after? C-Do you confirm that you still fuck FB (and MLTRs if she is not an OLTR) on your own? Or are you in a "singing only" agreement? So far I have found only one woman, she is bi and very motivated. But she is average for me, maybe borderline cute if you like skinny.
Gang 2018-02-20 09:40:52
@JOTB I disagree with one point of your definition of "pure polyamory" in that you love them but you don't necessarily have to love them equally for it to be "real" polyamory, not even equivalently, you can totally love one more than another. I am experienced in polyamory and this is only a very specific subset of polyamory called "egalitarian polamory" but "hierarchical polyamory" is also largely ackowledged as polyamory. The regal distinction between nonmnogamy à la BD and polyamory, is trust n polyamory, all partners involved are explicitely aware of the nonmonogamous situation and explicitely comsemt to it (they don't necessarily have to know each others though). I think the philisophy of polyamory is that all partners involved are neutral or enthousiastic about it, so a lot of rue non-mnogamy a la BD isn't polyamory until "the talk", and even after the tslo some polyamorous purist, especially the mist femnist ones, will argue that "it's still not polyamory because there is no enthousiastic consent from the female side, she is just putting up with it and is somehow emotionally bullied into it, by the man doing that and by the patriarchy of course".
Antekirtt 2018-02-20 09:58:18
Women who get paid for sex are not asexual. It’s just an obvious way to have your cake and eat it too.That varies.
Marty 2018-02-20 13:14:17
Questions: Are you on the Alpha 2.0 forum under the same username?Yes I am.
A-How do you build up the swinger frame exactly? What do you do and say? Can you elaborate with examples?This is a tricky one. It's more a mindset or a goal. You know what you are looking for and basically you are judging each FB based on that. A FB's ability to stick around and become more a part of your life or an MLTR will depend on if they fit what you are looking for. It's almost like a characteristic in a girl you are looking for. Eg. BD would never keep seeing a FB that wasn't an 8 or that gave high levels of drama. I'm just adding bisexual and open to swinging as extra things I want. Doesn't mean I wouldn't keep seeing a great FB that didn't fit this. But she is never going to get any further and will always be in danger of being dropped if I find a new one that does fit the bill if that makes sense.
B-When do you verbalize that you are looking for someone interested in the swingers lifestyle? Immediately, or you do it at the same time with “The Talk”, or after?Definitely wouldn't do it at the beginning. But once a FB is a little established in your life and you think there is potential I would be starting to drop hints and filter for Bisexuality pretty hard. It would really depend on the girl. For example I could tell my current OLTR was Bi (obviously I was looking for signs) straight away even though she didn't know she was. So I started saying "I think you are Bi" to her pretty early on. I would definitely spell it out in more detail as part of the talk though.
C-Do you confirm that you still fuck FB (and MLTRs if she is not an OLTR) on your own? Or are you in a “singing only” agreement?I would definitely still keep this as part of the deal. Even if you don't end up doing it. I don't personally have separate FB's anymore. But only because I get so much sex from swinging and its a lot easier to get than a FB on the side. But I've told my OLTR that if we ever get to a situation that its not working for whatever reason I reserve the right to have a FB on the side if I want too. It's all part of the non-mono frame. Eg. I will never be happy unless I've got a variety of other girls to fuck than you. Either we do that together or I will need to find them myself. 🙂 One last thing would be to add swinging websites to your online dating. There are lots of single girls on those sites looking for guys as potential swinging partners.
joelsuf 2018-02-20 14:22:43
Change “nonwhites” to blacks and Hispanics, and it’s factually accurate.That's what I meant haha. I wonder why this is? Most blacks and hispanics I know are Alpha 1s, so they aren't effeminate in their body language or speech or anything like that.
Gang 2018-02-20 16:59:55
Thanks Marty 🙂
One last thing would be to add swinging websites to your online dating. There are lots of single girls on those sites looking for guys as potential swinging partners.Which ones do you use? In France, www.netechangisme,com and www.libertic.com work great. But in other countries, I am clueless. I tried a few, I can't remember from the top of my head, but it was all dead profiles going nowhere. I've had more swinging (it was actually a couple doing hotwifing), using okcupid.
Marty 2018-02-20 17:05:57
Which ones do you use?In Australia we use www.redhotpie.com.au. Some people also use www.adultmatchmaker.com but I've never tried it.
CTV 2018-02-20 19:14:54
@ Jack Outside The Box What about the opposite? The marriage/relationship is monogamous, but the woman is the one who’s cheating with one other man, or multiple men, and the husband/boyfriend (ideally) never finds out, since, if he does find out, he would leave her, which would break her heart. Extreme discretion is an absolute necessity here on the part of the side lover. Anything less would be an act of cruelty against her. Also, don’t forget the “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangements, in which the couple agrees to have sex with others, but only so long as they don’t tell each other about it and agree to lie to one another and live in denial. If one of them gets caught in bed with another, the other one yells at them for their lack of discretion and “letting them know about it.” Oh yeah, and two exclusive girlfriends/wives and one man, or two exclusive boyfriends/husbands and one woman, is called bigamy. Polygamy is three or more. The man having three or more sexually exclusive women is polygany, while the woman having three or more sexually exclusive men is called polyandry. @Jack In the Box is referring to as the Opposite of a guy cheating Mediterranean Marriage is a Hotwife/Cuckold Relationship. The crazy part is some guys have a crazy fetish for it and LOVE IT I know weird. The guys she hooks up with are her Bulls. There are even some Cuckolds that enjoy being bulled by the Bulls or even doing submissive sexual acts with them. Like a variation of Beta Polyamory/Polyandry.
Gang 2018-02-21 00:44:02
@JOTB There are indeed women who fuck more than one guy, but extremely few are able to be at peace with it. Most will make up twisted rationalisations or plain denials, and chick logic. I have never slut shamed any woman, and I don't shame gold digger or any kind of prostitution or money for sex related activities, the reality is I have dated much more women who once they got comfortable with me and saw that I was non judgemental got confident enough to assume their desire of getting money for sex related activity (anywhere from just chatting to full on prostitution), than really active bisexual women or polyamorous women. Meanwhile I was not paying them for sex and much more hinting towards polyamory. But their interest in polyamory was rather low or inexistant, while their interest in getting sex and money at the same time was sometime becoming obsessive for some of them.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-21 03:30:47
Bruh. All of those promote de facto Disney monogamy constantly. TV tells you that if you don’t pursue monogamy you are a fuckboy or a slut,Yes, but that's not his programming. He said he thought everyone is saving themselves for marriage! Pop culture promotes monogamy, but not virginity till marriage. If you think everyone is saving themselves till marriage, you really need to get a TV. Start with American Pie.
This may sound racist,Dude, drop the white guilt programming. It's beta and unbecoming.
I wonder why this is? Most blacks and hispanics I know are Alpha 1s, so they aren’t effeminate in their body language or speech or anything like that.You just answered your own question. Alpha 1.0s are a plague in the black and Hispanic communities. I'm convinced that if the black and brown alpha 1.0s just didn't exist, or existed in equal proportion to white culture (instead of in way greater abundance), America would just throw open the borders, cops would stop shooting blacks, and all of us would just hold hands beneath the rainbow and sing Kumbaya, or some negro spiritual. The alpha 1.0s are the source of all or most of the problems in black and brown neighborhoods. Us whites have done our best to cow our alpha 1.0s into submission (at least culturally). Now it's time for the blacks and browns to follow suit, or we'll probably never have peace.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-21 04:08:12
Alright, let's deal with this now:
I know you have your extremely strong sex positive theory about girls like this. But seriously to say these sort of girls are “asexual” or that “sex means nothing to them” is pretty silly.Talk to BD who has done the sugar baby experiment. I think he wrote an entire blog post about how the gold diggers sincerely couldn't understand how a woman can have sex in exchange for sex without feeling "ripped off." These were genuine asexuals. Many, many gold diggers (especially the hard core ones) are indeed either asexuals, or have insanely low sex drives.
Women who get paid for sex are not asexual.Many are.
It’s just an obvious way to have your cake and eat it too.Okay, I wasn't referring to "alpha fucks, beta bucks." If I were, I'd include "house wife" within my above comments, who is the biggest prostitute of all. You're describing "alpha fucks, beta bucks" women. I agree that they're not asexuals. They just use chump betas for resource extraction while passionately fucking the alphas behind their backs for free. What I WAS referring to are the hardcore gold digging mercenaries/sugar babies like BD ran into. Money is everything to them. They can't believe that women out there have sex without demanding payment. They think those women must have low self esteem. These are NOT "alpha fucks, beta bucks" women. These are asexuals who genuinely think that sex is for men, while money is for women. They'll say things like, "I can't believe my sister fucked her male roommate. She didn't even ask him to buy her a necklace. She's just being used as a rag doll for sex." Many of these asexual gold diggers are Russian/Ukrainian.
You can have a sex drive and simply notice that people with lower SMV, or who perceive their SMV as lower, or who don’t have time or want to skip seduction, would readily pay you to circumvent that; so you fuck them and you get paid.Most women with high sex drives can't do that though. They can't bring themselves to fuck someone they aren't attracted to, because that's disgusting to them. An asexual gold digger, like Anna Nicole Smith, can fuck a 95 year old man for his money, because it's all the same to her. But the more you love sex, the less you can fuck people you deem ugly or unattractive. The hornier you are, the pickier you are (paradoxically). A woman who fucks lower sexual market value men for money is either an asexual, or an "alpha fucks, beta bucks" woman with a low to medium sex drive. But the highest sex drive women I've ever encountered are all about the sex, and they can't bring themselves to ask for money when the screaming orgasm was so obviously their real compensation!
“Hookers at the start were lesbians who needed to pay their bills” is just another blank slate-ist myth where a phenomenon that already exists in the natural state is instead given a contrived cultural explanation.Um.....many hookers were indeed lesbians who wanted to pay their bills. What do you think lesbians did before women were legally allowed to work? They were forced to either become prostitutes, or marry a man for food. This is why the radical feminists in the 1970s who saw women going to work for the first time declared that every woman will be a lesbian by the year 2000. There was no proof of female heterosexuality, until women could start fucking men independently of receiving food or cash, which is why the 1970s was the first time magazine articles were written about how the female orgasm is real. The exact opposite of what the lesbians hoped for happened. So now the radical feminists, trying desperately to save face, are saying that female heterosexuality is just a patriarchal invention based on psychological colonization at birth and cultural brainwashing, instead of just economic coercion. LOL! But what I'm saying has nothing to do with "blank slate-ism." Some people are biologically asexual, lesbian, etc...
Antekirtt 2018-02-21 04:18:04
Also what do you think of Alan Roger Currie?I debated him for four hours right here.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-21 04:52:19
There are indeed women who fuck more than one guy, but extremely few are able to be at peace with it.More than you know, in my experience. Ever fucked a nurse? A female attorney? A corporate executive? Or just a self-identified pagan? How about a secular woman who is ethnically Jewish? They are the most sex-positive intellectuals on the planet and my best lovers! I recommend them the most! Trust me, they are very at peace with it! My own girlfriend is Jewish by blood, but Wiccan by religion.
I have never slut shamed any woman,Good.
and I don’t shame gold digger or any kind of prostitution or money for sex related activities,This is where we part company.
the reality is I have dated much more women who once they got comfortable with me and saw that I was non judgemental got confident enough to assume their desire of getting money for sex related activity (anywhere from just chatting to full on prostitution), than really active bisexual women or polyamorous women.I'll buy that. So you're used to hanging out with mainstreamers then. A lot of this depends on what type of crowd you're in. Socio-economic class is also a very relevant factor. The high sex drive bisexual women I fuck tend to be upper middle class and above.
Meanwhile I was not paying them for sex and much more hinting towards polyamory. But their interest in polyamory was rather low or inexistant, while their interest in getting sex and money at the same time was sometime becoming obsessive for some of them.Were these women poor? I'm also going to assume that you don't have my obsessive need to avoid, or minimize, mainstream social circles. You said that you don't shame women for their prostitution tendencies, so you don't seem to care what type of circles you run with. As a kinesthetic myself, I wouldn't be able to stand that energy and I'd just avoid such gold diggers like the plague. So maybe confirmation bias is skewing my facts a little, but I think those who disagree with me are a little guilty of that as well.
paternity tester 2018-02-21 05:12:35
Damn JOTB, you seem to be very similar in personality to me. As in, if I were 10 years older and more experienced. Cheers~!
Marty 2018-02-21 05:14:16
Talk to BD who has done the sugar baby experiment. I think he wrote an entire blog post about how the gold diggers sincerely couldn’t understand how a woman can have sex in exchange for sex without feeling “ripped off.”It's quite funny watching you talk about this stuff because you have so little experience with it in the real world. It's all a theory in your head. How many 10's of millions did your GF get in her trust fund from her Daddy at 21? So easy to be sex positive with daddy's money and not an economic care in the world? Maybe not the same as Thai girls who earn less than 1000 usd a year working their ass off in the fields 6 days a week. Oh sorry they are not US people living in upscale NY with trust funds. They don't count do they?? My recent experience of a sugar baby. A model who is making good money and living quite well on her own in an amazing house on the water in an upscale part of our area. We paid her for Friday night. She wanted to stay for Sat night and I told her no I'm not interested in paying you for another night. She basically begged to stay for the extra night so we agreed. She came out with us and another swinging couple friends of ours. Fucked us in the afternoon. Then fucked the husband of the couple we were with while we fucked his wife (he's pretty hot). Stayed the night and fucked us again in the morning. Still no extra payment. She could have walked Sat morning first thing and still got the same money. SO asexual! She is still friends with us on FB and comes to some social things with both us and the other couple. Haven't paid her a cent since. Nothing BD has said about his experience with sugar babies supports your over the top stance on paid sex. Your reaching a lot with that! I've had a lot of experience with literally 100's of hookers and nothing that you say about them even comes close to what you say. But you openly admit you have basically zero experience with them apart from, what is it, two hard up hookers in distress who sort your legal advice in a crises. Your such an expert for sure!
Gang 2018-02-21 06:32:33
@ JOTB Indeed I don't screen women on their social status. Some were poor, some middle class, even on rich chinese student in finance, this one got pretty obsessed at some point. I like your sexual drive gradation and its relation with sexual orientation and seekind money for sex tendencies. I never thought of it this way and this certainly applies to many women, however I am not sure if it's a 90% accurate theory or if it just applies to 50%, whereas another half do not function internally in this manner. Interesting though. I am pretty sure that some porn actresses are very high sex drive bisexuals who do what they love for work. Some most probably offer also prostitution services. Megan Rain (NSFW) for instance is clearly high sex drive. Here she is talking about how she was a huge and proud slut (I wish all women were proud sluts, you know reclaiming the word positively as in the book "The Ethical Slut") in high school in this youtube video (nothing graphic in this video only language eventually). But to your credit, I am unable to say if she is the 2% exception to the rule about women who get paid for sexual related acrivities, or if there are more of them who are also high sex drive.
Antekirtt 2018-02-21 06:50:49
You’re describing “alpha fucks, beta bucks” women. I agree that they’re not asexuals.If this category can't include a large fraction of prostitutes and sugar babies in your definition, then it's not what I'm describing. My point is that (near-) asexuals who have sex for money exist, and lesbians who have sex for money exist, but there are also normal/medium sex drive women who *will* fuck men for money. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense from a male perspective or a sex-for-sex perspective: the point is that there are men, including men that these women find fuckable, who *would* pay just to fuck them without having to go through the seduction phase first. So these prostitutes fuck these men whom they aren't necessarily repulsed by, simply because these men have created a demand, which these women happily profit from. Prostitutes have reported that some of their clients are good-looking and/or get laid (with other girls) in other manners than by paying. Again, they're having their cake and eating it, and not in the AFBB manner: they can enjoy sex with some of their clients, AND they're getting paid. Doesn't seem to make sense, but from a supply and demand angle it does. It's a bit like the woman version of a guy saying "I normally wouldn't fuck a 5 or a 6, but if she does pretty much all the work from meeting me to getting me in her/my bed I ain't saying no". Your views on who would or wouldn't take the chance to get money for sex seem heavily skewed by the fact that you fuck a specific niche of very high sex drive poly women. There isn't just them plus the asexuals plus the housewives.
TonyOutOfNowhere 2018-02-21 06:59:05
Hello Pimps, This will be off-topic, but I still hope some of you will give me your input. I would highly appreciate any comments. Two out of three girls in my rotation asked me recently the "What am I to you/Where do you see this going?" question. I don't mind that, I know the techniques Blackdragon The Mentor suggests, but what bothers me is that they asked it waay to early. It happened to me before. They would ask it before Lock-In or before even sex happens. My question is: is this normal? Did it happen to you too, this early? Do you react the same way if it's before sex/Lock-In? I see a pattern here which means I'm screwing up somewhere big time. The thing is that I don't know the cause of it. What do you guys think? Thank you all, TonyOutOfNowhere
Gang 2018-02-21 07:10:29
@ Antekirtt and JOTB What's your estimate in % of the proportion of sex related working women who are: A.1- (near-) asexuals who have sex for money, A.3- lesbians who have sex for money, A.3- normal/medium sex drive women who *will* fuck men for money, A.4- high sex drive women who have sex for money. B. Same 4 questions but this time not restricted to women who have sex for money, but this time among all women aged let's say, between 18 and 50 years old.
Anon 2018-02-21 07:44:22
they asked it waay to earlyBD's usual answer to this is that there's some problem with your EFA. I only had anything like this that couldn't be immediately defused once, and I attribute it to her dominant personality (sex did happen after that a couple more times, but it would tend to be preceded by long online discussions, which I deemed unsustainable and the next time she declined my date pitch, I just chose not to pursue it further even though she would have come had I done so). Do you think either of the above could apply to you?
Cherie86 2018-02-21 08:05:23
@TonyOutOfNowhere How many times have you seen this women? If they are indeed "in your rotation" and you haven't locked in sex with them yet, then that's one of your main problems right there. By the 2nd meet up, definitely the 3rd for sure, you should be having sex. Are you texting/talking to them throughout the week and maintaining some kind of constant contact with them? Are you taking them out on long dates?
TonyOutOfNowhere 2018-02-21 08:17:28
@Anon. I do tend to attract dominants, so it's quite possible that we're dealjng with a similar situation. And it's definitely something wrong with me (isn't it always?). I will just have to figure it out myself. Thank you for your response! @Cherie I don't want to get into any details with the girl I didn't lay, because I would step into "There's this one girl territory..." and I don't want that mindset haha I follow all of the BD rules. It's just that I'm probably too uncalibrated yet, because of my lack of experience 🙂
CTV 2018-02-21 11:04:10
@Antekirtt Alan Roger Currie is AWESOME! Get his books, all 4 are Golden. So are his old Podcasts on Blog Talk Radio. If you like Alan also listen Steve "The Dean" Williams on his Youtube Channel THE MAN MIND SET. He is even more raw and Uncut than Alan Roger Currie. He's a beast lol
Antekirtt 2018-02-21 12:29:57
@CTV: noted, thanks.
What’s your estimate in % of the proportion of sex related working women who are: A.1- (near-) asexuals who have sex for money, A.2- lesbians who have sex for money, A.3- normal/medium sex drive women who *will* fuck men for money, A.4- high sex drive women who have sex for money.If we're talking strictly prostitutes and professional SBs, I'd say A1+A2 are very unlikely to cumulate more than 30% and A3 are likely to be more than 50%; A4 I don't know. If we're widening the definition to include more indirect forms of golddigging, housewives, etc, then the cumulative A1+A2 ratio probably drops even lower. What does BD advise when for creating a business or finding a job? Niche yourself as much as possible and find something you mostly enjoy. Now obviously that doesn't mean people in general follow that advice, but it's just not reasonable to assume there isn't a sizeable proportion of sex workers who, you know, like sex, or of women who fuck men for money who, well, like to fuck men. Parsimony rules against this. The very existence of a market for this creates a selection bias where, even if hetero women who like sex for money happen to be rare, they'll be overrepresented inside that market, so the statement would still be correct.
joelsuf 2018-02-21 15:04:22
If you think everyone is saving themselves till marriage,Oh yeah I don't think that is a thing anymore. Still kind of is tho, most family friendly stuff still has those messages, although it isn't as in your face as back in the day.
Dude, drop the white guilt programming. It’s beta and unbecoming.Like I keep repeating, I'm just being respectful. Not beta if I'm aware of the confines. And since the NSA is spying on everyone all the time, I kinda don't want anyone coming after me because I said something racist. Keeping the bases covered.
I’m convinced that if the black and brown alpha 1.0s just didn’t exist, or existed in equal proportion to white culture (instead of in way greater abundance), America would just throw open the borders, cops would stop shooting blacks, and all of us would just hold hands beneath the rainbow and sing Kumbaya, or some negro spiritual.I agree lol. A lot of my nonwhite friends and family also say this. They set themselves up it seems.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-22 01:40:38
It’s quite funny watching you talk about this stuff because you have so little experience with it in the real world. It’s all a theory in your head.No, not all. Some of it is just commonsense. If a 400 pound pig were to ask you to fuck her and then offered you a million dollars, you might do it. But you certainly wouldn't do it for free. It stands to reason that many gold diggers (not all) who portray sex as a gift they give to the man see it as a service they provide, not as something they do for themselves. Many of them, therefore, have low sex drives, or are asexual. But I never said there weren't exceptions.
How many 10’s of millions did your GF get in her trust fund from her Daddy at 21?12 million dollars.
So easy to be sex positive with daddy’s money and not an economic care in the world?So you're implying that some of these gold diggers would be sex-positive as well, if they were rich? Maybe. Others, however, brag that if they won the lottery and could buy a mansion and all the shopping bags they could handle, they'd never have sex with a man again. Esther Vilar, in her two books - The Manipulated Man and The Polygamous Sex - interviewed such women who claim that if only they didn't need money, they wouldn't spend time with men at all. These are the same women who say to their female friends who married rich beta males who have accepted their celibacy - "So he's rich, you have all his money, and you don't even have to sleep with him? Go ahead, bitch, rub it in." Also, you're implying that my girlfriend would be sex-negative if she were poor? This I know is false!
Maybe not the same as Thai girls who earn less than 1000 usd a year working their ass off in the fields 6 days a week.You're trying to white guilt me. How cute!
Oh sorry they are not US people living in upscale NY with trust funds.My girlfriend and I are nowhere near New York. We're in the Midwest.
They don’t count do they??Correct. They don't count. I don't base my beliefs on the conditions and lifestyles of irrelevant people living in distant third world shitholes! Everything I say about gold diggers, asexuals, and so forth, apply only to American women (and perhaps Canadian ones). I freely confess that everything I'm saying may be false or not applicable when dealing with overseas garbage dumps.
My recent experience of a sugar baby. A model who is making good money and living quite well on her own in an amazing house on the water in an upscale part of our area.Wow! So she's rich, and yet, still a gold digger who frames sex in the language of giving, not receiving. Okay. But I guess this shoots down your implication that all women would become sex-positive if only they didn't have an economic care in the world.
Still no extra payment. She could have walked Sat morning first thing and still got the same money. SO asexual! She is still friends with us on FB and comes to some social things with both us and the other couple. Haven’t paid her a cent since.Okay. It's hard for me to judge this. Maybe she's an exception. Or maybe she had an ulterior motive for giving you a freebee, like endearing herself to you for next time, or something. Now, I'm NOT saying that that's the case! I really don't know. I just know that the types of asexual gold diggers I'm talking about do exist, even with the exceptions to the rule. But you would argue that your sugar baby isn't an exception, but the norm? That all or most professional hookers love sex, even as they frame it in the language of generosity? Okay, whatever you say.
Nothing BD has said about his experience with sugar babies supports your over the top stance on paid sex. Your reaching a lot with that!Well I conceded that alpha fucks, beta bucks women exist, and they are certainly not asexual. They just want to get paid for sex by the betas and satisfy their own sexual urges with alphas. But you are pointing to a concept of "alpha fucks, alpha bucks," in which the woman loves sex but also wants to get paid for it. Okay, it's hard for me to wrap my head around that (that would make these women extremely stuck up and would surely disgust me), though I might concede that there are some bizarre women like that, but you must concede that asexual gold diggers who see sex exclusively in terms of money and materialism without giving a fuck about the sex exist also. They see sex as an exchange of generosities - her body for money, with zero, or negligible, sexual enjoyment on her part.
I’ve had a lot of experience with literally 100’s of hookers and nothing that you say about them even comes close to what you say.So they all loved your dick and couldn't get enough of it, while still demanding payment, other than the sex? Ever consider the possibility that these are just fantastic actresses who act that way with every client so that he'll cum faster? I'm not saying that's true. Just a thought though.
But you openly admit you have basically zero experience with themThankfully. I'd feel so degraded having to pay money for sex. My dick is the payment. If I found out the woman has a high sex drive, I'd be even more insulted. She's getting two payments while I only get one. Fuck that female supremacist horseshit!
Your such an expert for sure!Fine. You want to believe that women who get paid for sex are just as horny and sex-loving as women who do it for free, with no relevant distinctions other than hookers being.........smarter? You're welcome to that belief. My experience with high sex drive women has been the opposite, however. They all tell me that they can't imagine charging someone money for what they do for free so enthusiastically. They'd feel like major hypocrites. And they don't want to feel like the sex is more for the man than it is for them. Nor do they want to turn an enjoyable activity into a job which they might have to do with less attractive men when the need for money threatens to overwhelm their need for sexual pleasure. Just saying.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-22 03:10:50
What’s your estimate in % of the proportion of sex related working women who are: A.1- (near-) asexuals who have sex for money,Asexuality is rare, but within prostitution (which includes housewifery), I'd say they make up about 30% of the gold digging market.
A.3- lesbians who have sex for money,Lesbians don't do this anymore. They did when women weren't legally allowed to work. Now, they just work and fuck other women, while taking pride in their man-hate and how they never fucked a man, which makes them "gold star lesbians." So 0%.
A.3- normal/medium sex drive women who *will* fuck men for money,Those are the "alpha fucks, beta bucks" women. I'd say they represent 69% of the gold digging market (which, like I said, includes being a house wife who cheats on her beta husband whom she married because he was "financially stable" with an alpha).
A.4- high sex drive women who have sex for money.1%. Bizarre exception. Majorly stuck up narcissist.
B. Same 4 questions but this time not restricted to women who have sex for money, but this time among all women aged let’s say, between 18 and 50 years old.1. Exclusive provider hunters (sex drive - zero-low): 20% 2. Alpha fucks, beta bucks (sex drive - low-medium): 70% 3. Exclusive lover hunters (sex drive - high): 10% These are obviously very rough estimates, not scientific.
doclove 2018-02-22 04:15:17
Jack Outside the Box Your ideas about how the Sexual Market Place work are sometimes reality and sometimes a fantasy. As an example of a fantasy, why would Lesbians have Sex with men for money more than Sex Positive Women? That makes no sense. The idea of having heterosexual sex(even for money) would disgust Lesbians more than Sex Positive Women just like it would disgust me as a Heterosexual man to have Sex with men. I would be more likely to fuck a fat ugly woman for money, even for less money, than a good looking man even if I was starving, broke and homeless. Why would Lesbians be any different? Would not truly sex positive bisexual and heterosexual women truly love men enough to have sex with loser beta men, even if more money because penis feels good especially if they do not look at his face? Sex with ugly women feels nearly as good as long as you don't look at their bodies and faces. The only thing a man can do is fuck a woman from behind but he still sees her fat ugly body. A hot woman can fuck an ugly man in reverse cow girl position where the only thing she sees are his legs. Sounds to me like your girl is more of an Alpha Fucks woman than a truly sex positive one.
marty 2018-02-22 16:18:33
If a 400 pound pig were to ask you to fuck her and then offered you a million dollars, you might do it. But you certainly wouldn’t do it for free. It stands to reason that many gold diggers (not all) who portray sex as a gift they give to the man see it as a service they provide, not as something they do for themselves. Many of them, therefore, have low sex drives, or are asexual.This example you give actually confirms my point not yours. You are right. I wouldn’t fuck a 400 pound pig normally. But for a million dollars I definitely would. For $1,000 or even $10,000 probably not. Does that mean I’m asexual or low sex drive? Not at all. I have an insane sex drive and I absolutely love sex. If I had a $100m in the bank. Probably wouldn’t do it. It’s all economic and nothing to do with my sex drive or sexuality at all. Hence my reference to your GF’s money. I doubt if she was poor that it would change her sex drive/sexuality. I think it could definitely change how sex positive she is though. But you have no idea what she would be like if she grew up poor and neither does she. Economic hardship has a big impact on people and what they are willing to do for money. You make these sweeping statements about the motivations and dives of all women based on your limited experience of a tiny minority of extremely wealthy (even by US standards) women. My contention is that women who engage in sex for money are mostly driven by economic factors. Not sexual. And a lot of them actually enjoy the sex with many (not all obviously) of their clients. Not because of the guys. But because sex is actually an enjoyable human experience.
You’re trying to white guilt me. How cute!Haha as if I would try and white guilt you. I’m a wealthy white guy living in a 1st world country. My point here was the same. Economic factors drive the sex for pay world. Girls with little other options or options that seem impossible or like a lot of work to them see it as an easy way to jump ahead financially. Many of them actually end up enjoying it to a degree.
Okay. It’s hard for me to judge this. Maybe she’s an exception. Or maybe she had an ulterior motive for giving you a freebee, like endearing herself to you for next time, or something.Or maybe she’s just a normal girl who’s doing quite well for herself, loves sex, but see’s the Sugarbaby scene as a way to make a few extra $’s on the side while still having some interesting experiences along the way. Maybe even meet guys who she otherwise wouldn’t get a chance to meet in her own social circles. Once again this is something that annoys me about the way you lump every women who does any sort of paid sex into the same category with the same motivation. Doing some suguarbaby gigs is way different to being a hard core hooker. I have no doubt this girl would have fucked my GF and I for free if we met in a lot of situations. The sugarbaby thing gives them a chance to pick and choose who they go with and how it all goes down.
but you must concede that asexual gold diggers who see sex exclusively in terms of money and materialism without giving a fuck about the sex exist also.Sure. I’m just saying you can’t say they are all like this just because it fits with your theory about women’s sexuality. In fact I think it would be incredibly difficult to be a hooker if a women was asexual. These women would be more likely to be gold diggers looking for a rich beta husband.
So they all loved your dick and couldn’t get enough of it, while still demanding payment, other than the sex? Ever consider the possibility that these are just fantastic actresses who act that way with every client so that he’ll cum faster? I’m not saying that’s true. Just a thought though.Its funny how guys who are hung up about hookers always go on about how it’s all just a big act etc. Or that they could never enjoy sex unless they knew the girl was super into them and doing it only because they freely want to. A lot of hookers are the complete opposite. They make it very clear they are not into it and want you in and out as quick as possible and are just after the money. The bad ones are actually really shit actresses or don’t even try to pretend. Then there are others that are doing it as a job because they need the money BUT that doesn’t mean they can’t actually enjoy it with the right clients. Because sex is actually fun for a lot of people regardless of why they are doing it in the first place.
Fine. You want to believe that women who get paid for sex are just as horny and sex-loving as women who do it for free, with no relevant distinctions other than hookers being………smarter?Definitely not all. But based on the one's I've met, I would say most “women who get paid for sex are just as horny and sex-loving as women who do it for free”. They are not doing it for sexual reasons at all. It’s all economic and financial.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-24 07:58:15
Okay Doclove, here you go:
I know that in a legal sense you would allow prostitution, but it emotionally disgusts you, and you socially ridicule plus chastise those you engage in it.Definitely on a red pill forum, yes. Prostitution is about having sex despite your lack of sexual merit. You circumvent your lack of sexual merit via money. But on a self-improvement blog, we should be encouraging the opposite. So yes, I'm going to ridicule it here.
True sex positivism means knowing that each individual person is different, and that increasing men’s sexual options as well as opportunities to have sex improves men’s overall happiness in this world, and legal affordable and available prostitution does this.But this blog isn't about catering to the needs of betas, or alpha 1.0s who just want to "save time" by paying. Self-help and self-improvement (what this blog is all about) negates prostitution.
Homosexual Sex especially between men disgusts me.Indeed. Me too.
Let me qualify that last sentence by saying that bisexual women who engage in lesbian sex and then have sex with me is my favorite kind of sex because reverse gangbangs are usually my favorite kind of sex,Another thing we have in common.
but lesbians and bisexual women who engage in sex before me and refuse to have sex with me anger, disappoint and disgust me.I would never allow a woman inside my house if she isn't going to have sex with me. If two or more women engage in sex in front of me, but refuse to fuck me, that is massive disrespect which merits their immediate ejection from my property.
What is your sexual orientation?The same as yours.
Why do you do ridicule and chastise those who engage in prostitution?Three reasons: First, from the man's side: I'm a capitalist. This means that I believe in meritocracy. Sexual merit means that you are attractive to women. This means you don't need to bribe her with money. In the context of sex, money is precisely a way of cheating; that is, circumventing the system of true sexual meritocracy using economic currency. If my sexual merit is superior to yours, but the woman ignores me and goes with you instead, because you have compensated for your sexual inferiority with money, this fills me with an instinctive rage, because you played dirty and created an injustice - the man with the inferior sexual merit got the girl (because he used money to circumvent his lack of attractiveness). I have an instinctive sense of fairness that fills me with disgust at that scenario. Money perverts and turns the sexual market (not to be confused with the money market) upside down! It allows the losers to get the women and the winners to be forced to play dirty as well, thus calling the woman's sexual genuineness into question even when she's with me. I resent men who pay for sex, precisely because of this. You're not playing fair. I see prostitution as a type of sexual socialism, or sexual welfare, for unattractive losers who want to use money to cheat the system of sexual meritocracy, instead of engaging in self-improvement. And, as a capitalist, I resent this. I worked hard for my fucking sexual merit and I refuse to be cheated out of it by some morbidly obese billionaire! Second, from the woman's point of view: Having sex with someone whom you're not attracted to is gross. It's a disgusting perversion of nature. Imagine trying to have sex with another man, or with a morbidly obese woman with no teeth. It's sickening. So if a woman divorces her sexual actions from her sexual lusts, it makes me seriously sick. Because it's not genuine. It's not......true! How can a woman's vagina be numb when she's having sex and then go enjoy sex with her boyfriend? I once watched an interview with Jenna Jameson (the porn star) and she said, "I don't get any sexual gratification from my partner and neither does he. We're just actors." Really? So her vagina is numb when she's engaging in "professional sex" and horny when she's fucking her boyfriend? You would think that eventually that's no longer a switch she can just turn on and off. It's not natural for the vagina to be numb during sex. Eventually, the whole thing will go numb. It's just so sick and unnatural. It destroys the beauty of real lust and genuine sex. And, of course, I resent the female supremacy behind the notion that a man's body is worth less than a woman's, so he has to pay her for hers. It's emasculating and beta! Third, as you pointed out before, the sexual marketplace dictates that if everyone does something, I'd have to do it too. I'd have no choice but to pay women for sex if paying were a strict cultural standard. So I have to shame prostitution, because I don't want that! Do you understand? I don't want any woman to have sex with me, unless she freely wants to because she thinks I'm hot! Which means, there can be no payment of any kind. I must know that she isn't an actress! I must know our lust is mutual and our sexual connection is real, even if this is just a nameless one night stand! I want truth, not the matrix of illusions. Note: This is why I'm so in favor of adultery! I love fucking married women because if she's actually willing to risk fucking me, despite having a husband, I must have truly superior sexual merit; not just superior to the husband, but superior to the sexual merit of someone who can get single women to fuck him, but not taken women. The woman must REALLY be horny for me, or the husband must be a real beta. So, here is my hierarchy for sexual merit: 1. Sleeping with taken women who are attracted to you 2. Sleeping with single women who are attracted to you 3. Sleeping with women who aren't attracted to you (read: women who are lying to you), or hookers!
What disgusts you from most to least, amateur homosexual sex between men(gay sex), amateur homosexual sex between women or professional heterosexual sex between a male customer, john, and a female prostitute, whore and why?1. Homosexual acts between men disgust me the most. As a heterosexual man, they disgust me on a visceral and primal level. 2. Female prostitutes with male customers disgust me the second most. Unlike gay men, I'm not disgusted physically, but I am disgusted emotionally, because I see a sex act that isn't meritorious, and therefore, unjustified. There is no mutual lust, and therefore, no beauty, no real human connection. It's just a mimicking or a simulacra of real sex. And I hate the matrix! 3. Lesbian sex between women disgusts me the least. It actually turns me on. We have lust. We have genuineness. And we have women! What's not to love? I've watched my girlfriend fuck the shit out of a woman right in front of me and then, when she was finished, say to me, "she's all yours, my love." It makes my heart melt. Okay, I need to go now. I'll respond to your Milo stuff tonight or tomorrow morning. Sorry, I thought I could get through at least one of your posts, but it's too long. I'll have to attack it in stages.
Antekirtt 2018-02-24 08:17:13
alpha 1.0s who just want to “save time” by payingWhy is it alpha 1.0 to want to "save time"?
It’s a disgusting perversion of nature.No. I've already said this, prostitution exists in animals and is not an invention of recent human culture. Like your misguided belief that selfishness, but not altruism, are natural, while non-kin altruism is a "pathology", it is a myth. You rely too much on outdated constructivist beliefs - and yes, I know you think you're very far from constructivism and hate it - that science shows to be wrong. Males will try to get laid by any means - and in a moral context, by any means that aren't coercive. "Perversion" has nothing to do with it.
Imagine trying to have sex with another man, or with a morbidly obese woman with no teeth. It’s sickening.Straw man. High class escorts (even medium ones) can afford to be relatively picky about their clients - and indeed, those are the ones I'd prefer to stick to, since I'd feel exploitative if they were poor and to some extent "forced" to resort to prostitution. As I said again, many clients of prostitutes actually aren't unattractive - including to *them* - and get laid in other manners too, when convenient.
Gang 2018-02-24 11:21:20
Obviously I am pro prostitution. In countries where prostitution is widespread dating is better, she knows that if she doesn't fuck you soon enough you're gonna fuck a hooker. Also prostitution (in or the gold diggng market in all its variants, including on the far fetched end, marriages) is the only sustainable sexual option passed a certain age for men. It's funny to see that Antekirtt and JOTB don't actually disagree much in term of numbers about sex drive of women in general and prostitues in particular.
Gang 2018-02-24 11:30:15
Female prostitutes with male customers disgust me the second most. Unlike gay men, I’m not disgusted physically, but I am disgusted emotionally, because I see a sex act that isn’t meritorious, and therefore, unjustified.I totally disagree with this statement. The client pays money. In the vast majority of cases this man earned his money because he merited it. (Sure there are exceptions to the rule if money was earned by crime or birth, but this is well withing 2%). Also the woman provides a sexual service and it goes beyond sex: gain of time, no need to give her anything else or even talk to her if the client doesn't want to. And she is gone as soon as the client decides (or stops paying for more/longer). Simplicity. She also makes herself available in term of time and space. She also maintains a certain physique, and provides a sexy appearance in general with her clothing and make up, etc... So she also merits her payment. Therefore prostitution is meritorious, in both ways. The alternative to protitution is game, where you invest any amount of money, from none to infinite, in direct and indirect forms, AND you also invest comparatively to prostitution where it's virtually 0, huge amounts of time and energy. Time and energy can obviously be translated in money in they are used for your financial life, so in both cases you basically invest something anyways, it's any equivalemt amount of a combination of time, energy and money.
Anon 2018-02-24 14:48:55
I love fucking married women because if she’s actually willing to risk fucking me, despite having a husband, I must have truly superior sexual meritThat means a big part of sex for you is receiving validation. This is likely one of the core reasons of misunderstandings between you and men who do not have this trait.
marty 2018-02-24 20:12:07
The alternative to protitution is game, where you invest any amount of money, from none to infinite, in direct and indirect forms, AND you also invest comparatively to prostitution where it’s virtually 0, huge amounts of time and energy. Time and energy can obviously be translated in money in they are used for your financial life, so in both cases you basically invest something anyways, it’s any equivalemt amount of a combination of time, energy and money.This is very true. I spend a lot of time an energy on game and picking up girls to fuck for "free". Its fun, I enjoy it, but it is a lot of work. Then I also go see hookers because I enjoy getting easy sex where I don't have to put in all the work. There is still a certain amount of energy and work needed though to get a good experience instead of a dud one.
marty 2018-02-24 22:50:14
Homosexual Sex especially between men disgusts me.I find it hard to understand how you guys can call yourselves sex positive and say this. I'm not into guys and I wouldn't have sex with a guy. But its a bit extreme to say it "disgusts" you . I love the fact my GF is bi and I love seeing her have sex with other girls as it seems you guys do as well. Why is it ok for women to have gay sex but not guys? Like me, you don't have to do it or like it, but surely its still part of the "sex positive" world for guys who are gay. We often go to a gay club here (its more of a mix club as there are just as many straight people as gay there) as its the best place to pick up Bi girls. There are lots of gay guys there and I really like them. They are a lot of fun to hang out with. You see a lot more fun and crazy shit there than a normal club. Like 6'5" ladyboys etc. I get hit on and even have guys with no shirts on trying to touch me. But I'm very comfortable in my sexuality and doesn't really worry me. I just tell them I'm not gay. Whatever works for them is fine by me even if its not what I would do.
K 2018-02-25 00:59:14
I find it hard to understand how you guys can call yourselves sex positive and say this.Agreed. That "primal and visceral disgust" is most likely nothing but SP. Think ancient Greece, ancient Rome, traditional Melanesian societies... Though I must admit with Kinsey that human sexuality is a rather complex matter.
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life."
Marty 2018-02-25 03:10:18
Though I must admit with Kinsey that human sexuality is a rather complex matter.Totally agree with this. I've played with the idea of being Bi and to tell you the truth I get a bit jealous of my GF's Bisexuality. Actually I get really jealous of all the Bi girls at swingers parties having amazing sex with both males and females and obviously loving it. We played with a Ladyboy in Thailand and while I actually quite enjoyed the experience it definitely confirmed to me that I'm not Bi. So I'm ok with that now. It is what it is. You either are attracted to someone sexually or not. Bit like fat girls. I just can't do it! I'm a pussy fiend through and through. 🙂
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 05:10:51
I find it hard to understand how you guys can call yourselves sex positive and say this.Being sex-positive doesn't mean you're into everything yourself.
I’m not into guys and I wouldn’t have sex with a guy. But its a bit extreme to say it “disgusts” you .No it's not. It's a normal thing to say. It disgusts me on an involuntary physical level, like a gag reflex. I'm sure a woman's naked breasts activate the gag reflex of some homosexual men. Just like a penis might activate the gag reflex of a lesbian. It's a normal response. The only reason you think it's a "bit extreme" is politically correct programming.
Why is it ok for women to have gay sex but not guys?When did I ever say it's not okay for guys to have gay sex? Seriously, when have I ever said this?
Like me, you don’t have to do it or like it, but surely its still part of the “sex positive” world for guys who are gay.What's your point? That doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to allow them to do it in front of me in my home. If something disgusts me, it's not allowed near me or my property. Period.
I get hit on and even have guys with no shirts on trying to touch me. But I’m very comfortable in my sexuality and doesn’t really worry me.Good for you. Personally, I would never allow a gay guy to touch me. And I know gay guys touching me is the inevitable consequence of going to gay bars, so I don't go to such places. It has nothing to do with being "comfortable with your own sexuality." That's more PC garbage. Some SJWs even go so far as to say that you need to be willing to kiss other guys or give them blowjobs to prove how secure you are with your straightness, otherwise you're secretly gay. So you have to act gay now to prove you're really securely straight. It's gay propaganda! I don't have to let gays touch me or give blowjobs to other men in order to show how strong my heterosexuality is. LOL! That being said, I've had threesomes with other straight guys where we both double team the girl (but don't touch each other), and I've had plenty of group sex involving plenty of naked (straight) men. I've even had my tongue down my girlfriend's throat a few seconds after she had another man's dick in her mouth. I only draw the line at direct sexual touching between me and another dude.
Whatever works for them is fine by me even if its not what I would do.Great. Then we don't disagree. I just refuse to be around them or their gay energy. It's my choice, and no amount of propaganda from the gay lobby is going to change my mind with "if you don't make out with a guy you're insecure and probably gay" crap. Again, PC horseshit! And it has nothing to do with whether or not someone is sex-positive. I've never said that gays should be stopped from doing whatever they like! But they are under no obligation to humor me and I'm under no obligation to humor them. It's called freedom of association.
doclove 2018-02-25 05:14:23
I wish to say to Jack Outside the Box, Antekirtt, Anon, Gang, Marty and K that you made interesting points, I feel a little sorry for Jack Outside the Box as he is getting beaten by 5 commenters, Antekirtt, Anon, Gang and Marty as well as me despite him being wrong. I will help out Jack Outside the Box by giving the best defense of GAME over PROSTITUTION. GAME is essentially the ability to sell one's penis to a woman. I know that is a little oversimplified and overgeneralized, but that is it in its essence. If you are able to GAME well enough then it does not matter how much money or wealth you have in other areas. My response is that is true. However, having prostitution as a back up gives one frame in dealing with women because a man never needs to live with the extraordinary threat of sexual starvation. Because of hypergamy, women think it is cute(usually they aren't conscious of it but sometimes they are) to starve a man who has nothing and give more to a man who has plenty enough andeven more to a man who has more than enough sex and (romantic) attention. Prostitution mitigates this. I will have more later.
marty 2018-02-25 05:46:55
Being sex-positive doesn’t mean you’re into everything yourself.I've never said that. I just said you have to respect it as valid expression of sex.
No it’s not. It’s a normal thing to say. It disgusts me on an involuntary physical level,Honestly Jack. I actually like the way your mind works. But on this one you are thinking emotionally. Really? Who gives a fuck about your emotional response to someone else's sex?
Being sex positive means you are open to all sex. No limits. Anything goes? Yes or no? Or are you only open to sex between men and women and women and women?This is completely opposite of what I was saying. Any gay guy try's to touch me I'm comfortable to reject him and let him know I'm not interested. But I don't lose my shit like some guys would. The're gay, they want me which is ok. I'm not interested so I just say no. Easy! Sex positive means I understand sexual attraction and I'm not offended by it. I'm just am comfortable with my frame.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 05:54:31
That “primal and visceral disgust” is most likely nothing but SP.No, it's not. In fact, SP today is going in the opposite direction. Your entire response is SP. I've spoken with lesbians who have a visceral disgust towards a man's penis. Are they victims of SP? No. Physical disgust is a normal biological reaction to sex practices that go against your own DNA programming, or biological sexual orientation. Disgust for homosexuality is Darwinian. Don't be such a feminist!
Think ancient Greece, ancient Rome, traditional Melanesian societies…Think Saudi Arabia. Middle Age Europe. Pakistan. Russia. Your point?
Though I must admit with Kinsey that human sexuality is a rather complex matter.Kinsey was a sick pedophile who should have been executed. His entire work was a fraud. The man was a monster who deserves nothing but our hatred and contempt.
“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual.Yes they do!
The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…Yes it is!
The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects… An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.”PC garbage. Complete and utter social justice trash! Sexuality is a flexible continuum for women, not men. All women are innately bisexual, or at least bicurious. But projecting the nature of female sexual fluidity unto men is cruel and man-hating!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 06:15:10
I’ve never said that. I just said you have to respect it as valid expression of sex.Are you suggesting that I don't? It really depends what you mean by "respect." They have every right to do what they like on their own property and in their own sphere of influence. Just like I have every right to leave and/or look away. My eyes, my choice.
Who gives a fuck about your emotional response to someone else’s sex?No one. I just mentioned it because Doclove mentioned it first and wanted my reaction. That's all.
Being sex positive means you are open to all sex. No limits. Anything goes? Yes or no?No. Being sex-positive doesn't mean that you personally are open to sex practices which violate your own genetic sexual orientation. Being sex-positive means you support the legalization of all sex practices between consenting adults, and you support the cultural promotion of genuine sexuality (sex motivated by lust in exchange for sex).
Or are you only open to sex between men and women and women and women?As a straight man, I'm open to personally experiencing sex with women only, as well as entertaining sex between women and other women, because that turns me on.
Any gay guy try’s to touch me I’m comfortable to reject him and let him know I’m not interested. But I don’t lose my shit like some guys would.Would I lose my shit? That depends on the context. If we're in a gay bar, I can't fault him. Which is why I don't go to gay bars. But if any gay man attempts to touch me in a sexual sense out of the blue (outside of a gay setting where I'd never be anyway), he has committed assault and can look forward to me punching him in the face!
The’re gay, they want me which is ok. I’m not interested so I just say no. Easy! Sex positive means I understand sexual attraction and I’m not offended by it. I’m just am comfortable with my frame.I suppose it depends what you mean by "offended." Context means everything here. If a gay man were to try to actively proposition me on the street, I'd calmly explain to him that I'm not gay. If he continues to pursue me, despite me explaining this, I will become less polite.
Marty 2018-02-25 06:29:58
No. Being sex-positive doesn’t mean that you personally are open to sex practices which violate your own genetic sexual orientation.Well I guess we have a different version of sex positive. To me "sex positive" doesn't mean sex "I'm comfortable with". Though I don't agree with some of the things you say. I thought you were a bit more open than that. 🙁
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 06:47:07
Well I guess we have a different version of sex positive. To me “sex positive” doesn’t mean sex “I’m comfortable with”.I think we have a different definition of "open." When I said that I'm personally not "open" to sex practices that violate my own genetic sexual orientation, I meant I'm not willing to try them myself.....because they violate my own genetic sexual orientation.
Though I don’t agree with some of the things you say. I thought you were a bit more open than that.So how exactly should I be "open" to male homosexuality? I'm sex-positive towards gays in the sense that I certainly don't shame their practices, nor attempt to discourage them in any way. I encourage their public and cultural promotion of their lifestyle to each other. What more should I do to be "open?" Look at them? I don't want to. Go to gay bars and take an active and affirmative participatory role in their energy? Not my style. Engage in gay sex practices myself? That goes against my sexual orientation. Facilitate gay male behavior in my home where I have to look at it? Fuck that.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 07:18:51
I totally disagree with this statement. The client pays money. In the vast majority of cases this man earned his money because he merited it.Oh for fuck sake! Read what I wrote here:
Money perverts and turns the sexual market (not to be confused with the money market) upside down!I wasn't referring to financial merit. I was talking about sexual merit: Sexual merit - The status of being sexually attractive to women, or to the specific woman you are sleeping with, thus making her act of sex with you the result of her lust for you. Proof of your sexual merit - Women sleeping with you in exchange for you sleeping with them. Any other type of sex is not sexually meritorious, and therefore, a result of you cheating the sexual marketplace, not to be confused with the financial marketplace! The financial marketplace and the sexual marketplace must remain completely separate in order to ensure the integrity of both! Bringing one into the other is cheating and violates the principle of sexual lust, which is the bedrock upon which sex-positivism rests!
Also the woman provides a sexual service and it goes beyond sex: gain of time, no need to give her anything else or even talk to her if the client doesn’t want to. And she is gone as soon as the client decides (or stops paying for more/longer). Simplicity.Simplicity at the expense (or at least potential expense) of her sexual sincerity. If she is indeed sexually sincere (motivated to fuck you because of her own sexual passion for you), that sincerity is only a coincidence. And its proof is mitigated by your financial payment, and her expectation of said payment! You are fucking up your sexual merit, not to be confused with your financial merit.
She also makes herself available in term of time and space. She also maintains a certain physique, and provides a sexy appearance in general with her clothing and make up, etc… So she also merits her payment.But it's all fake. Or if it's real, as Marty keeps insisting, the proof of that realness is mitigated by the money. Prostitution is a deceptive matrix where reality and female lust (if any) become (at best) happy coincidences and (at worst) collateral damage! In other words, the destruction of sex-positivism!
Therefore prostitution is meritorious, in both ways.Not sexually meritorious! And I believe in an unfettered sexual meritocracy based on the principle of lust. That's my definition of sex-positivism.
Time and energy can obviously be translated in money in they are used for your financial life, so in both cases you basically invest something anyways, it’s any equivalemt amount of a combination of time, energy and money.But in exchange for the time and energy that is required by game, you receive not only the woman's sexual sincerity (or sexual passion), but you also receive unmitigated proof of it. In other words, she proves that she's a human being, not a mechanical sex robot who feels nothing. I want mutual sexual lust and sexual passion in its unmitigated form! Even a one night stand in which her and I will never even know each other's names can provide me with that. Prostitution cannot. Mutual sexual passion is the only facilitator of the human connection that I crave during sex. Everything else is acting, or fakery - a simulation of reality. And I want nothing to do with the matrix!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 07:36:12
Just to hammer home this point:
The financial marketplace and the sexual marketplace must remain completely separate in order to ensure the integrity of both! Bringing one into the other is cheating and violates the principle of sexual lust, which is the bedrock upon which sex-positivism rests!If you introduce money into the sexual marketplace, you are violating, or at least mitigating, the principle of sexual lust, upon which the entire philosophy of sex-positivism stands. Likewise, if you introduce sex into the financial marketplace (think sexual harassment in Hollywood), you are violating the principle of professional merit, upon which the entire philosophy of capitalism stands! Prostitutes, porn stars, strippers, gold diggers, sugar babies, provider hunters, and conservative housewives violate, or at least mitigate, sexual capitalism. Conversely, bosses who sexually harass women, or promise them movie parts or jobs in exchange for sexual favors, despite the women's lack of professional merit, violate, or at least mitigate, financial capitalism! I'm against both because I'm both a financial AND sexual capitalist!
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 08:25:38
Obviously I am pro prostitution. In countries where prostitution is widespread dating is better, she knows that if she doesn’t fuck you soon enough you’re gonna fuck a hooker.My fear is that if prostitution is de-stigmatized, dating will become worse. You'll have girls being encouraged to be gold diggers by mainstream culture. On a first date, she'll say something like, "My sister is a prostitute and she gets 5,000 dollars per night, sometimes. I'm so proud of her. What do you plan on giving me? The worst thing that can happen to sex-positivism, in my opinion, is going back to the old model in which sex wasn't symbiotic (and therefore, meritorious), but parasitic, where the housewives were at the top of the prostitution pyramid and the low hanging street walkers were at the bottom. Both hated each other because they were in competition, but sex for sex, or sex based upon mutual heterosexuality, wasn't even presented as an option. It was a very secret and dark red pill thing to know that women are straight. The militant lesbians still don't believe it. Sex-positivism, as I see it, is precisely a rebellion against that old paradigm because it introduced the revolutionary concept of female heterosexuality, and therefore, sexual symbiosis based on a meritocracy of lust! That is what I'll be defending till the day I die.
Also prostitution (in or the gold diggng market in all its variants, including on the far fetched end, marriages) is the only sustainable sexual option passed a certain age for men.I don't really want to argue, or talk about, this point, but in my humble opinion (because I'm such a rabid sexual capitalist), your biological ability to have sex, or even get an erection, is, or should be, part of your sexual merit. Viagra ruined everything because it, once again, introduced the principle of cheating nature's perfect system. Passed a certain age after you went through menopause and have lost your sexual virility, you really shouldn't be thinking about sex, especially since women don't find you attractive. Of course, as BD will say, you can maintain your sexual virility well into your old age by leading a healthy lifestyle. But this healthy lifestyle, by implication, will also have positive consequences for your physical looks, thus retaining your sexual attractiveness to females. So it all works out in a sense.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 08:51:14
Why is it alpha 1.0 to want to “save time”?If you're "saving time" at the expense of truth (in this case, female sexual sincerity), I'd say it's a form of laziness that is in contradiction to the philosophy of self-improvement professed by this blog.
No. I’ve already said this, prostitution exists in animals and is not an invention of recent human culture. Like your misguided belief that selfishness, but not altruism, are natural, while non-kin altruism is a “pathology”, it is a myth.Gil Galad, is that you? You said you were going to change your screen name. Let me know if it's you so I can start ignoring you again. Much appreciated. Note: A refusal to answer will be interpreted as a yes. The ignoring will thus begin again.
Antekirtt 2018-02-25 10:23:33
@Jack: it's me. It's funny how you've been bouncing between "boo-hoo you're a bad man who thinks I have no soul, never talk to me again" and not helping responding to my comments. So I'll "interpret" your reactions as well and tell you this: you're chickening out. The main reason you prefer to ignore my comments is that they make points you have trouble giving rebuttals for. I have never insulted you, merely challenged your views; "I’d say it’s a form of laziness that is in contradiction to the philosophy of self-improvement professed by this blog." You know exactly what doing LALALALALA proves about what you think of your ability to defend your own views.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 15:02:48
That means a big part of sex for you is receiving validation. This is likely one of the core reasons of misunderstandings between you and men who do not have this trait.You may be right in a sense. But what you call "receiving validation," I simply call "having sexual chemistry" and "reciprocal lust." That means everything to me. Without it, I can't get turned on. Basically, I need proof that she's a human being, not some mechanical robot going through the motions, or simulating human responses during sex. I need reality, not illusion. So if you don't "need validation" in that sense, what's the difference between having sex with a woman or a rubber doll? We all want human connection. We don't want to have sex with inanimate objects programmed to act a certain way. I don't want to have sex with a woman who has been forced by circumstances to have sex with me so that she can put bread on her table. I also wouldn't have sex with a woman if someone put a gun to her head. I know there's a difference because her free will is preserved in the case of financial incentives, but still, for me, disconnecting her internal sexual desires from her external sexual behavior is what psychiatrists call "behaviorism." It might as well be a body without a soul at that point. And that's empty for me. Sexual chemistry is a must. I know Marty will say that there is plenty of sexual chemistry between him and his hookers, but I can't stand the thought of, even unintentionally, mitigating that chemistry. And money certainly does mitigate (at least a little bit in the best case scenario) the organic naturalness of the situation to the point where it becomes harder to confirm that her desires and actions are in sync. At that point, sex is dehumanizing to both parties.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 15:37:45
why would Lesbians have Sex with men for money more than Sex Positive Women?They wouldn't today. I meant that prostitution was indeed set up by lesbians so they can avoid starving to death when women weren't legally allowed to work. The very premise behind prostitution is that women are "generous" and the men are "lucky." That's not exactly an acknowledgment of female heterosexuality. Of course, lesbians don't have sex with men for money today, because today, they work. But prostitutes today (which include all provider hunters, including house wives) act like the equivalent of a generous lesbian. It is therefore insulting to me to go to one.
The idea of having heterosexual sex(even for money) would disgust Lesbians more than Sex Positive Women just like it would disgust me as a Heterosexual man to have Sex with men.Agreed. But if their only two other alternatives were starving to death or marrying one man who would brutalize them for the rest of their lives, many lesbians chose prostitution. Before the 1960s, lesbians simply assumed that all women were like that. That's why the radical feminist movement of the 1970s proclaimed that every woman in the world was going to come out as a lesbian by the year 2000 now that women are legally working.
I would be more likely to fuck a fat ugly woman for money, even for less money, than a good looking man even if I was starving, broke and homeless.And I'm sure lesbians would have preferred to fuck ugly women instead of men. But that was illegal and socially unacceptable in the distant past. They had no choice, but to fuck men. The only question was if they're going to enslave themselves to one man, or have one night stands on their terms for money. Many lesbians chose the latter.
Why would Lesbians be any different?See above.
Would not truly sex positive bisexual and heterosexual women truly love men enough to have sex with loser beta men, even if more money because penis feels good especially if they do not look at his face?No. A woman who is sex-positive and high sex drive can't have sex with someone she isn't attracted to (with exceptions that I'm sure Marty will point out). The higher your sex drive is, the more important lust is for you as an integral part of the equation. Like I said, a gold digger who is an asexual can fuck a 25 year old man or a 95 year old man. It's all the same to her because sex does nothing for her in either sense. But a woman who is obsessed with her own orgasms would find it extremely hard to sleep with a man who doesn't do it for her. It would ruin everything she loves about sex and turn it from something beautiful to something ugly. Asexuals or women with low sex drives don't care either way. But women who care about sex do. Therefore, the highest sex drive women are also the pickiest.
Sex with ugly women feels nearly as good as long as you don’t look at their bodies and faces.Not to me. Not to my girlfriend. And not to most sex-positive women I've been with.
Sounds to me like your girl is more of an Alpha Fucks woman than a truly sex positive one.Yes, she is exclusively a "lover hunter," or an alpha fucks woman. But that is what sex-positivism is - the promotion, glamorization, and cultural normalization of sex based on the principle of horniness. If she were to divorce her horniness from her sexual activity, thus enforcing "selective numbness" on her vagina, she wouldn't be sex-positive at all. She would precisely be destroying everything that makes sex a positive and beautiful experience, as all provider hunters do to some extent. And eventually, her entire vagina would become involuntarily numb, as that isn't a switch one can just turn on and off (at least that is my girlfriend's worst fear in terms of prostitution for sex-positive women).
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-25 16:28:05
I feel a little sorry for Jack Outside the BoxOh please!
as he is getting beaten by 5 commenters,No one has "beaten" me. I'm having a good time!
I will help out Jack Outside the BoxNo thank you. I'm fine. Nice AMOG though.
having prostitution as a back up gives one frame in dealing with women because a man never needs to live with the extraordinary threat of sexual starvation.Socialistic safety nets incentivize laziness. A "sink or swim" approach is the key to success in all areas. Prostitution is sexual welfare which retards your growth, or your incentive for growth if you're a celibate beta. Remember, I'm not just an economic capitalist. I'm also a sexual capitalist. Plus, I would rather "sexually starve" than pay a woman to pretend to like me, thus implying that my penis isn't satisfactory. Going to a hooker would humiliate me to no end. To me at least, it would be an admission that I'm a loser.
Because of hypergamy, women think it is cute(usually they aren’t conscious of it but sometimes they are) to starve a man who has nothing and give more to a man who has plenty enough and even more to a man who has more than enough sex and (romantic) attention.Welcome to reality! That's how the universe works. If you have a lot of something, the default assumption is that you merited it, or deserve it. Well, if you deserve it, people think you should have more of it! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's called justice. Women look towards other women for clues as to which men are hot. If a bunch of women are chasing you, other women will start to chase you because you're obviously a winner (pre-selection). It's the law of attraction. More leads to more and less leads to less. It's the snowball effect (inertia) and it's awesome.
Prostitution mitigates this.Yes it does. Just like economic welfare mitigates justice. Your most powerful argument Doclove, is that my vision is unsustainable because most men will never be winners. So if we go full justice on their asses (sexual capitalism), the beta workers will start breaking shit and calling for the heads of us sex creators to be cut off via (sexual) socialist revolution. This is monogamy - in which everyone stands in line for one low quality woman; but only one so that everyone else can get one too. That is basically the sexual equivalent of the long bread lines within the former Soviet Union. This is where you've come the closest to convincing me. But then my support of prostitution would be tentative. It would be predicated only upon cold pragmatism. Not to help the undeserving masses, but only to protect ourselves by staving off a massive sexual socialist revolution (monogamy). I might even surrender this point to you, since the "don't hate the sex creators because if you work hard, you too can become one" speech will probably not persuade the angry betas! But even if I do, we still shouldn't be promoting prostitution on a self-improvement blog where the goal is to be an alpha. Here, we should make fun of prostitution behind the beta's backs (while sleeping with their wives), while only supporting it in public in order to prevent the beta workers from breaking our computers and invading our golf courses with their smelly asses! But your support of prostitution, I sense, goes beyond cold pragmatism for the purpose of securing sexual liberation for the alphas within the secret society while undisturbed. You actually feel sorry for the workers; hence our disagreement!
Marty 2018-02-25 21:45:33
Fuck me JOTB. I really don't know how you do it. I've just gone through and re-read everything. I feel like spend way too much time on here. And that's just trying to read what you wrote. How you have time to actually write that much is mind blowing. But impressive! We went around a lot of circles about the gay stuff to only come to the point where I think we actually both agree. I thought you were saying "Gay sex between men is disgusting!" full stop. But you were really saying "Gay sex between men is disgusting to me!" Its a big difference. I too would become very unpleasant quickly if a gay guy persisted in touching me after I said stop.
You may be right in a sense. But what you call “receiving validation,” I simply call “having sexual chemistry” and “reciprocal lust.” That means everything to me. Without it, I can’t get turned on.This is basically the reason we differ so much on the paid sex thing. I've met quite a few guys in swinging that are the same. But then there are a lot of guys like me as well. So long as the girl is not being forced and she's hot. I will enjoy having sex with her regardless.
So if you don’t “need validation” in that sense, what’s the difference between having sex with a woman or a rubber doll?It's way different. Just like sex without a condom is way different.
I know Marty will say that there is plenty of sexual chemistry between him and his hookers, but I can’t stand the thought of, even unintentionally, mitigating that chemistry.Deciding to have sex for money is a financial decision for a women based on their circumstances. Weather she has a connection with a customer or has chemistry or enjoys the sex etc once she's made that decision is totally different. Depends on a lot of things. The customer, how the rest of her life is going that day. How much sex she's already had that day or in the last few days. All sorts of things.
joelsuf 2018-02-25 21:59:21
You’ll have girls being encouraged to be gold diggers by mainstream culture. On a first date, she’ll say something like, “My sister is a prostitute and she gets 5,000 dollars per night, sometimes. I’m so proud of her. What do you plan on giving me?This already has been happening for about 30+ years now, irrespective of if prostitution is legal or not. tbh, I have accepted that we are on the cusp of becoming a matriarchy since chicks have realized that they have all the power when it comes to sex. It is only a matter of time before they abuse it, but that's just human nature. Chicks are pretty much taught to use men as human ATMs and withhold sex as much as possible. Seriously, just listen to pretty much any song by any female performer and you'll hear it loud and clear. At least with betas they do this. They try it with Alpha 1s and 2s. The current strategy given to chicks is as follows: Omega male = Accuse of sexual assault immediately upon being approached. Omega males don't have enough LMS (looks, money, status) to be able to have sex. So they deserve none. I agree with this strategy completely. To me it is a form of eugenics, and we are overdue for that. Beta male = Because they have decent LMS, do not accuse of sexual assault, but use as much as possible as a human ATM while getting with Alphas behind his back. If the money stops coming in and/or he wants to become Mr. Mom, make more money than him then make him your slave. Again, it is a good strategy. Betas do not deserve to be happy, they are not capable of being leaders so they should have to follow others until they either decide to be alpha (by not getting a TMM in the fist place) or until they die. Alpha 1 = Accuse of sexual assault if he has done you wrong. Wrongdoing includes but is not limited to: Not following through on promises in a TMM, not pleasing you enough during sex, avoiding betaization. This kinda sucks for Alpha 1s, and I do not like how they are being punished for pursuing sex. They shouldn't have to face such crazy consequences. But still, they should be at least understand that being outcome dependent is stupid. Alpha 2s = Chicks don't know how to "handle" Alpha 2s yet, since we are the only men they deal with who possess the same sense of outcome independence that they possess. Which women can't really attack, as they identify with it too much. As long as chicks do not go after Alpha 2s, I'm good. They will eventually, but that will be decades from now. And that's probably the only thing I enjoy about the impending matriarchy: Its going to force men to become outcome independent with chicks. If that is so wrong, then I don't want to be right. Getting kinda tired of outcome dependent boys running around. Especially now that PUAism is popular, its convincing omega boys that they can somehow get laid and get away with it, which I don't like.
doclove 2018-02-25 22:12:49
@ Marty My views on homosexuality are similar if not the same as Jack Outside the Box. Now please watch what I do with him.
doclove 2018-02-25 23:05:44
@ Jack Outside the Box I do not care for what reason a woman decides to ejaculate my penis as long as she does so with minimum consent as enthusiastic consent is not necessary. Did you ever consider that many women whether they be professionals or amateurs are great mattress actresses who do a great job at pretending that they are giving enthusiastic consent? I have seen it happen a lot, but amateurs have a slight advantage on this one, Did you ever think that professionals are on average much better looking than amateurs? It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are by a lot. Did you ever think that professionals are more skilled in sex than amateurs? It is true that they are. The most important thing to me unlike you is not whether a woman loves, likes or desires me first unlike you, but that she consents to ejaculate my penis and does so. Many men like me are like this. It seems you succumbed to social programming to effeminize yourself by thinking and feeling about sex like a woman and failed to deprogram yourself. How do you think and feel like a woman and not think and feels like a man about sex? You want women to desire like and love you first while I simply want them to ejaculate my penis. Don't get me wrong in that I prefer them to desire, like or love me before they ejaculate my penis, but that is the dessert and not the main meal. The main meal is women ejaculating my penis. If I never eat dessert again then I will be fine, but I must eat again, and protein, starches and vegetables are more important to sustain me than fats, oils and salts and sugars. In other words, meat, rice and vegetables are more important to eat than butter, fruitcake and icecream. I was socially programmed less than you to believe this and I more successfully deprogrammed my self of this nonsense. I am a 50 year old man and I realize that this is not your fault as social programming was much worse for you men in your 30s than it was for men in our 40s and 50s, but if you persist and do not seriously attempt to deprogram yourself now that I have informed you of your problem, then it is your fault. Whose romantic love is worth more logically speaking, a man's or a woman's? A man's is because he is more willing to lay down his life for a woman than she is for him. Do you aknowledge that prostitution has been observed among other animal species besides the human species? I do. I am going to sleep. I will have more later on this week. Please answer all my questions above as have done.
Gang 2018-02-26 02:12:04
@ JOTB (I have to break this post in multiple comments for some reasons) There are notoriously 2 sex positive views on prostitution, as there are 2 feminist views on prostitution. Your point of view is typically the abolitionist underlying theory. I don't know of you are for or against the abolition of prostitution but you share their theory. And I would argue that it is fueled by left wing ideology/social programming.
Gang 2018-02-26 02:13:02
I go along with the other point of view: sex positivism and feminism should embrace prostitution. Both the freedom to choose to provide sexual services in exchange for money and the freedom to pay for sexual services. Not only should it be allowed, but also should it be vastly considered as a very valid career choice and completely destigmatized. I would even argue that prostitution is the best service a young woman can provide to society.
Gang 2018-02-26 02:13:56
When prostitution is stigmatised and not allowed, THEN the sexual marketplace is perverted. Perverted BECAUSE it is stigmatised/not allowed. In such a sexual market place, you have blazillions of closeted prostitution, gold digging, betas, providers, etc... In a place where prostitution is not stigmatized TRUTH is more open. You may approach a woman and she will tell you if she doesn't want to have sex with you, if she wants just because she is horny, if she wants just because she lusts you or if she wants but only in the exchange of money or goods. If a woman is horny or lusts you, she is very unlikely to make you wait. Unlike in a skewed sexual marketplace where the direct financial exchange is forbidden (but still exists anyways in more or less indirect forms), and most importantly stigmatized.
Gang 2018-02-26 02:15:24
Also the mere stigmatization of prostitution artificially raises the sexual market value of women and creates an unbalanced sexual marketplace. The same way a wide spread human trafficking fueled prostitution market artificially lower women sexual value and creates an unbalanced sexual marketplace. My view is that prostitution should be allowed and destigmatized, meanwhile all form of trafficking and violences should be tracked down and prosecuted by law enforcement. In an ideal world you want women (and men) to choose prostitution because that's a career path they like compared to other paths, but of course in the real world, as for any job sexual or not, there are always people who are in it only for the money, even people who hate their job and psychologically suffer from it. I totally agree that prostitution more rarely is an experience of true female lust, but so is it with game sometimes. I'd say it's a 20%-80% in both case, only reverted, not a 0%-100%. If you were a purist of truth you wouldn't game at all, you would only rely on your SMV and let women approach you. That would be your only source of sex. And still, even using only your SMV, as soon as your economical or financial status is higher, it influences the attraction the woman has for you EVEN IF YOU DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR HER. How nice your clothes or place is may play a bigger role into why she is fucking you than how you look or your personality. So if we apply your logic to the end, you would have to also be of low economic status to experience true female lust.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-26 03:40:38
I do not care for what reason a woman decides to ejaculate my penis as long as she does so with minimum consentIf you don't care if a human being's behavior is connected to, or disconnected from, their conscious humanity, then you don't care about cutting the cord between a person's external/mechanical bodily actions and their internal psychological makeup, or true self. I find this chilling because you then effectively turn the person into a zombie, or even worse, a corporate drone. This means you espouse the dehumanizing philosophy of "behaviorism," which has also been sadly adopted by western psychiatry. In theory, you believe in external behaviors shaping consciousness, instead of what I believe, which is consciousness shaping external behaviors. In short, you don't care about her womanhood or her humanity. She might as well be a robot invented by a Japanese tech company, as long as you can't tell the difference. I predict that in 20 years we'll have reality shows on Fox titled something like "Human or Robot?" where a man goes out on multiple dates and eliminates woman after woman until he falls in love with the one woman left standing. Afterwards, the producers of the reality show inform him (and us) whether she's a human or robot. That show will be more popular than American Idol ever was. Truly, this is an irreconcilable difference between us. What turns me on about sex is human connection and how we both feed upon the other one's passionate lust. We're both feeding off of each other's passion and horniness, thus turning even the most casual sex with a fuck buddy or one night stand into an extremely intense spiritual experience. Without me feeding off of her animalistic intensity (and her feeding off mine) I feel nothing but emptiness, and that doesn't serve me.
as enthusiastic consent is not necessary.I agree that it shouldn't be legally mandated, because I should have the right to customize my own ideas as to what constitutes female enthusiasm without outsourcing my sexual turn ons to the government (which will never mirror them back to me accurately), but if you personally don't care about a woman's enthusiasm in the bedroom (which is what provokes that magical thing we call sexual chemistry), then you and I are very different people and, like I said, our differences are irreconcilable.
Did you ever consider that many women whether they be professionals or amateurs are great mattress actresses who do a great job at pretending that they are giving enthusiastic consent?Yes, which is why I do everything I can to minimize her incentive to fake it. I've mentioned here before that I lie on my internet dating profile when I put my occupation as "janitor's assistant" because I'm trying to screen out gold diggers. I do everything I can to make sure she will refuse to have sex with me, unless she absolutely wants to. Also, I think I'm sexually experienced enough to spot a faker during sex.
I have seen it happen a lot, but amateurs have a slight advantage on this one,Another reason that a man should do his best to become great in bed for her.
Did you ever think that professionals are on average much better looking than amateurs?Fortunately, my physical beauty standards are lower and way more subjective then most men's. A woman is either fuckable or she's not. If she is, then sexual enthusiasm is the only other thing I require, at least as far as making her a casual fuck buddy is concerned. The majority of women are fuckable to me, as long as they're not fat or disgusting. Sadly, more and more women are becoming fat and disgusting, but the majority of them still are not, and therefore still are acceptable to me physically.
Did you ever think that professionals are more skilled in sex than amateurs?Not if you're having sex with women as sexually experienced as my girlfriend. But in any case, the only "skills" that I require from her are physical initiative, emotional enthusiasm, and sexual passion.
The most important thing to me unlike you is not whether a woman loves, likes or desires me first unlike you, but that she consents to ejaculate my penis and does so.Then you don't care to truly know her. We've had this discussion before, but I believe that human beings should make choices which accurately reflect their true psychological inclinations, because that is the only way we will ever know each other or even know ourselves. And self-knowledge, as well as knowledge of others, results in true human connection and spiritual intimacy. By contrast, if you believe that humans should make their decisions based on external coercions, such as financial poverty, than you advocate for a decrease in spiritual intimacy among people and a reduction of human consciousness. This is an irreconcilable difference.
It seems you succumbed to social programming to effeminize yourself by thinking and feeling about sex like a woman and failed to deprogram yourself.How am I thinking and feeling about sex like a woman? Because I care about whether she's a living woman or a robot? Because I care whether or not there really is a "there" there, or if I'm just fucking my own imagination?
How do you think and feel like a woman and not think and feels like a man about sex?I don't understand the question.
You want women to desire like and love you firstWhat??? No I don't. This is about sexual lust and physical passion only! Even a completely nameless one night stand can give me that connection. Prostitution can't. I love casual sex with fuck buddies. I have no "female" desire for my fuck buddies to love me or have any feelings for me whatsoever. Again, I love casual sex. But I do expect my fuck buddies to be genuine with me and provide me with a shitload of physical passion and intense moaning that I can then feed off of. Are you truly telling me that you don't care if a woman just lies there like a dead fish?
while I simply want them to ejaculate my penis.So, a female cold fish is fine with you?
Don’t get me wrong in that I prefer them to desire, like or love me before they ejaculate my penis, but that is the dessert and not the main meal.Again, sexual lust is all I require from my fuck buddies. No "love" or "specialness" is necessary. Just raw animal passion, as she rips my clothes off and begs me to be inside her!
I was socially programmed less than you to believe this and I more successfully deprogrammed my self of this nonsense.Nonsense? Like sexual chemistry? And the sexual intensity that comes with that mutual connection? If that's nonsense to you, then enjoy your unenthusiastic cold fish. I'll be over here having sex that's actually hot! Good luck!
I am a 50 year old man and I realize that this is not your fault as social programming was much worse for you men in your 30s than it was for men in our 40s and 50s, but if you persist and do not seriously attempt to deprogram yourself now that I have informed you of your problem, then it is your fault.Dude, I'm happy. My beliefs and desires don't inconvenience me. They don't lead to my suffering. Quite the opposite: They lead precisely to my happiness. I love my sex life as it is. So, what's the positive consequence of me changing my beliefs again?
Whose romantic love is worth more logically speaking, a man’s or a woman’s?No one is talking about romantic love. All I require is raw animal lust! I am, after all, a man!
Do you aknowledge that prostitution has been observed among other animal species besides the human species?Yes. Animals are more enslaved to their external environments than even humans were before the industrial revolution. That's why I'm so grateful for technology giving us the freedom to finally explore our true selves, thus increasing our human consciousness and intimate connections with each other from a position of psychological strength and materialistic comfort.
Jack Outside the Box 2018-02-26 04:05:37
How you have time to actually write that much is mind blowing. But impressive!Thank you. But I used to be an attorney. I type very fast. You should see the amount of paperwork I had to deal with on a daily basis, and interpret line by line, when I was dealing with insane lesbian lawyers in family court. On that note, I do appreciate everyone's responses. Unfortunately, there are so many that I can't get to them all in time. I'll continue trying though. But right now, I need sleep.
joelsuf 2018-02-26 10:06:34
I predict that in 20 years we’ll have reality shows on Fox titled something like “Human or Robot?” where a man goes out on multiple dates and eliminates woman after woman until he falls in love with the one woman left standing. Afterwards, the producers of the reality show inform him (and us) whether she’s a human or robot. That show will be more popular than American Idol ever was.LMAO that would be amazing! But I'm still waiting on televised executions. Or even televised firing squads.
Blackdragon 2018-02-26 12:43:42
Gang - If you post a comment and it doesn't appear, wait 24 hours before trying to post that same comment again. Don't keep posting repeated comments over and over again. You create work for me when you do that. Thanks in advance.
doclove 2018-02-28 00:07:05
@ Jack Outside the Box You are correct, that we have irreconcilable differences concerning what is necessary to have sex. As an analogy, you would insist on everyone buying at the restaurants Ruth Chris's Steakhouse or Outback Steakhouse for higher quality food even though most people can not afford them and would starve to death if forced to do so rather than shop where they can afford at Burger King or McDonald's so they can be eat to be satiated and live. Yes, most people would prefer to buy at the former rather than the latter, but even buying at the latter beats starving. I guess you would prefer to starve if your only realistic choices were Burger King and McDonald's, Not everyone will choose to do what is necessary to eat at the former and not everyone can make enough money to eat at the former no matter how hard they try so they eat at the latter. Congratulations that you can have a sex life which simulates eating at Ruth Chris's and Outback Steakhouses. Not everyone can even if they want to and not everyone does even if they can for their own reasons so they have sex lives like eating at Burger King and McDonald's. Nor should any man be harassed for his sex life. To do so is to act like a Feminist Supremicist which to some extant you write like when you ridicule men who visit prostitutes. This is what led to prostitute prohibition. Actually, American feminists wanted alcohol and prostitution prohibition before they wanted the right to vote historically speaking. It would be better for you to have the attitude of whatever two or more consenting adults decide to do with their sexual lives in private is none of my business which is the attitude I have. This leads me to the second part where you are in your own weird twisted way write comments like a White Knight Mangina and think and feel like a woman when you write about sex. The more masculine you are the more sex is an instinct to satisfy rather than an emotion to satisfy. Women believe that sex is an emotion to satisfy first and an instinct to satisfy second while men believe the opposite on average. You subscribe to the Feminine Imperative in your own unique way rather than subscribe such as I do to the Masculine Imperative and write like Black Knight Badboy. Now this has nothing to do with how we are in real life which may be the same for each of us or different for each of us or one the same and the other different for each of us. The only thing I truly care about is what works for each man to get him sex except for rape of course. You only ask what men should do to please women and you never ask what women should do to please men. I acknowledge that in this left leaning Corporatism soon to be Marxist misandrist dystopia t please the feminine imperative that I have no choice but to ask what can I do to please women, but it does not preclude me from asking what it would be like to return to the at least the right leaning Corporatist and even more so to the Capitalist man friendly eutopia with improvements on that model. With the death of my Grand Aunt, a widow of my blood relative, a Grand Uncle who was a World War 2 veteran, earlier this month, it reminds me that women of her generation asked themselves what can I do to please men as much as men asked what can I do to please women, They did not always have the right answers, but at least both sides tried. Each succeeding generation had men asking more and more what can I do to please women and women asking less and less what can I do to please men. You can see the end result. The Millenials are fatter and having less sex than us Generation Xrs on average. As a matter of fact Blackdragon illustrated how people are not only having less sex than in the 1970s now but people are having less sex than in the 1940s. Increasing enforcement for prostitution prohibition has contributed to this. There were almost no laws against prostitution until the late 19th and early 20th Centuries in the USA, and prostitution was more rampant than it is now, and each succeeding decade since 1900 or so has seen stricter and stricter enforcement against prostitution. So much for keeping the economic market and sexual market separate as both have had an overall downward trajectory since the 1940s meaning people have been made more miserable than ever before and that their basic needs are more difficult to meet which will too soon enough mean that many more will not have their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, personal safety and even SEX met adequately. I your left leaning corporate thinking you are saying that one should only pay in gold(sexual charm) to eat(get sex) and that if one has copper(provisioning) or iron(protection) than those latter two metals are no good, should not be exchanged for food(sex) and that copper and iron owners should starve unless they acquire gold. Well good luck with all your gold when there is no copper to build refrigeration to store food and power air=conditioning in hot weather or iron to build guns and knives to defend oneself. Your precious gold will do you no good without copper and iron. There will be a collapse and starvation without copper(men refusing to work and provision without sex or being as lazy as they can get away with) and/or without steel to protect oneself( from internal revolt or invasion from an outside force probably Islamic) because men will not care as much if they are not getting sex and women. The truth is even the USA and the rest of the West needs men or copper and iron than men of gold because both the men and the metals are more useful. Granted, this is more true in the rest of the world. However, we are sliding into becoming a shithole like the rest of the world here in the USA and the rest of the West. What you are saying is that I must use your American dollar rather than bitcoin to purchase things. It looks like you are the cheater to me and I dare say most men would say the same. You are correct that this is a blog about teaching men on an individual level how to seduce women. However we must also ask ourselves what is to become of the men who are made involuntarily celibate by your system which becomes more and more prevalent every day. It looks like Nickolas Cruz in the recent Florida shooting and killing 17 people in Florida recently is in part due to him becoming an involuntary celibate. Men who are involuntary celibates are extremely dangerous. This is part of the reason why Muslim world has more senseless mass shootings than most other places and the USA whether we turn Muslim or not is determined to render more men involuntarily celibate. Sadly the Nickolas Cruz will not be the last one to do this until we solve the involuntary celibate problem, and granted we need to solve other problems as well in order to reduce and eliminate mass shootings. Prostitution can aid men to have frame with women because it produces an abundance mentality of I can always fuck better looking than you. Five percent of the prostitutes will be as enthusiastic and more skilled than amateurs and therefore better in bed and more skilled, 20% of the prostitutes will be more skilled and less enthusiastic than amatuers and therefore equal in bed, and at least 75% of prostitutes will be better looking than amateur women. Once a man knows he can have better looking and potentially just as good at sex if not better than anateurs then he looks at amateurs like they are silly fools and he acts like he does not need them which increases the attraction of amateurs for him You never answered my question. Who on average loves who more? Do men love women more than women love men or is it the opposite or is it equal? I said what I believe that men on average love women more than women love men because men are more willing to lay down their lives for women than the opposite especially in a romantic relationship, and that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another human being. Please answer the questions in this paragraph. I will probably have more later.
joelsuf 2018-02-28 10:10:06
the second part where you are in your own weird twisted way write comments like a White Knight Mangina and think and feel like a woman when you write about sex.Good to know I'm not the only one who observes this. JOTB is one of the most triggered entities I have interacted online with. How do I know? He goes apeshit when I attack collectivism and external solutions, which is the current in-style form of SP. Then again, as a former attorney, it makes sense that JOTB only thinks in terms of the external solution.
Actually, American feminists wanted alcohol and prostitution prohibition before they wanted the right to vote historically speaking.They did? Maybe the really old school ones did because pretty much everyone did once the US became a theocracy, but the ones in the 1970s, which my mother was a part of, wanted prostitution to be legal. Many are tricked into thinking that women's movements have magically become sex-negative because they want to persecute Alpha 1s. No they still enjoy sex, its just that they would rather be the projectors of sex than the receivers. They want to BE the sexual deviants they despise. They want to rape the alpha 1s and make them betas. The 2% that are on the extreme end of the spectrum do indeed want a socialist (not Marxist, Marxist implies that there is no ruling class) state where THEY are the ruling class where heterosexuality doesn't exist.
It looks like Nickolas Cruz in the recent Florida shooting and killing 17 people in Florida recently is in part due to him becoming an involuntary celibate. Men who are involuntary celibates are extremely dangerous.2% Rule. Case in point: Japan. Nearly a third of all japanese guys over 18 have never had sex ever and they are weak. However Cruz looked very weak and sickly as well. Had we kept following eugenics processes, he wouldn't be able to do what he did since he'd be imprisoned or in some other manner incarcerated by the time he could go on his rampage. That and in this current theater of dating, sex, and relationships, being involuntary celibate is a choice. Such a concept does not exist now.
The more masculine you are the more sex is an instinct to satisfy rather than an emotion to satisfy.Excellent observation, doc. THAT is the current problem we have. I call it "Crush Culture" because nowadays, the entire concept of sex, for both genders, revolves around social proof and one-itis, and we STILL live in a culture that preaches that sex is an emotion to satisfy rather than an instinct to satisfy. Its like this for both genders. Sex should NEVER be an emotion to satisfy. To solve the "involuntary celibate" problem, the best strategy is to address crush culture. There should be ZERO social pressure for anyone to have sex. It should only be an instinct to satisfy, in all cases. It is because sex is seen as an emotion to satisfy that we have all these misunderstandings and violence in the first place. The rapist isn't looking for an instinct to satisfy when he or she has sex with someone without their physical or verbal permission, he or she is attempting to impress others 9 times out of 10.
doclove 2018-03-01 03:22:55
@ joelsuf I am glad that you noticed what I did about JOBT, I provided the best argument about learning GAME because it was simply stated and let men know what their best interest was while he came up with lengthy convoluted ideas about what was best for him and other women. I simply stated that it was best to diversify one's options in getting sex from women, and that learning GAME is even if over-simplified and over-generalized is about learning to sell one's penis to women. If you lose all your wealth and do not know how to sell your penis to women then that means no sex with women for you men. I supported prostitution because it is a great back up even if you never use it because you know that you can always get sex if you have money and for whatever reason you are doing poorly selling your penis via GAME(charm) to women. Being open to both GAME and prostitution is like having two in the kitty metaphorically speaking. When it comes to Feminists, it looks like the 2% who are Socialists and against heterosexuality came back into control in the late 20th century like the ones who had control in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Damn near every woman you meet not only in the West, but also in the former Warsaw pact countries, Latin America and 1st world East Asian countries is a mid 20th century feminist like your mother to one degree or another or one way or another. I really wish feminism would die but if not then I wish your mother's type was back in control. Actually, the best way to kill feminism is to force it down women's throats and destroy the Socialist Lesbian Feminists in control now, Women may complain that it is better to be an Alpha man than an Alpha woman which is generally speaking true, but it is also better for women to be betas than men and a lot better to be omegas than men. Your mother's feminism would be much better to be driving and controlling feminism and to implement than the current feminism even if the old ways and patriarchy are never restored. Nickolas Cruz is the 2%., but because socialist lesbian feminism has caused this as useful idiots of the ruling elite and now the leftists want more gun control and leftist collectivism which is bad news for humanity. Right wing collectivism may be bad, and I aknowledge this fact, however it is the only defense against left wing collectivism which is worse and will strip away more individual rights and individualism. If that changes then I will change my opinions on left wing coleectivism and right wing collectivism. I really wish people were not collectivist like you. However, I recognize that it is becoming more difficult to do and that I and everyone else is being pressured to choose sides like you have stated before. Be careful when describing Japan. It may mean that these men do not have enough money left over to spend on dating women or going to prostitutes as their job market got much worse from the 1990s on after having decades of extraordinary growth from 1946 on. Japan may have been more successful at squashing prostitution(illegal sex work) and legal sex work than say its next door neighbor South Korea. It may also mean that they define true sex like former President William Jefferson Clinton in which it is only penis and vagina and nothing else. Japanese law defines prostitution as paying for penis in vagina sex. While handjobs, titjobs, blowjobs and anal sex are technically speaking legal even if frowned upon by government authorities and Japanese people especially Japanese women. I agree with you about socially ostracizing men who have difficulties relating with women and getting sex.
doclove 2018-03-01 03:30:37
@ Jack Outside the Box Please pay attention to what I said to joelsuf above as well as what gang has said above. They make good arguments. Did you ever notice that where prostitution is persecuted that there is less sex for most people especially men and wonder why? Apparently not and how thoughtless of you. Truly sex positive people would be generous with their knowledge and train those less fortunate than themselves to be better at having sex within reasonable limits such as taking once a week for 12 weeks to train them as an example. Form that matter truly sex positive people would have sex with those who others would rarely if ever have sex with within reasonable limits like not having sex with dangerous crazy people, as no one should risk their lives to be sex positive. Any thing else is an alpha fuks person like you and your girlfriend. It is ok to be an alpha fuks person, but please at least admit who you and she are to yourselves then once both of you are honest with yourselves then you can be honest with the rest of the world. Since you you say you are into sincereity then please be sincere with yourself. Thanks for playing and see you again next time,
Jack Outside the Box 2018-03-01 05:10:15
I think I've answered plenty of your questions, Doclove. Now you answer two of mine: 1. Are you truly neutral about whether a woman you're having sex is wildly enthusiastic or acts like a dead body during sex? 2. Do you truly believe that those of us who have a preference for women who don't just lay there in bed like dead bodies have this preference because we are white knight manginas who want validation from women? If so, do you recommend we stop caring and fuck, with equal enthusiasm on our parts, the women who act like dead bodies during sex because we shouldn't care about female validation?
Marty 2018-03-01 14:59:26
just lay there in bed like dead bodiesYou can't keep using this sort of term in a discussion about paid sex. This is just not accurate. Even the worst hookers don't do this. The better ones are just as good if not better than any ONS you would have. Their motivation might be different. Which is really the issue for you. But it is dumb to keep saying all hookers are like fucking a dead body or a sex doll. Its just not reality.
Antekirtt 2018-03-01 16:09:57
@Marty: I think we all have Jack in an undeclared tap out already from points made quite early in the thread that he never properly addressed, especially the market and parsimony argument against the idea that escorts can have no attraction to their clients. See for example my comments below (others made similar points). Which is why he's making surprisingly weak strawmen even for him at this point. His claim was absurd from the start. https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/02/19/14-types-nonmonogamy/#comment-362588 https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/02/19/14-types-nonmonogamy/#comment-362734 https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/02/19/14-types-nonmonogamy/#comment-362752 https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/02/19/14-types-nonmonogamy/#comment-363196
Jack Outside the Box 2018-03-01 16:49:42
Marty, I know. The reason I'm asking Doclove those questions is because he stated that you shouldn't care how a woman reacts in bed, because if you do, you're seeking her validation. The logical conclusion of his argument - sex is exclusively a physical instinct, not an emotional one - is that we shouldn't be seeking female validation at all (because that would make us white knight betas). That means, we should be completely neutral towards a woman's bedroom reactions and fuck the woman who pretends to be a dead body AND the wildly enthusiastic one with equal enthusiasm on our part. I intend to prove that no man - absent the sociopath - actually believes this. We all enjoy women moaning and having a great time in bed. If this is "seeking female validation," then, according to Doclove's own logic, we are all white knight betas, which is absurd.
doclove 2018-03-02 03:55:54
@ Jack Outside the Box You have not answered enough of my questions, but in a turnabout of destroying your arguements then I will answer yours. I thought I made myself clear above and these should be moot points. I see that I will have to double down and make them so. You also read into things that are not there and insinuate things about what I have said that are not true. 1. I prefer to have sex with women who are enthusiastic. However, I only do so when a little hungry for sex. When I am starved for sex, unenthusiastic even "DEAD or barely moving Starfish" sex is preferable to the starvation. of sex as long as she consents even minimally consents. Enthusiasm and wild desire from a woman are preferred for sex but are not necessary for me as long as she minimally consents. Most men I have met think like I do. Some men do not care one way or another about a woman's enthusiasm. Some men like you are at the opposite end of the spectrum and want enthusiastic consent and extreme wild desire like you. Now STPO LYING about how I think that most men regard sex as an exclusive instinct as I never said that. I said that for women sex is an emotion first and an instinct to satisfy second and for most men it is the opposite in the above comment. The corralllary is that for most men sex is an instinct first and an emotion second. Joelsuf said that it was an instinct for both in his response to me( and I don't think he ever stated that it was an exclusive instinct for both or either). If you are one of the few men who it is an emotional thing first and an instinct second or not all then you are different from most men and can not relate to their experiences. You can relate even less if your sexual urges are completely satisfied if they be exclusively or primarily emotional and you get your cravings for sex fully satisfied. For some men sex is a pure instinct to satisfay with no emotional component to satisfy. Most men like me believe that sex is mostly an instinct to satisfy with some emotional component to satisfy, but that the instinct must be satisfied first and more often as well as the if forced to choose between the instinct for sex and the emotion of sex then the instinct for sex should be chosen over the emotion of sex. Some men like you believe that sex is an emotion to satisfy first or exclusively 2. I never implied nor exclusively said how you should conduct your sex life. Nor have I done so with any man. I offer advice and state what the advantages and disadvantages are. I am like Snuggy Bear talking to Starsky and Hutch when I say, " I lay it out then you decide how to play it out". Yes, I do recommend that a man fuck a woman with as much skill and enthusiasm as possible whether she is skilled or enthusiastic or not. Do you know why? I believe that a man should do his best no matter what unlike you. Not always but quite often the STARFISH woman turns into a raging tiger in the bed if I do or you do or some other man does. That's why. Yes I know sometimes I and other break down and get up and walk away and that usually has them coming back more enthusiastic and eager to please because nearly women are shocked when you pull an erect penis out of their vagina, mouth, anus, hands and cleavage if their breasts are big enough because they get the script flipped and role reversal on them. They then realize that they should do more. So you have proven nothing with your insinuations. I will take it that you tacitly know and agree with what I am about to state in this paragraph if you do not answer my questions which you have steadfastly refused to answer. Generally speaking men romantically love women more than women romantically love men on average. You think it is fine for men to be humiliated and denied sex if they have insufficient GAME skills as well as you think it is ok to stigmatize men and prohibit prostitution. Do men romantically love women more than women romantically love women. What is to be done for those men who either can not or will not learn GAME? Should they be prohibited from prostitution? Should they stigmatized for having sex with prostitutes? Your ideas about it being socialism for men to pay prostitutes for sex is false. If the government were giving a man a stipend to exclusively pay for sex then you would be 100% correct. If the government gave him entertainment money then you would be mostly correct if he did so because he could spend money entertaining himself in some other way than prostitution. However, most men have a job or their own business which they work for their salary or wages do if they go to prostitutes for sex it is being capitalistic no matter how much you hate it. Your feelings have no relevance here and only facts and logic do. I gave a better argument above of why men should try to not use prostitution and try to learn GAME for sex than you. Learning Game is learning how to sell one's penis. It is best to do this so you diversify your options for having sex and prostitution becomes a backup you do not need. If a man knows how to sell his penis to a woman then he can have sex whether he is rich or poor. I did state that prostitution is good for men even if they never use it because he knows as long as he has enough money then he can get sex and have stronger frame with women because it causes him to think that he has an abundance mentality. You lost and I won. Now go home. Lick your wounds. Come back smarter and better like me.
joelsuf 2018-03-02 06:08:03
We all enjoy women moaning and having a great time in bed. If this is “seeking female validation,” then, according to Doclove’s own logic, we are all white knight betas, which is absurd.That is acquiring sex for physical means. Catching feelings/one itis, or being able to brag about the sex you had to your buddies, that's what I mean by emotional means. The latter being way more common than the former.
Damn near every woman you meet not only in the West, but also in the former Warsaw pact countries, Latin America and 1st world East Asian countries is a mid 20th century feminist like your mother to one degree or another or one way or another.Well general women's rights isn't a horrible thing and was necessary for a freer world, but the man hating is where it starts to become hypocrisy. So if this is what you are observing I need to ask: Do you feel threatened by it? I certainly do not.
Right wing collectivism may be bad, and I aknowledge this fact, however it is the only defense against left wing collectivism which is worse and will strip away more individual rights and individualism.There is no "less bad" when it comes to this. One side aims to make things inconvenient for a certain group equally. The right wants things to be inconvenient for nonwhites and women and think that will "save the world." The left wants things to be inconvenient for whites and men and think that will "save the world." In both cases, the individual is left to die, on an existential level. With the last ounce of individualism our culture allows me to have, I tend to agree and disagree with arguments and the observations with both, whilst also knowing that there is no uncomplicated way to handle certain things without using excessive government force/invading privacy.
Gang 2018-03-03 09:03:19
Gang – If you post a comment and it doesn’t appear, wait 24 hours before trying to post that same comment again. Don’t keep posting repeated comments over and over again. You create work for me when you do that. Thanks in advance.Sorry again about that, indeed it's the 2nd or 3rd time this occurs to me and waited only a few minutes, I didn't wait 24h, my mistake.
Anon 2018-03-03 15:49:20
The reason I’m asking Doclove those questions is because he stated that you shouldn’t care how a woman reacts in bed, because if you do, you’re seeking her validation.
We all enjoy women moaning and having a great time in bed.There are all kinds of men. Some of them go so far as to enjoy fucking other men and not women! There most definitely are men that prefer their women to play dead.
If this is “seeking female validation,” then, according to Doclove’s own logic, we are all white knight betas, which is absurd.I was the one who brought up female validation, and it was in response to you stating your preference towards married women. You didn't attribute that to their moaning louder. You said the very existence of the husband turned you on through her preferring you to him. I would understand you if the issue were someone's denial of well established facts. But why can't you accept that there are men that like something in sex that differs from what you like?
Antekirtt 2018-03-03 16:40:09
You said the very existence of the husband turned you on through her preferring you to him.Even that is a pretty shaky claim. A woman who is no longer fucking her guy often or at all / is no longer attracted to him isn't "choosing another guy over him" in the sense that the first guy has objectively lower sexual worth. He just had exhausted his attractiveness window to her due to sexual boredom (which occurs even faster if they're "monogamous"). A monogamous guy who's years into a relationship is already at a huge disadvantage to any outsider in terms of his attractiveness to his girlfriend. And if the other guy is genuinely less worthy for an obvious reason eg he got fat / didn't age well / doesn't workout /lost his sex drive, then it's a pretty shitty standard to be happy to have bested, now isn't it?
Anon 2018-03-03 19:07:40
Even that is a pretty shaky claim.Now you're falling into the same trap JOTB does. He says this turns him on. Who are we to judge what turns him on? It's not like there are "right" and "wrong" kinks, as opposed to statements of fact which are either true or false.
Antekirtt 2018-03-04 08:16:07
Who are we to judge what turns him on?Ah, if that's the idea then yeah, anyone is free to feel turned on for any irrational reason they please. I was only stating that the reason is pretty irrational, because it actually doesn't show superior smv or sexual merit. It is legitimate to turn someone's reasons against them if they claim them to be objective; if they don't, then more power to you brah, use whatever mantra you want.
doclove 2018-03-05 04:06:05
@ Joelsuf Were the Conservatives more dangerous to individualism and liberty in the past than the Liberals? Yes. Could the Conservatives be more dangerous to individualism and liberty in the future than the Liberals? Yes. Are the Conservatives more dangerous than the Liberals to individuals now and the for-seeable future? No. If you do not see that then I really don't know what to tell you, There are many examples of this.
doclove 2018-03-05 04:15:40
@ Jack Outside the Box If you do not see that the reigning left corporatism we have now in the USA and the rest of West with particularly fearsome puritanical feminist supremacist viscious idiotic matriarchical cuntocratic ideas reigning supreme is essentially enhancing your sex life, then you are being foolish, myopic and delusional. I know that Feminist Supremicism is an underling "Company" of the Leftism "Corporation" and that Leftism is more responsible than Feminist Supremicism. How can either you or you girlfriend truly be sex positive if you are unwilling to train others how to be better in bed or even be generous and give sex to those who are misfortunate enough not to have sex? The answer is you can not. There are advantages and disadvantages to prostitution like anything else. I doubt that your slutty girlfriend is better in bed than most prostitutes because while your girlfriend may have gone through 100-500 penises the prostitute goes through 1000 to 5000 penises. Practice makes perfect and prostitutes have more practice than your girlfriend on average. Shame on you for being a Puritanical Feminist Supremicist concerning prostiution
Le Bic Mac 2018-03-08 01:12:22
There´s also the French way - very different from the Mediterranean. This seems to work really well if all involved are reasonable (including - and maybe above all - the mistresses). "There’s an unspoken agreement: the husband does everything to respect his wife and make sure she doesn’t find out, and she does everything she can not to know anything." Taken from here: https://www.connexionfrance.com/Archive/Men-relationships-and-infidelity