Archive

Archive for the ‘Escorts’ Category

Valentine’s Day for Most of You

February 14, 2013 4 comments

I believe this impromptu performance by ‘Garfunkel and Oates’ best sums up Valentine’s Day (February 14) for most of you. The banter before the song in combination with their facial expressions and body language during the song make it a great performance.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: Escorts, LOL, YouTube

The ‘Friend-Zone’ Explained: Garfunkel and Oates

January 13, 2013 4 comments

A live performance of “I Would Never Have Sex with You” which I think is better than the webcam version of that song- largely because of the audience interaction.

It contains such lyrics as..

Cause I really like you as a friend
But there are things I can’t pretend
Know I would love you ’til the end
But there is just one problem (problem, problem)

I would never have sex with you
Believe me, you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have shown my boobs to you
But that will never happen

and here are some relevant lyrics from that song.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise
You should’ve seen it in my eyes
I kinda like some other guy
But there’s a bigger problem

I would never have sex with you
Believe me, you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have gone down on you (Kate: You would have liked it!)
But that will never happen

and the clincher.

No amount of alcohol
Could change my mind at all
Our lips will never touch
So kiss that thought goodbye

I would never have sex with you
Believe me you’d know it if I wanted to
I already would have held hands with you
But that will never happen

Enjoy! Comments?

Irrational Customs: Men Proposing to Women

December 27, 2012 25 comments

While drinking some coffee at Starbucks today I overheard the same basic conversation between two sets of women. It went something like this:

Women A: My friend X is waiting for her boyfriend Y to pop the question. They have been a couple for ‘n’ years.. yada yada

Women B: So when do you think he will do it? My friend’s boyfriend Y1 popped her(X1) the question ‘m’ months ago when they were at ‘insert vacation destination’.

Now, I should be upfront that my views on the institution of marriage have always been a bit cynical. However some aspects of that institution are more bizarre and irrational than others.

Consider the commonly accepted custom that the guy should propose to the girl- preferably under some cheesy circumstances. We have all seen elaborate marriage proposals (both creative and cringe-worthy), especially in the era of YouTube and Social Media. While I have no interest in preventing people from making fools of themselves, one question about the whole concept of marriage proposals has always bothered me.

What is the logic behind a guy creatively begging some woman to marry him, when doing so puts him at a permanent disadvantage? Isn’t that a lot like dreaming up a creative way to get a painful and chronic disease?

Throughout human history, marriage has been the shortest route to dull and increasingly infrequent sex with an aging harpy. Today, it is also the fastest way to lose money and assets though child-support and alimony. Moreover, it is no longer an institution that offers men any real support or proof of achievement as they become old.

Marriage, as it exists today, is an institution devoted to transferring money and resources from gullible men to women without even the pretense of benefiting men in any shape or form.

However, we still keep on seeing creative marriage proposals by guys to women who has ridden dozens of cocks before ‘settling’ for them. A majority of those guys also, still, believe that marrying the woman they are proposing to will partially validate the supposed benefits of getting married. In contrast, women are interested in getting married because a] they are hitting the ‘wall’, b] her other friends have ‘done it’ and c] she requires a larger income to indulge her material appetite.

If we strip away the sentimentality and bullshit from modern marriage, one thing becomes painfully obvious. There is no real advantage or gain for a man in marrying a woman he is already fucking. Even if the couple break up, the guy can always find another woman to fuck or just pay for sex by the hour. Marriage, on the other hand, makes him financially and socially vulnerable- even if the couple stay together. The woman, on the other hand, benefits immensely from marriage because it gives her more resources and leverage over the man even as her physical appeal fades into obscurity. It is therefore the woman who really needs and benefits from the institution of marriage.

The customs around marriage are, however, still grounded in the belief that it is men who require marriage more than the women.

While there may have been some truth to this belief in the era before the sexual revolution, modern contraception and feminism; that is no longer the case. Today sexual access to willing women is rather inexpensive if you can convince them that you are a cool player. Furthermore the mainstreaming of safe and high-quality paid sex in most developed countries means that even average guys can get amazing sex at much lower per-fuck rates than marriage while simultaneously avoiding long-term commitments.

I would add my observation that women have no problem sexually servicing a ‘unpredictable, ‘violent’, ‘mysterious’ or ‘in-demand’ guy for years without any offer of marriage. They will however threaten the caring, responsible, bland and ‘educated’ guy with ultimatums for ‘popping the question’.

What do you think? Comments?

Don’t be a Tool : Dec 08, 2012

December 8, 2012 37 comments

One of the common beliefs that unites almost all right-wing and left-wing minded men is that marriage (or some sort of LTR with a woman) is a goal one should aspire for. As usual, I have always been a skeptic of any such idea for one simple reason.

The institution of marriage and LTRs benefit women at the expense of men.

All long-term and non-professional relationships between men and women, especially those which can be enforced in a court of law, do disproportionately benefit women at the expense of the men. Even the traditional version of marriage did benefit wives at the expense of their husbands.

At best, men in marriages become a superficially respected beast of burden with no role or life beyond their role as a ‘provider’. Many are stupid enough to actually believe in that bullshit and define their self-worth based on their ability to ‘provide’ for ‘their’ family. Many were also stupid enough to believe that they will be somehow ‘rewarded’ for that role in their old age. But how many of you have seen that work out like that?

In traditional marriages, the superficial respect and deference shown to a husband disappeared as soon as his ability to ‘provide’ money was gone- either due to age or illness. The ugly old harpie, aka his wife, just shifted her attention to her kids so that she can live off some part of their income- obtained through kindness and guilt. The old husband quickly became an inconvenience who nobody cared about. I am therefore always amused to hear religious and traditional minded morons (men) pining for a return to ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘traditional society’.

Isn’t aspiring for indentured servitude rather stupid and pathetic?

Even the so-called ‘modern marriage’ and LTRs are no better, though the later choice is often less damaging than the former. Either way, I just don’t see the point of voluntarily enslaving yourself to a nagging and aging harpie who walks all over you just to get a few scarps of mediocre sex thrown at you- once in a while. Did I mention that social acceptance, which was useful in close communities, is now worse than useless in the atomized era we live in. Any guy with a half decent source of income can always buy better and more sex than this wife can provide- minus the attitude, drama, worthless expenditures, lies, scams, insults, threats and other assorted bullshit which constantly emanates from wives and long-term girlfriends.

Now, there are those who want to marry or have LTRs for the purpose of having kids. While that sounds like a noble plan, what is in it for the guy? Maybe you like slaving away for empty expressions of gratitude. Maybe you like paying child-support.. Who knows? You can run that thankless race and enslave yourself to provide your kids with the best home, education, toys etc. But if won’t matter as your kids won’t care once they grow up. If you don’t believe my cynical assessment- just look around you at the number of lonely old men who did everything right.

Today there is no significant difference between the old age experiences of a childless person and one who sacrificed their happiness for the sake of their kids. If anything, you are likely to suffer from useless and painful medical intervention to prolong your last few months on earth. Similarly, the future of humanity and civilization is irrelevant after you are dead. Do you think it would matter if every human being died the second after your died? Do you think the universe cares about the continued existence of human beings? Can it even care?

In my opinion, the best way to live is to maximize your gain from the system. While doing so might sound self-centered, it is hard to ignore that society is constantly trying to swindle you out of your fair share. Just stop playing by the rules of someone who is trying to exploit you and look out for your own gain- irrespective of what it might do to the rest of the dysfunctional system. After all, you live only once and nothing matters once you are dead.

What do you think? Comments?

Moderate Popularity Gets More Pussy Than High Income

October 3, 2012 29 comments

Let me start this post by asking you a question whose answer has a lot of relevance to the world we live in today.

Who gets more pussy- The guy who plays guitar in a generic cover band or the chief of neurosurgery at the local university hospital? The neighborhood drug dealer or a ivy-league educated junior partner at some ‘prestigious’ law firm?

As you might have guessed, the guitar player in a generic cover band or neighborhood drug dealer will almost always score way more, and much better, pussy than some autistic losers trying to show off their supposed importance and “high IQ” at some hospital or law firm. I can bet you that the musician and drug dealer are also far more likely to have kids and actually enjoy life than the losers who spend their best years slaving away for bigger (and equally unsuccessful) assholes for the chance of, one day, replacing them.

There are those who say that people who go into vocations such as medicine, law, finance etc are “too special” to go with the “baser instincts”. So why are they going into those vocations anyway? Do you really think that the vast majority of people who become physicians are interested in anything beyond money? Very few people become lawyers and financiers because of genuine interest or altruism. It is about the ‘protected’ money and the supposed power that comes with those jobs.

But what is all that money good for? What can it buy you?

The unpleasant reality is that the amount of money made by these autistic little-dicked losers cannot buy them what they really want. They will always be ‘that guy’ who some woman settles for after she has lost her looks and can no longer compete with younger versions of herself. However unlike previous eras, she is very likely to get bored and divorce the ‘high IQ’ loser and take away as much of his money as the system lets her get away with. She will also use the kids (if any) as emotional and legal weapons to make the loser’s life miserable? Even if they stay together, she will become increasingly sexually distant and unavailable. She will decide how to live and spend his money while the ‘high IQ” loser will follow the ugly aging cunt like a dog follows a hobo- though hobos are usually far better human beings than most women.

Some of you might say that since I buy sex from escorts, I should not criticize ‘high IQ’ losers who want lots of money. So let me be clear about one thing- it is not about the money but what you USE it for. If those ‘high IQ’ loser bought lost of sex-time with hot chicks like I do, that would be fine and very rational.

But they don’t do that!

They spend almost all of their money trying to fulfill social expectations which they hope will make them attractive to women as potential mates and the father of their children. That includes wearing the “right” clothes, buying the “right” cars, living in the “right” zipcode, hanging around with the “right” people, attending the “right” social events and expressing the “right” opinions. All of this to get something that the struggling musician and semi-popular drug dealer can get for a far lower cost, or none at all.

The tragically funny part of this story is that the washed up cock-hoppers who finally let these ‘high IQ’ losers put their tiny dick into their shriveled cunt are in for the money. They have no real sexual interest in their autistic worshipers and will cheat on him or dump his ass for a shot at sex with a musician or drug dealer.

What do you think? Comments?

Bitches Like Drama: Sep 1, 2012

September 1, 2012 25 comments

This post is about an incident I recently witnessed, so some of the personal details have been altered or hidden.

One of the frequent issues of discussion on blogs about ‘game’ concerns whether woman adjust their expectations to the age-linked decrease in their attractiveness and value to settle for a guy who is nice, financially stable but boring. There are some who believe that women can shed their bad boy attraction and move on to more traditional guys. My experience and observation suggests that most women can do that for a few years, but eventually the desire for excitement overcomes their desire for stability.

Imagine a couple who are now in their early 40s. The guy has a stable but boring job that pays him 200k and requires frequent travel, the woman is more educated than him but cannot get a well-paying job and is largely dependent on his money to live a nice lifestyle. Did I mention that the couple have no kids or plans to have them in the future.

Their relationship started with a one-night stand after said woman had been burned by a series of exciting but fucked up relationships. She was not into him, but the guy chased her and she found peace and calm in that relationship. It helped that he could provide a good lifestyle and support her in other ways. Things puttered along for almost 7 years and then woman (now in her early 40s) breaks up with him because she found the relationship too boring and staid. She felt that he would be happier if he found a woman who liked that sort of boring stuff.

The breakup is amicable and they still live together. She will supposedly move out after finding a job and an affordable apartment.

It is likely that, over the years, she has cheated with guys who make far less than him and care far less about her than him. The guys she will screw after the breakup will also very likely make less than him and care far less about her.

So you see- even older and intelligent women now choose drama, excitement and guys who treat them like shit over those who treat them very well and unconditionally provide for them.

What do you think? Comments?

An Odd Insight from 30-40 yr Old Photos

August 11, 2012 29 comments

I often spend time googling for photos of anything that catches my fancy. The subjects of my searches range from some particular tropical island, specific food item, animal, plant, old machinery, building etc. During the course of my whimsical googling for pictures about hairstyles and fashions from the 1960-80s, I made an interesting observation.

There was a time, not long ago, when even average looking guys had non-obese and decent looking girlfriends or wives.

Initially I thought that this observation was the result of superficial searching (top 5-10 pages of results) which might bias it towards more attractive chicks. But even detailed and random searches of digitized photo albums of average people from that era did not change my initial observation. For reasons that I will not speculate about right now, the median young woman from 30-40 years ago was significantly thinner and more feminine than her present day equivalent.

The other part of my observation was that even average looking guys with a poor sense of dress and style were going out or married to such women. Now I am sure that there was lots of partner-hopping and ‘experimentation’ in the 1970s-80s, but it is obvious that even average looking guys were frequently tapping some quality ass. Fast forward to today, and you see a different picture. Even average chubby chicks don’t want to be in LTRs, or seen in public, with guys that are not famous, infamous or “hot” unless she can use him as a walking ATM.

Today even non-obese, 6 foot plus guys with decent jobs have trouble finding and maintaining ‘relationships’ with plain but non-obese women. Young men who would have been a catch during their parents generation now spend a lot of the free time fapping to online porn, playing video games and screwing around on smartphones. The majority who try to find women for regular sex and or relationships seem to have, at best, sporadic success in obtaining willing female company.

Apparently, the ‘standards’ and demands of the median young woman has increased at the same rate as her weight and masculinity.

But why? What do you think? Comments?

James Holmes Was Likely Not Nuts

July 25, 2012 8 comments

After reading a few more news articles about Jason Holmes, I can say with a high degree of certainty that he was not any odder than your average guy. Here is why-

He used escorts! While some people on alt-right and ‘game’ sites have speculated that he was celibate or virginal, it appears that he used a different route to get pussy. Ok, so he probably did not fuck whores every night (too expensive) but it is not like he was a shut in either. His adultfriendfinder.com and match.com profile suggests that he was actively looking for women

Holmes was no stranger to sex web sites … and sources tell us he also frequented a message board where potential johns posted reviews for hookers in the Colorado area. We found the message board … and discovered several posts written under James’ supposed screen name … in which he details multiple sexual encounters with different prostitutes.

TMZ spoke to three of the women Holmes supposedly reviewed. Hooker #1 told us she meets with lots of men and couldn’t confirm she ever did business with James. Hooker #2 said Holmes “looked very familiar” but couldn’t say for certain if he was a client. But Hooker #3 was POSITIVE she had met up with Holmes … not once, but twice … as recently as August 2011.

He was smart enough to make himself look mentally ill. Think about it, why would any person send his plans out to a shrink working in a university? He knew that most people in those positions usually ignore mail from people they don’t know, if they collect it regularly at all. The guy had a very clear vision of what he was trying to achieve.

The man accused of killing a dozen people at a midnight screening of the ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ sent a journal detailing the rampage to a University of Colorado psychiatrist prior to the attack, only for it to go untouched in a campus mailroom, according to a Fox News report. The diary of 24-year-old James Holmes — “full of details about how he was going to kill people” — was discovered Monday by authorities investigating another package at the school’s Anschutz medical campus in Aurora, a law enforcement official told the network. The source also said that the package had been in the mailroom since July 12.

He planned the whole thing for months. I believe that his planning started before his less than stellar performance in his PhD program. The possibility that his loss of interest in academia preceded his planning is looking very likely. And we all know how well he was dressed and prepared for his theater shootout.

Holmes apparently had prepared the attack at the Aurora theater well in advance, receiving multiple deliveries by mail for four months to his home and school and buying thousands rounds of ammunition on the Internet, Oates said. “He had a high volume of deliveries,” Oates said. “We think this explains how he got his hands on the magazine, ammunition,” he said, as well as the rigged explosives in his apartment.

While many people and so-called “experts” are still pretending that he was mentally ill, the evidence strongly points towards very careful and systematic planning. Anybody who can concoct and systematically execute such a long and convoluted plan is not nuts. You might also remember that his last adultfinder profile had something along the lines of “will you visit me in prison”? Moreover, he carefully covered his intentions and planning from others around him.

I am curious to know if he frequented ‘game’ or manosphere type websites, blogs and bulletin boards- because i have a gut feeling that he did.

What do you think? Comments?

More Money and Less Sex

June 26, 2012 27 comments

Over many years of viewing amateur-generated porn, I have noticed one trend that is rarely discussed.

Amateurs who make porn are usually young and poor or middle-class.

Pretty much all amateur sex seems to occur in messy room, on or under cheap bed-sheets and worn out comforters, with a background of empty beer bottles, overflowing ashtrays and half-smoked joints. Even the other stuff in the room- from sound systems, computers to laptops and TVs is average. It seem that people with clean rooms, quality comforters, high thread-count cotton sheets and high-end home appliances are conspicuously absent from the amateur porn scene.

But why are people who live an upper-middle class, or better lifestyle, seldom seen in amateur porn?

Some of you might say that upper-middle class or rich people are older and therefore have less sex due to oh.. low hormone levels. OK, that explains the relative infrequency of 50- and 60- year olds having sex on camera. But what about their kids, who are in the ‘right’ age range? Surely, we should be seeing quite a few pictures of their children doing it on camera? But expensive rooms, nice beds, leather couches, posh hotel rooms, new dorm apartments, expensive cars are seldom seen in amateur-generated porn.

Some of you might say that upper-middle class people have ‘old fashioned’ values and mores which prevent them from recording or distributing pictures or videos of themselves having sex. But that runs contrary to the suave, ultra-secular and progressive image that these people try to push- often desperately. Others might say that they are afraid of being recognized because of their high-profile jobs, public image etc- but we have had software like Photoshop to easily blur incriminating parts of a picture for over 15 years. The relative rarity of rich people, as a percentage of the population, might make some sense. But 10-15% of the population is upper middle-class, so expecting 10% of the amateur porn to look like it was shot in a nice suburban house is not unreasonable.

So what is behind the lack of well-off people making amateur porn in an era when it could be done without the limitations, repercussions and other problems that might have explained its absence in previous eras?

I have a theory. It goes something like this.. To make amateur porn you have to first have sex with another willing and enthusiastic human being.

The vast majority of people who live in nice suburban or exurban houses are too occupied with studying for multiple degrees, working hard and competing against each other to enjoy things like sex. These highly evolved beings look down upon the baser pleasures of life such as sex. They would rather spend their time prostituting themselves for a little more money so they can buy more stuff and put on airs to hopefully impress people who don’t give a shit.

Moreover, these avid and hopeful social climbers are not very good at invoking lust and desire in their potential sexual partners. When was the last time you heard a woman gushing over an engineer? Do women see doctors as anything beyond a submissive bitch attached to a fat paycheck? Isn’t that also true for most lawyers? Aren’t women who marry high-flying executives looking for nice cars, expensive furnishings, expensive vacations and big houses? When was the last time you heard a man get an erection because of his woman’s intelligence, education or status? Isn’t it usually the opposite?

But wait.. You too can enjoy expensive, infrequent and mediocre sex with scheming partners by becoming (or aspiring to become) a member of the upper-middle class in western countries.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Women Have Become Fatter AND More Choosier

June 13, 2012 22 comments

Much of my free time is spent surfing the web. Over the course of many years, I have seen many interesting things and noticed patterns that are not that obvious. This post is about one of the not-so-obvious patterns, namely that women have gotten fatter and choosier over the last 3 decades.

It all started with links to photographs of bizarre hair and dress styles from the 1970s and 1980s. While many of the styles from that era are truly bizarre and not worthy of emulation, I noticed two other trends in those photographs.

1. Until the mid-1980s even average women were quite slim and pretty. I am not implying that all women in that era were supermodels or even hot, but the majority were thin and attractive enough to fuck without resorting to mental tricks to justify the decision.

2. The men in those pictures were not particularly handsome, super masculine or even that well dressed. It seemed that even a fairly average guy in that era could get a reasonably attractive and slim girlfriend or wife.

This got me thinking- Why have women become fatter and more choosier over the last three decades? I could understand if they had become hotter and more choosier (more intrinsic value = more choosier) or fatter and less choosier (less intrinsic value = less choosier).

But how can a group lose intrinsic value while become more choosier? Something did quite not add up.. Now, there are already many theories on the intertubes about how women can become fatter and more choosier at the same time. Most of them revolve around how the status consciousness of women prevents them from accepting a relationship with an average guy at their level of attractiveness, even if they themselves are below average. There is, however, one problem with any theory based on changes in the status consciousness of women. It goes something like this- Women have always been supremely status conscious and narcissistic. It is hard to go faster if the vehicle is already at its maximum speed. Therefore we must consider other explanations for this phenomena.

While laws that are heavily tilted in the favor of women and a generalized anti-male social climate can explain some of the behavioral shifts, they cannot explain why the shift seems to accelerating rather than stabilizing at a new equilibrium. There are those who believe that technological changes such as online dating and facebook are to blame- but once again, the chronology and speed of the change in women’s attitudes and the date of introduction and wide-spread use of various attention-whoring technologies does not add up. Let me remind you that the internet was not that big of an influence on women in the late 1980s- early 2000s.

Now, let me tell you my theory about the real culprit behind this change. Are you ready?

Did you notice that the 2 points I made at the beginning of this post also used to once apply to black Americans. There was a time when most black women in the USA were not clinically obese nor was it necessary for a black guy to act hyper-masculine to get them. But then something changed and black women kept putting on more weight and it became harder for the average black guy to get their attention.

Some alt-right morons believe that civil rights movement of the 1960s was behind the destruction of black families. Other morons blame it on government policies that subsidized young and single black mothers. However statistics suggests otherwise.. The vast majority of black women are gainfully employed, as they have always been. So what changed?

Two things.. The first was the negative effect of exporting manufacturing jobs and the war on drugs on black men in general. The second and probably more important change was that an average black woman could now make enough money to support herself and her kids. In my opinion, it was the second change that made it possible for average black women to simultaneously not care about their general appearance while simultaneously demanding hyper-masculine men.

The reason that white women in the 1980s started behaving like black women in the 1960s was that they went down the same path as far as income and social expectations are concerned. In a previous era, white women did not usually work full-time after marriage and their husbands had relatively stable livelihoods. However as the 1980s wore on, both these assumptions underwent the same changes which the black community had experienced two decades earlier. To put it bluntly-

Women who can earn enough to live comfortably will pay lesser and lesser attention to their looks while simultaneously demanding ever more hyper-masculine men for sex.

The reason they behave in this manner is that they can get away with it- for a couple of decades, at least. Face it, a woman with a decent lifelong job has no reason to settle for a guy she considers less than “optimal”. The hypergamous tendency of women also tends to make things worse- as far as men are concerned.

What do you think? Comments?

The Cock Carousel as Art

June 11, 2012 19 comments

The idea of women having casual sex with multiple men beginning in their mid-teens and continuing until their mid-thirties (or beyond) is known as the riding the ‘cock carousel’ on many blogs. This artsy photograph depicts the concept rather well, if in somewhat of an exaggerated manner.

What do you think? Comments?

People and Relationships Don’t Improve with Age

May 27, 2012 8 comments

The effort that humans routinely put into deluding themselves has never ceased to amaze me. Consider the following as a cautionary example of what the human “mind” can come up with. You must have heard numerous people say something long the following lines..

Guy X used to chase many women when he was younger. But you cannot keep on chasing them as you age and sexual desire decreases blah.. blah.. hormones blah.. blah.. So he started settling down. blah.. blah.. Now he is kinda happy. blah.. blah..

While the above mentioned meta-story might seem reasonable it is anything but that. I could attack it on many levels, but I prefer to start by stabbing at the heart of this narrative. In case you did not realize, the meta-story is meant to CON listeners or readers into believing that.

1. Phenomena reflect the natural order or patterns of nature.

2. Behavioral patterns remain constant, regardless of changes in the external environment.

3. People change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age.

Do you see the rational deficiencies inherent in these beliefs? Let us dissect them, starting with belief # 1 aka the ‘natural patterns’ fallacy.

As I have said in many of my previous posts, nothing in the universe is natural or unnatural. If it is feasible, it will happen and the only question then is – how often (probability). Multi-cellular organisms recognizable to us have been around for barely 500 million years. So are the plants and animals around us ‘natural’? Saying that anything is reflective of any ‘order’ or ‘pattern’ in nature is the secular version of belief in a god aka religion. No overarching super-human entity or force drives human to form relationships, create functional societies or even exist. They happen because they can happen under a given set of conditions. Furthermore, these complex systems are dependent on external conditions- some of which are influenced by internal feedback.

Whether people form long-term relationships, act cooperatively in reasonably functional societies or even want to keep on living depends on a complex and changing matrix of options and possibilities. Let us not forget that those who are old today grew up in a world that was rather different from the one we now inhabit. Their formative years and life trajectories were influenced by a different set of options, resources and possibilities. What seems ‘natural’, and ‘inevitable’ to them is often neither.

I am not implying that we have conquered aging, death or the desire for human company. My suggestion is that the nature, context, experience and possibility matrix for all of the above has changed to such an extent that extrapolations based on an older world are unreliable. For example- we now have easily available drugs for impotence, inexpensive testosterone supplements, weight training, careers that do not prematurely wear down the body, relatively inexpensive and relatively safe prostitution (in most of the developed world), ubiquitous high-quality porn and person-to-person connectivity that transcends time zones and national boundaries. At the same time, we have a society that is increasingly impersonal, uncaring, adversarial and does not offer the type of benefits which were once considered necessary to get people to care about its continued existence.

We must also question the assumption that people “change for the better, and become nicer human beings, as they age”. How many people really become “better”,”nicer”,”more humane” or “less greedy” as they age? Doesn’t experience suggest that the converse is true? Older people are generally far more selfish, untruthful, greedy and delusional than their younger counterparts. Most older people have less of whatever ‘positive’ qualities they once had. This is especially true for women who desperately cling to anything that allows them to retain some relevance and attention. The majority of women become increasingly insufferable and demanding as they age. Yes, there are exceptions to what I just said, but they are just that- exceptions.

The question you have to ask yourself is-

Given what we know about the general direction of incentives, individual capabilities and options- Is it reasonable to expect that young men today will “settle down” in semi-dysfunctional relationships as they age- even if they wanted to do so. A related question is whether the young women of today will become “better human beings” as they age.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thought on “Scheduling” Intimacy in Relationships

May 19, 2012 10 comments

One of the more common pieces of advice given to married, and unmarried, couples who are experiencing trouble in their relationshits is that they should “schedule” intimacy and reserve some “couple” time for themselves. Such actions are supposed to rekindle the “spark” in the relationship- whatever that is. Now, am I the only one who finds this advice bizarre and a sad reflection on the world we live in?

Do you schedule eating time to renew your relationship with food? Do you schedule sleeping time to renew your relationship with a good nights sleep? Do you schedule a visit to the ER to renew your relationship with the hospital? In all of the above mentioned examples, your actions are based on a response to a need- whether it is hunger, lack of sufficient sleep or prompt medical attention.

If you are scheduling something, it is almost guaranteed to be a chore.

Taking your garbage out on time, vacuuming your house regularly or doing laundry on a schedule is a chore not a need. We are talking about stuff that nobody really wants to do, or is strictly necessary at that moment, but performed for satisfying imaginary social expectations.

So why is the relationship between most couples far more similar to a chore than a need?

People throughout human history have formed couples for important reasons such as reasonably regular access to sex, sharing resources to raise kids, take care of each other through thick and thin etc. At least that is how it should be. But is it still like that? and if not, why not?

Why are relationships in developed countries so dysfunctional that couples have to schedule time to be nice to each other and masturbate into each other?

To understand how we reached this level, if you can call it that, it is necessary to explore the path that led us here. It begins with basing your society on ideals, rules and customs that are not quite human. To be more precise- monogamy (serial or non-serial) as we know it today, just does not fit in with human nature. While men and women can be interested in one person for most of the time, it is delusional to think that they will not want some action on the side. Almost every single society with formal legalized marriage either decries such behavior or accepts it only on an ‘underground’ level. In some ways, legal recognition of couple formation is first step towards making it shitty. However it is not a major contributor to the process.

The second part of road to relationshit hell step is due to the overall result of social busybodies try to make the relationships of others fit inside defined moulds. Trying to fit humans into preexisting moulds of anything is a bad idea. Whether it is education, clothes, jobs or entertainment, one (or even a few) sizes won’t fit all- nor is it even necessary to do so.

If you make something enjoyable into a routine without flexibility or accommodation, don’t be surprised if the participants lose interest and stop caring.

The third stretch of the road towards dystopic relationships is a combination of the effects of feminism and social atomization. While women have rarely married guys they were really attracted to in the past, they were usually discreet about it. Today, they don’t have to be discreet about how much they really hate the wimp they are married to because they can get away wit it- heck, it is actually quite profitable to do so. Plus every social institution stands behind then and eggs them on to screw over or abuse the wimp in their life- because as we all know “She could do much better”. Now combine that with social atomization and a multitude of sexual partners before “marriage” (or a ‘real’ LTR) and you have a person who has no real interest or impulse to be willingly “intimate” in a relationship longer than a few months.

Women often criticize prostitutes for not being ‘real’ substitutes for relationships with women. The reality is that ‘real’ women are shitty, expensive and troublesome substitutes for prostitutes. Wives and girlfriends routinely get way with attitudes and behavior that prostitutes would not dare attempt. But then again, I am the guy who prefers whores over ‘real’ women. Maybe scheduling a gynecological appointment.. I mean intimacy.. with you SO would rekindle the spark in your relationshit.

What do you think? Comments?

A Type of MGTOW, Not Game, Will Dominate The Future

May 18, 2012 34 comments

My view of the world is grounded in percentages, probabilities and dispassionate observations rather than just trying to see patterns which validate my beliefs. Consequently I am willing to consider possibilities that most people might find ‘depressing’ and ‘negative’. Here is one of my predictions, based on a few years of observation-

A form of MGTOW, rather than “game”, will be the predominant response of men to the current dystopic sexual environment.

I am fully aware that most men believe that the MGTOW option involves a celibate to semi-celibate hermit like existence on the fringes of society. In my opinion, the popular image of MGTOW is due to the disproportionate web presence of its most zealotic and ‘ideologically-pure’ followers. The reality for most men is going to be far more different. But let us first understand why “game” is unlikely to be anything more than a minority option. Many of you believe that most men won’t succeed at “game” because they are not “good enough”, interested enough, have low testosterone or whatever bullshit you can dredge up. I see a much bigger and far more fundamental problem-

Even pretty, sexually skilled and otherwise reasonable women are not much fun to be around after you have finished having sex with them.

Did you get it? Over the long-term, the value of a woman around your own age is largely proportional to her looks and sexual availability. As almost every one of you know, those things don’t improve as a woman goes past her mid-20s. In previous era, the effect of this factor was largely mitigated by considerations such as children, mortgages, social expectations etc. However that is no longer the case.

Since most younger men today do not go down that path in their early to mid-20s, they have no sunken investment in maintaining relationships with women they don’t care much about. The converse is also true as most women no longer require the co-operation of men to raise a child or two. Therefore both sexes have a far more cynical view of each other- something that is greatly facilitated by the socio-cultural mores of our times.

The relationship between men and women today is therefore far more like an adversarial business partnership. Both parties are far more interested in screwing each other over than playing nice to achieve a common good.

In my opinion, old-fashioned relationships are dying out because men are increasingly becoming aware of the poor cost/benefit ratio and low probability of “success”. Now combine with awareness with the mediocre looks and sexual skills of the median women in an age of high quality, ambient and free porn. There is little or no incentive for the median guy to chase after the median girl.

Now this does not mean that men will prefer porn over sex with all women. I certainly would never pass an opportunity, paid or otherwise, to bang the living daylights out of a hot chick. But it is also extremely unlikely that I will invest significant time, or effort, in a mediocre girl. Nor would I work my ass off to make enough money to keep any women “happy” or satisfy any older social expectations about men of my age.

Why care about people and institutions who have abandoned you?

I would rather spend my time living well. That means not working hard, eating and drinking well, buying sex, fapping to porn and doing what I really enjoy. Isn’t it closer to MGTOW rather than “game”?

What do you think? Comments?

High-Quality Ambient Porn and Evolution of Male Expectations

October 30, 2011 16 comments

There has been much breast-beating (pun intended) by feminists and their CONservative allies about the effect of high quality and ubiquitous porn on men. Some of my views on that subject have been expressed in a few previous posts such as- Women Can No Longer Burn, Ban or Destroy Porn, Why Online Porn Is A Game Changer and Porn Replaces Relationship Sex.

One of the issues about ubiquitous online porn which is acknowledged but quickly glossed over by feminists, CONservatives and whipped men is that it permanently alters male expectations from a sexual relationship. Let me explain..

Consider you average guy with an average looking girlfriend, wife or whatever. Let us say that his current “partner” refuses to blow as frequently as he wants. Prior to the last decade he could either accept his ‘fate’ or jerk of to professional porn. The digital camera and the intertubes have thrown a hitherto improbable kink in that process aka high quality amateur porn.

Prior to this recent innovation, the women in erotica and porn were either very beautiful, very airbrushed or very trashy. Therefore the mind of a guy could at some level put a barrier between the porn and his pathetic life such that he did not expect what he saw on the screen to cum true for somebody like him.

But high quality amateur porn is something unlike anything before it both in content and sheer volume. The average guy can now see tons of prettier than average but still accessible girls deep-throating their boyfriend, licking his balls, taking it up their ass and that is just for starters… ;). These girls are not carefully airbrushed models nor are they skanky looking harlots with bad plastic surgery. You can see the laugh lines on their faces, the life and joy in their eyes, cum drooling from their lipstick smeared lips, the few hair near their assholes which they forgot to shave and the asymmetry and slight droop of their tits. You can see their effect of an obvious hangover in their eyes and faces, the ecstasy and pain of being fucked senseless, the lines on their foreheads, the faded and now regret-worthy tattoos on their ankles and the plain underclothes around them. Even the ambiance in the photos is so average- from ‘the simpsons’ on TV, to the color and patterns of the comforter, the futon, the sometimes dusty half-empty liquor bottles, the empty pizza box from a national brand, the brand of laptop, the color and type of door on the closet, the same jumble of branded clothes on the floor.

They are people just like you in everything from levels of wealth, education, lifestyle and even consumer brand preferences who happen to be having much more fun than you. The guy who looks at such porn is seeing much more than nekkid people having sex. He is seeing what his life could be at that very moment if he was with somebody who cared about him. Furthermore, unlike the women in such porn are neither inaccessible or skanky.

It is therefore likely that a guy who watches such porn would experience a far deeper dissatisfaction with his shitty life than fapping to airbrushed models or implant heavy pornstars.

I cannot help but point out that this revolution in porn is occurring alongside the continued demonization and marginalization of men by feminism and CONservatism. Add in atomization, the anti-male nature of the socio-legal system and the generally poor attitude/behavior of women towards men and you have the makings of a situation that has no precedent in history. We do live in interesting times, don’t we?

Comments?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers