Archive

Archive for February 11, 2010

Why I Started Using Escorts

February 11, 2010 90 comments

For reasons of privacy, I will not answer questions or provide any more details about my journey to the dark side.

There was a time, long ago, when I would have laughed at the idea of paying for sex. I might have even found the idea pathetic and defeatist, but that is before a series of events changed my life.

Unlike many of you, I never had an exalted view of women. My formative years were spent in a culture that had a healthy amount of disrespect for women, and the behavior of my older female cousins did not improve my view of women.

My expectations were therefore quite basic: essentially a series of relationships through which I could find someone who liked sex and was not a backstabbing bitch. See, it was that simple! I was not expecting total compatibility or everlasting love, just reasonable compatibility and some love.

However I quickly realized that women date men for the sole purpose of impressing or outdoing their girlfriends. It just happens that I realized it in my teens, unlike many of you. While I had some success in my environment, the amount of effort and BS necessary to get into a girls panties was a bit too much for me, even then. But I had no other option then..

Time moved on, I went to university and ended up in a dorm like environment for 3 years. This is where I started to slip into the dark side. The problem was that inspite of a large number of available women, who frequently were alone, it was hard to score. The key word is hard, not impossible. I had some fun, but the attitudes I experienced changed my opinion on women forever. I found it very hard to trust women after that..

After that degree, I had trouble finding a decent job. It is this span of about a year that pushed me over the edge. Until then, I could at least score some mediocre or subpar pussy to keep me going. But the combination of almost not having a job to barely having a job for almost a year, destroyed that possibility. It was in this period of about a year when I was miserable, and the lack of human company made me misanthropic. It is then that I started paying semi-homeless women and runaway girls to.. you know. My initial plan was to use this mode to tide through adversity. I was wrong..

I realized that the quality of sex with even poorly paid semi-pros was often just as good as my more mediocre experiences. As long as you took some basic safety precautions and thought with your head, it was not too bad a deal. However the ease and cost of getting mediocre sex affected my whole approach to women. I could no longer justify the BS, insults, tests and lies necessary for getting mediocre sex. As my financial situation improved, I just kept upgrading till I stopped using semi-pros altogether, and have stuck to pros ever since.

It is not as if I never tried to chase women after that, but the amount of effort to get a decent looking girl was just too much. I also realized that the only thing that a woman could give me was sex. Companionship, fidelity, support, love etc were just myths, that women talk about but do not follow up on.

There is another reason that I never went back to relationships: freedom. You see, buying decent to good sex from better than average looking gals removes the fear of not having sex. You no longer have to take crap for 23 hours for one fun filled hour. You can eat as you please, surf as you please, dress as you please and live as you want to. It is hard to appreciate that freedom until you have been there.

It is not that I never feel lonely or wish female company other than sex, but I know that the strings they come with are not worth it. Plus in which relationship can you bang a slim green-eyed black girl on monday and a hot east-european blond on friday.. and then have a intense experience with a flaky but skilled pro next weekend? Sometimes I like Italian.. or maybe Spanish.

And yes, the hobby is not cheap if you are using pros. But it beats paying alimony, child support or the shopping bills of an LTR, and I can have it when I want it!

Problems with Evolutionary Psychology: 02

February 11, 2010 8 comments

In this post, I will highlight another problem with evolutionary psychology. One of the most fundamental assumption of evolutionary psychology is that certain traits translate into reproductive success. But is it so?

Consider that for most of human history, people have lived in groups of between 100 and 2,000. If you do not believe this stat, a simple double question for you:

What % of the population lived in rural areas for most of recorded human history? and what was the typical size of such villages and small towns?

Now consider the lifestyle of such people. Whether we are talking about hunter-gatherers or agriculturist societies, group cohesiveness was absolutely essential for success. Even the biggest built human with a personal weapon is no match for a small group of wolves, to say nothing of hyenas, bigger cats or bears. A natural human ‘alpha’ would have a very short life, because if animals did not get to him first, a ‘hunting accident’ would cut his life short. On the other hand, group cohesiveness has huge rewards whether it is hunting or defending against large animals or aggressive neighbors.

While a fair minded competent leader (with a taste for a larger share of young women) would be welcome in any group, a woman stealing prick would not last very long. However it is precisely this type of man that seems to attract women. We have to either assume that such a strategy worked well even if you died early or something else is at play. Given that everyone knows everyones business in small groups, the children of such guys would not have survived either.

Even in agricultural societies, a clever conqueror was always careful to not disturb the productivity of the conquered. The romans may have committed numerous genocides against north European tribes, but their approach towards productive groups such as Egyptians, Greeks and other Middle Eastern people was far more measured and less barbaric (in that it took far more provocation to kill them on the % scale as gauls). Even the greatest roman emperors were hardly what we would call ‘alpha’. Octavian had poor health and wore 3-4 tunics to keep himself warm, and we still have a month named after him.

Even Genghis khan, a fictional ‘alpha’ in the dreams of many men, was successful because:

He delegated authority based on merit and loyalty, rather than family ties. As an incentive for absolute obedience and following his rule of law, the Yassa code, Temüjin promised civilians and soldiers wealth from future possible war spoils. As he defeated rival tribes, he did not drive away enemy soldiers and abandon the rest. Instead, he took the conquered tribe under his protection and integrated its members into his own tribe. He would even have his mother adopt orphans from the conquered tribe, bringing them into his family. These political innovations inspired great loyalty among the conquered people, making Temüjin stronger with each victory.

It is ironic that even the greatest fictional ‘alpha’ in the minds of white nerds was a fairness, meritocracy and rule obsessed guy. Sure, he may have fucked many women in his lifetime, but he made sure that his followers also benefited from the ‘fruits’ of their labor. Do you think the high % of men with mongol ancestory in central asia was the handiwork of just him and his clan?

It should be clear that the historic definition of a ‘leader’ of men has no correlation with women see as desirable. But then again, neither does the prehistorical definition.

To put it bluntly, cads were never welcome in human history or prehistory. Rule breaking sociopathic ‘bad boys’ were never an asset to humans, ever since we started walking upright. So what has changed? Is there an alternative explanation? I will try to answer that question in the next post in this series.