A picture series from here: Hilary Duff – balcony blowjob proposal candids in Hawaii, February 19, 2010
Reality shows, which have dominated TV since 2000, often celebrate different types of human scum. While most are merely cringeworthy or slow trainwrecks, there are a few where it is impossible to feel any sympathy for the “stars”.
Operation Repo is one such show. It is not possible to feel any empathy, let alone sympathy, for fat ugly scum who repossess peoples stuff. This is especially true in an era where the “capitalists” who “own the world” are being propped up by taxpayer money. There is something obscene about a society that degrades and screws over average people, while rewarding the well connected.
Here is the show website: Operation Repo
Here is a clip that foreshadows what will happen one day.. hopefully to completion.
Even though this article is from The Guardian, I could not have said it better.
Let me highlight a few paragraphs..
Plato first argued the case for proportionality – and it is telling that justice in so many cultures is signified by a pair of scales. Retribution should be proportional to the crime. But so should reward be proportional to our extra effort. It is a fundamental part of human beings’ hard-wiring. The scales symbolically declare that justice is getting our due and proportional deserts.
Functional societies require a high degree of fairness, unless the society is in a period of high growth (USA 1960- 1970). Barely functional violent societies can exist, but they are will either not last long (western roman empire) or not go anywhere (india, china, japan).
The irony is that capitalism if it is run properly is a means for people to get just that. If they are brilliant entrepreneurs or innovators then it is fair that they should get their proper due desert and make considerable if proportional profits. In fact, inventions are never the result of one individual light bulb moment but the consequence of a lot of social and public investment. Thus a proportion of the profit should go to the state as taxation, as its due desert for having collectively invested in the infrastructure and cumulative stock of knowledge from which invention draws – not least so it can repeat the exercise for the next generation. But the big point is that big rewards are justifiable if they are in proportion to big efforts – because big effort grows the economic pie for everyone. Profit is ethical to the extent it is proportionate to effort and not due to good luck or use of brute power. Taxation is ethical to the extent it is proportional to what the state has collectively provided.
Society depends on most people following the rules, without coercion. But people will not follow rules that are highly unfair, and coercion has its limits.
Few capitalists think like this. Instead they like to characterise themselves as individualistic hunter-gatherers, being able to eat what they kill – and if they kill more than the next man or woman, they get to eat more. My property is my own because I and I only have sweated my brow to get it; I have autonomy over it and no claim to share it, especially by the state, is legitimate. This is the cult of the investment banker or financial trader out to cut the next big deal or be a nanosecond faster than his or her competitor to buy or sell some financial instrument. It is only fair, they argue, that half a bank’s revenues should get paid out in bonuses after each year’s trading. The hunter-gatherers have to divide the kill once a year – and the annual bonus-fest is a kind of primitive celebration of their prowess.
Greedy people like to rationalize their greed.
But not even hunter-gatherers hunted alone; they worked in packs and teams. And we also know that they quickly worked out the role of luck in being successful They might not find animals to kill, not because they were not good hunters but because unaccountably there were no animals to kill. But if they returned to the cave empty-handed they would expect to share in some other hunters’ kill. Co-operation and a fair hand out of the spoils was an essential part of the hunter-gathers’ existence – if only for survival’s sake. The primitives knew that if you don’t run an economy and society fairly it quickly becomes dysfunctional, but this is not part of today’s banker worldview or culture.
Capitalist like to say they are clever when they are merely lucky.
Moreover the trading in money is not so much more valuable than any other form of economic activity that it deserves such privileges. This is not God’s work. It is an old-fashioned rigged market by a bunch of smart insiders who have managed to get away with it for decades because hard questions were never asked about fairness or proportionality. And to add insult to injury, when the sky fell in on what was a gigantic Ponzi scheme it was governments, backed by ordinary taxpayers, that launched a bail out to save the economy – but in the process also bankers.
Rigged systems can exist as long they do not overextend themselves.
Of course, intellectual mistakes were made about risk management techniques. Assumptions were made about economic behaviour that proved wholly wrong. But at the heart of the financial crisis – and the criticism of the recovery – lay disregard for fairness. The bankers cast themselves as hunter-gatherers who owed nothing to anybody and could eat what they killed careless of tomorrow. Banks carelessly ran down the capital at the core of their balance sheets, not replenishing and adding to it – but paying it out in dividends and bonuses. If they had paid out just 20% less, calculates the Bank of England, between 2000 and 2007 they would have reserved more than the state paid out in bail-out capital.
The problem is hubris, even more so than greed.
Bankers understood none of this then, and little of it now. They have a tin ear to fairness. But that was the consequence of allowing markets to be as rigged and jerrymandered as the financial markets have been – with no leverage caps, no rules on derivative trading, easily circumvented rules on capital and an anything-goes attitude to financial trading. Capitalism was run abusing all the principles of fairness. When cave dwellers were unfair, they died. When capitalism is unfair, we have financial crashes. Ethics and justice, it turns out, are the indispensable values to underpin successful capitalism.
We are soon going to find out how that story ends.
A few quotes by the character of Dr. Manhattan from the movie/ comic “Watchmen”. I agree with these ones..
A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?
This statement is much more meaningful than you realize. Consider bacterial spores, prions or even two identically damaged cells, where one will recover and another that will die.. the line between ‘live and ‘not live’ is far hazier than you realize.
There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet.
We perceive time as linear and unidirectional. The important words are “we perceive”
I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photo of oxygen to a drowning man.
Most human talk and perform actions that do not address the real problem, because no one is confident they can succeed.
I’ve walked across the sun. I’ve seen events so tiny and so fast they hardly can be said to have occurred at all, but you… you are a man. And this world’s smartest man means no more to me than does its smartest termite.
Required reading for any person, especially western civilization-type white guys. In terms of impact, humans are as important as termites. We may, one day, have as large an impact on earth as blue green algae.
The morality of my activities escapes me.
Morality is what humans like to believe.
Even if I can’t predict where I’m going to find you, I can turn these walls to glass.
You are only human!
She says I am like a god now. I tell her I don’t think there is a god. And if there is I’m nothing like him.
Because I do not care about humans, unlike the gods conceptualized by humans.
Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.
Causality and randomness are a bitch!
In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon.
Why must I save the world I no longer have any stake in?
If you want to behave like apes, don’t expect me to care.
I am tired of Earth. These people. I’m tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
I am tired of humans.
Anything that can happen does happen.
Will explain this in a separate post. Potentially the most brilliant line in the book/ movie.
I can change almost anything… but I can’t change human nature.
It is not that he cannot change human nature, but the result would be more problematic than you realize.
Laurie Juspeczyk: Everyone will die!
Dr. Manhattan : And the universe will not even notice.
But most humans cannot face that reality.
They claim their labors are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated by horrors. Perhaps the world is not made. Perhaps nothing is made. A clock without a craftsman. It’s too late. Always has been, always will be. Too late.
I do not care about suicidal apes.
What do you think?
When most people read about the historical development of modern computing, they hear about Babbage, Turing, ENIAC, Colossus, IBM 305, IBM 360s. They rarely hear about the Z1, Z3, Z4, Z5. These machines and their creator are overlooked for many reasons, including the fact that they were developed in the Third Reich and their creator was not an anglo-WASP. However the machine I am writing this post on and the one you reading it on, and indeed any digital computer is not the descendants of babbage differential engines, ENIACs or similar machines. They are the descendants of Zuse’s machines and concepts.
You can read more about him here: Konrad Zuse
From the wikipedia entry..
Konrad Zuse (pronounced [ˈkɔnʁat ˈtsuːzə]; 22 June 1910 Berlin – 18 December 1995 Hünfeld) was a German engineer and computer pioneer. His greatest achievement was the world’s first functional program-controlled Turing-complete computer, the Z3, in 1941 (the program was stored on a punched tape). He received the Werner-von-Siemens-Ring in 1964 for the Z3.
Note the date- 1941, the fact that it was Turing-complete and the program was stored on punched tape as opposed to hardwired into the machine like the ENIAC and Colossus.
Zuse also designed the first high-level programming language, Plankalkül, first published in 1948, although this was a theoretical contribution, since the language was not implemented in his lifetime and did not directly influence early languages. One of the inventors of ALGOL (Rutishauser) wrote: “The very first attempt to devise an algorithmic language was undertaken in 1948 by K. Zuse. His notation was quite general, but the proposal never attained the consideration it deserved.”
Note the attempt to demean his contribution to science, when even the guy who created ALGOL considers Zuse as the first.
In addition to his technical work, Zuse founded one of the earliest computer businesses in 1946. This company built the Z4, which became the second commercial computer leased to ETH Zürich in 1950. Due to World War II, however, Zuse’s work went largely unnoticed in the UK and the U.S.; possibly his first documented influence on a U.S. company was IBM’s option on his patents in 1946.
His indirect influence was very likely behind IBM evolving from decimal and analog computers in the 1940s to binary, digital computers with programs as software in the early 1950s. Remember that most working computers in the world were decimal, hard-wired machines- as late as the end of the 1940s.
In the late 1960s, Zuse suggested the concept of a Calculating Space (a computation-based universe).
He suggested that the universe is a computer simulation in the 1960s, more than a couple of decades before that idea became somewhat acceptable.
He started as a design engineer at the Henschel aircraft factory in Berlin-Schönefeld but resigned a year later to build a program driven/programmable machine. Working in his parents’ apartment in 1936, his first attempt, called the Z1, was a binary electrically driven mechanical calculator with limited programmability, reading instructions from a punched tape. In 1937 Zuse submitted two patents that anticipated a von Neumann architecture. He finished the Z1 in 1938. The Z1 never worked well, though, due to the lack of sufficiently precise mechanical parts. The Z1 and its original blueprints were destroyed during World War II.
Note the similarity to modern computer architectures, but this one is from the mid 1930s!
Improving on the basic Z2 machine, he built the Z3 in 1941. It was a binary 22-bit floating point calculator featuring programmability with loops but without conditional jumps, with memory and a calculation unit based on telephone relays. The telephone relays used in his machines were largely collected from discarded stock. Despite the absence of conditional jumps, the Z3 was a Turing complete computer (ignoring the fact that no physical computer can be truly Turing complete because of limited storage size). However, Turing-completeness was never considered by Zuse (who had practical applications in mind) and only demonstrated in 1998.
A request by his co-worker Helmut Schreyer for government funding for an electronic successor to the Z3 was denied as “strategically unimportant”. In 1937 Schreyer had advised Zuse to use vacuum tubes as switching elements, who at this time considered it a crazy idea (“Schnapsidee” in his own words).
Zuse was not enamored with vacuum tubes, and preferred something more reliable. But the decision makers had no clue and did not give him enough resources.
I might add more stuff to this post later or write a second part. Lets see..
One of biggest piece of bullshit popularized by popular psychology, evolutionary psychology and delusional academics is that evolution is driven by optimization. But is it true? If you look at evolution as it has occurred, in both the biological and technological milieu, one nasty truth becomes evident.
Evolution is driven by attrition, which is often random. It is not about survival of the fittest, but the luckiest.
Optimizations at best provide more cannon fodder for attrition. Let me give you a few examples..
Trilobites: This group of creatures survived for a very long time (about 300 million years), and were fairly diverse.
Trilobites (pronounced traɪləˌbaɪt, meaning “three lobes”) are a well-known fossil group of extinct marine arthropods that form the class Trilobita. Trilobites first appear in the fossil record during the Early Cambrian period, 540 million years ago, and flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago.
Trilobites had many life styles; some moved over the sea-bed as predators, scavengers or filter feeders and some swam, feeding on plankton. Most life styles expected of modern marine arthropods are seen in trilobites, except for parasitism. Some trilobites (particularly the family Olenida) are even thought to have evolved a symbiotic relationship with sulfur-eating bacteria from which they derived food.
But they died out in great Permian–Triassic extinction event. Curiously another group occupying a similar environment survived.
Nautilus: Note that they are far less robust, less diverse and more fragile than trilobites. Heck, they even evolved less..
Nautilus (from Greek ναυτίλος, ‘sailor’) is the common name of marine creatures of cephalopod family Nautilidae, the sole extant family of suborder Nautilina. It comprises six species in two genera, the type of which is genus Nautilus. Though it more specifically refers to species Nautilus pompilius, the name chambered nautilus is also used for any species of the Nautilidae. Having survived relatively unchanged for millions of years, nautiluses represent the only living members of the subclass Nautiloidea, and are often considered “living fossils.”
Fossil records indicate that nautiluses have not evolved much during the last 500 million years. Many were initially straight-shelled, as in the extinct genus Lituites. They developed in the Cambrian period and became a significant sea predator in the Ordovician period. Certain species reached over 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) in size. The other cephalopod subclass, Coleoidea, diverged from the Nautilidae long ago and the nautilus has remained relatively unchanged since. Extinct relatives of the nautilus include ammonites, such as the baculites and goniatites. Nautiloids were much more extensive and varied 200 million years ago.
So what is it? Evolutionary adaptation/ optimization? In that scenario, the trilobites win hands down. They evolved and once literally covered the ocean floor of shallow seas and oceans, and swam in them. Some argue that they were dying out, but that is speculation. The objective fact is that the ‘P-T event’ wiped them out, ALL of them. So why are they dead and the Nautilus alive. Luck?
A few comments made by me on another blog and a previous post are the inspiration behind this post.
The question: Are there ‘markers’ of tolerable behavior in women (paid or unpaid)?
I would say.. Yes (but read the fine print). I found long ago that the willingness, response and attitude of an adult woman to being spanked had a rather strong correlation with her behavior, sexual and non-sexual. Before I go any further, let me clarify what I am talking about.
Spanking a woman is not about hitting or intimidating her. It is about something very specific, namely a woman who is a willing (and often eager) recipient of a moderately painful and humiliating spanking, mixed with sex. Why something like this would appeal to women is best left to your imagination.
I should also make some important points about such spankings:
1. Only a significant minority of women enjoy them.
2. Sensation, not damage, is the objective.
3. It has to be mixed in with sex.
4. It covers a range of sensual to punishment type spankings.
Contrary to what feminists and their defenders preach, a significant minority of women are turned on by pain and humiliation. The caveats are- it should feel ‘safe’ and it should be moderate. I am emphasizing the ‘safe feeling’ part because women are paranoid, and they have to be relaxed to enjoy things. They tend to overdo many pleasurable things, such as food, precisely because of an innate feeling of insecurity, largely due to them projecting their own behavior onto others.
So why would the willingness to get a bare bottom spanking correlate with a better attitude in adult women?
1. If she is willing to get a very pink and sore bottom from you, she is probably into you. Many who are willing to try grow from curiosity to liking it (and then almost demanding it).
2. Any woman who will willingly get over your knees, squirm, kick and sob is not too big on micromanaging her or your life. She can let go..
3. A disproportionately large percentage of women who like it, also like affection and sex afterwards. It is not just a stand alone emotional release.
4. Masculine, ball-busting, uptight and ideology obsessed women are repelled by the idea of getting spanked. It selects out women who are undesirable for other reasons.
5. A far larger % (but still a numerical minority) of women like it than have tried it seriously. Maybe it is a proxy indicator for feminine behavior, not so much submissive as less bitchy.
A word of caution: Use your rationality and common sense. I am not responsible for any problems caused by practicing anything said or implied in this post, because they are just my observations and musings. I am not responsible for your actions.
Have a look at these two NSFW picture (click to enlarge) to understand how a moderately well spanked bottom looks like.. this is a bit more than a few smacks, my estimate is about 500 medium intensity smacks after lotion pretreatment..
More in another post.
Low tech defeats high tech..
CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC TICKETS FINES (JANUARY 6, 2010)
VIOLATION / TOTAL FINE DUE $
VC 12814.6 Failure to obey license provisions / $214
VC 14600(A) Failure to notify DMV of address change within 10 days / $214*
VC 16028(A) Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance) / $796 (This fine may be reduced with proof of insurance on or after the violation date.)
21453(A) Failure to stop at a red signal / $436
Who is defining if you went over by 6 inches?
VC 22349, VC 22350 Unsafe Speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit / $214
1 km/hr above the speed limit!
VC 22349, VC 22350 Unsafe Speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit / $328
VC 22450 Failure to stop at a stop sign / $214
Even one you cannot see properly.
VC 22454(A) Passing a school bus with flashing red signals / $616
VC 23123(A) Drive using wireless phone not hands free, First offense / $148
VC 23123(A) Drive using wireless phone not hands free, For each subsequent offense / $256
VC 23123.5(A) Drive while wireless device to send, read or write text / $148
Can they tell that from you lifting your phone to change the music?
VC 23124(B) Minor drive using wireless phone / $148
VC 22500(I) Parking in a bus loading area / $976
VC 22507.8(A through C) Violation of disabled parking provisions, first offense / $976
VC 22507.8(A through C) Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense / $1876
VC 26708(A) Unlawful material on vehicle windows / $178
VC 27150(A and B) Adequate muffler required / $178
VC 27315(D and E) Mandatory use of seat belts / $148
VC 27360(A and B) Mandatory use of child passenger restraints / $436 (This fine may be reduced by completing a court authorized child seat diversion program.)
VC 27400 Headsets/Earplugs over both ears / $178
VC 27803 (A through C) Motorcycle safety helmet requirements / $178
VC 34506.3 Commercial Driver – Log book violation / $616
VC 4000(A) No evidence of current registration / $256*
VC 4159 Notify DMV of change of address within 10 days / $178*
VC 5200 Display of license plates / $178*
VC 9400 (A through C) Commercial weight fees due / $178*
* The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
There are many types of useful idiots, and this post will focus on one type- The CONservative Idiot. This is not to say that other ideologies lack useful idiots. Indeed, anybody who follows any ideology that does no benefit them, by definition, a useful idiot… a tool for someone else
However, CONservatives do occupy a special place of contempt in my mind. Many other types of idiots, such as communists, socialists and libertarians, often have an unconscious appreciation that their religion might be flawed. Conservatives have no such uncertainty, because they ‘know’ they are right. Only Feminists come close to certainty exhibited by conservative idiots.
CONservative idiots are found in every walk of life and endeavour, indeed many pass themselves off as liberals, libertarians etc. However they have a cluster of beliefs that separate them from any other ideology. If you are offended by what I have said till now, you have read nothing yet.
Here is a list..
Selfish Zero Sum Behavior:
This type of behavior is the mental basis for CONservative idiots. The problem here is not Selfishness or Zero Sum, it is their combination!
Most Abrahamic (or should we say Avaramic) religions are Zero Sum based, but they have survived for thousands of years. Their long term existence is possible only because their mandated charity, piety and social contracts counteract the worser aspects of a zero sum mentality. Selfishness is not evil by itself, however its combination with a zero-sum view of the world channel it towards optimizing fitness at the cost of others. It is this combination that makes people want to extract a bigger piece from a pie that is shrinking due to lack of cooperation.
But you cannot create or make a bigger pie without cooperation.
I could have also called that hubris. But CONservatives are especially affected by a belief in the righteousness of their cause, even if it keeps on changing to suit their greed. A CONservative will have no problem chastising others for immorality, not saving enough money or accepting government handouts- even if they are screwing a 12 year old girl while doing meth and stealing from their customers while accepting government handouts. When a CONservative fails, it was because the devil made him do it (or the whore). When a CONservative does an “immoral” thing, it is because of a momentary lapse. When others do it, it is because they are low IQ, morally debased or “beyond the grace of god”.
CONservatives have no problem justifying slavery, abuse of others, stealing and pretty much any nauseating act through an alternative interpretation of religious book or the rantings of a old dead coot. After all it is all about preserving the “west”, “civilization” or your favorite religion- never mind that your actions contradict every single precept of the ideology you pretend to defend. After all, did not jesus tell that goldman-sachs was doing gods work, or how punishing minor felonies with three strike laws was the right thing to do.
Might is Right:
If you believe that power flows from the barrel of a gun, you should pray that someone does not build or get a better gun. One of the defining flaws of CONservative thinking is a belief- “I can get away with it forever”. Combined with the other two flaws, it leads to their demise through overextension and pissing off too many people. In earlier eras this process took decades, but communication and the spread of technology have accelerated the retribution phase such that it is possible to experience the reactions to your hubris within your own lifetime, or even a generation.
It is this certainty in their ability to escape from the consequences of their actions that fuels a lot of CONservative idiots. They do not believe in the concept of system evolution or feedback. If they do, there is always the rapture or the collapse of civilization where they will be the only survivors- aka wishful thinking
Faith in Bigger Sociopaths:
CONservatives have faith in people more sociopathic than them. A white conservative man who is opposed to affirmative action will believe that his employer will not outsource his job and screw his pension. A person who believes in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps will still see being laid off at 50 as unfair. An idiot who cheats with other women will still expect his gold-digging wife to be faithful and not screw him over during a divorce. An idiot complaining about laws that encourage lending to ‘irresponsible blacks’ will nonetheless take a unserviceable mortgage and blow it on ‘toys’- the very behavior that he condemns in black people. The funny part is that he expects the bank to cut him more slack than was given to the ‘shiftless black man’.
Regurgitation of Ideas:
While CONservatives lack originality, they will happily quote a variety of books to support their views. They use the views of others to support their quests. They will happily support any well known idiot if he had said anything that might make their sociopathy seem ‘natural’. CONservatives will support any ideas that is ultimately destructive to them, and that is precisely why I seem them as pathetic.
They do not understand or want to understand that they are the targets of their own ideas, and even if they do- they think they can ‘get away with it’.
To sum it:
CONservative Idiots can then be seen as minor CONmen who think are blessed, and believe that bigger CONmen will play nice with them. That is why I use the word ‘Idiots’ after ‘CONservative’.
More in another post on this topic, and I will excoriate other ideologies in later parts of this series.
In a previous post, I talked about why paying for sex might be cheaper, and more convenient, than other options. Let me expand on this theme..
Many people who talk about ‘game’ refer to such numerical measures of beauty, 3, 5, 6.. 9 etc. They keep on talking about how game can increase the hotness of women you can have sex with. I do not disagree with that idea.
However my question is: Why should you be restricted to any level of hotness? Why should you not be able to bang any level of hotness/ sexual technique/ attitude you desire?
Let me explain with a few examples:
Example 1: You are visiting a city for a job interview, the nice hotel suite is paid for by the company. Why should you settle for a bar floozy, who has to be gamed. Why not do a little research before visiting the city and identify, arrange an escort or two. You could bang a hot bodied chick for half an hour.. and maybe enjoy her oral skills for another hour, and some more. It is a lot of fun moving between the window, shower, bed and couch. Her behind was made for doggy.. lotion and ambient light and looking over the city… good memories.
Next day, after the interview you could arrange another shorter tryst with another babe and enjoy her manual and oral skills. She was solidly built (not fat) and did things with her tits, butts and mouth that make my flight back very relaxing. Both have looks above 7, Total Cost for both- Less than 400$
Example 2: You want to bang a hot thin gal from bahama. You could game her, or just pay 240$ to have her blow and ride the hell out of you once, and shower and have her blow and doggy her while overlooking an evening lake? This one was a 8 or higher, and she looked awesome in her expensive corset.
I had her a few more times, and she was good.
Example 3: what about a hot east-european chick? A 8 or above.. going at you non-stop for over an hour. Her oral skills and stamina were unearthly. It cost me 300$.. and it was on my schedule and I had the choice to follow through with the appointment or not. She used to almost rape her clients.. and she was good. Being greeted with a very skilled hummer is never a bad idea.
Being properly blown and ridden by an 8 in an expensive looking suite with a high end jacuzzi tub and mirrors is something I would highly recommend.
Example 4:Maybe you like to try a hot MILF type. A 6 at her age, I must have spanked her shapely and slightly largish bottom a deep pink dozens of times, between amazing BJs. She charged me less as I became a regular, and it came to about 160$ a tyrst.
She often complained about her sore bottom, if we went and had a coffee afterwards (and was still usually quite pink when I used to check it)
Example 5: A 20 something semi-pro who had amazing oral skills and technique. Maybe half a dozen times. A 6-7, who cost me about 120-180$ a tryst. She also loved spankings, and I was happy to give her a very pink and tingly bottom each time.
She did give me “freebies”.
I am giving you a honest range of experiences, and could have stacked it with my ‘almost perfect experiences’. I did not have all 8-9s. Some were mediocre, a few were bad. but most left me very happy and relaxed, and ready for round 2 or 3. Not all were vaginal or anal sex, some were just BJs – but of a quality, technique and length that left me very relaxed.
I have paid for 5s with mindblowing techniques (because of good reviews) and most of them did give me amazing experiences. I have paid for 8s who were mediocre but very efficient. While it is I usually who spank those escorts who are OK with it, I have been at the receiving end a few times. I have paid for threesomes with 5-6s (200 $) and 8s (500$), though the 5-6s were far more enthusiastic and effective at cleaning my pipes.
You can get all this with game, but you can also pay for it. The best part is paid sex almost never talks back to you or is rude.
Now that you know it, is it really worth not paying for it. Why should YOU restrict your options? Will your ego feel better if you get a 6 through game, rather than an 8 who will spoil you for an hour if you pay for it.
It is your choice.. more in another post on this topic.
PS: I have made the bottoms of many naughty gals very pink and tingly. It is amazing how that a significant minority of escorts will play along with it if you are 1] younger and fitter than their average customers 2] fun and dominant and 3] she feels safe with you (as long as it is just your palm and her bottom, judicious use of oil/ lotion increases sting and redness but reduces damage).
The next post in this series is here: Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 07
Watch this one, again, in case you ever fantasize about getting married.
The best scenes:
Need I say more.. It is all like that. So you want to get hitched… huh?