Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Does every girl have her price?

Marco_Polo recently mentioned a prank video in which some guy offers a woman $2,000 for sex, and she agrees, with the qualifier "but only if it's quick". She isn't quite so pleased when he tells her that he wasn't serious, because she was serious about it. Well, as long as it's quick.

Personally, I would have loved to see him haggle. You see that he's pulling out a wad of cash (who carries around $2,000?). She didn't find this suspicious at all. It would have been hilarious had he pretended to fumble up --- "Shit, I only have about $700 here. Can we do it for $500 as well?"

But to discuss the topic in more general terms: Yes, I am convinced that most girls have their price, and are not to be trusted. About 10 to 15 % of men were cuckolded, and thus believe a child that from some other man is actually theirs. Given that women don't get pregnant that easily, it's probably a safe guess that somewhere between 60 to 80% of women in committed relationships cheat on their partners. This establishes the general tendency of women to cheat. Now, imagine someone would offer such a woman a modest financial incentive to have sex, which may or may not involve cheating on their partner!

I sense the potential of a great psychological study, but unfortunately it is one that is extremely unlikely to ever be conducted: Put an above average looking guy into a metropolitan area, and let him offer, say, $500 in exchange for intercourse to any woman he finds physically attractive. Well, if he's got the stamina, he could even go on and bang those women, but then we'd have to be in a state in which prostitution is legal. The offer of $500 is not outrageous like $2,000 or higher sums, but not trivial to ignore either.

This would then, somewhat convincingly, I think, establish that the mangina belief of the alleged goodness of women -- remember, men are brutes, but women are divine and can't do no wrong --- is completely misguided. It might also give some feminists a heart attack.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)


  1. Man, she had some great tits!

    That would definetly be a great study!

    It would be very interesting to see different behaviors from different women. F.e. will she be more likely to do this when single vs in a relationship, when she has more or less status of her own etc.

    But actually sleazy, I don't find this to be very weird. Let's say an average girl walks up to you, and says to you, "hey hot stuff, want to have sex with me for 2000 dollars" :p. I don't think I would hesitate long. Although, there's also the downside of not knowing what she's about, I mean, she could be carrying some kind of disease or something.

    I deliberately picked an average girl because no way I would do a women that I would find ugly.

  2. I did a quick google look up and this seems to be slightly in congruence with your proposed experiment: "Nine percent of Yale University students who participated in a recent survey on sexual behavior reported having been paid for sex at least once." (

  3. "i am not a bitch "
    well watch yourself at the end of the video when the guy pulls the cash

    ehhh you say 60-80 percent women cheat in a relationship?
    isnt it a bit fucking high>?
    if you aaron are married then how do you know she doesnt cheat?
    is high sexual attraction enough to guess she doesnt cheat (in a relationship)?
    well what if someone who is more attractive then you comes up to say your wife
    and offers 100 k dollars how do you know she wont cheat? or you guess she does?
    umm change aaron sleazy with x if you want.
    but if this is so high damn, i dont wana get in a relationship lol.

    1. 60 % is a conservative lower bound. I've explained part of my reasoning in the article. Besides, how many marriages end in divorce, and how often is the reason that the wife couldn't keep her legs together?

    2. Some guys really make this decision way to quickly. I see this in the relationships of some of my nieces as well. While some have good relationships, others, you just know are doomed to fail.

      Sleazy, what made you decide to marry you're particular women? You have off course, a lot of experience to refer back to, which probably helped you a lot.

      I have to agree with lazylife, 60%? I find that to be a very high number.

  4. Guy in the video is idiot because he started acting all surprised and disgusted after that girl accepted his offer. Apparently he had no chance of fucking her based on his looks alone and now he acts disgusted because he has been given the option to have sex if he pays!?! I mean you are given a chance to compensate for your average looks by making money. How fucking deluded do you have to be to condemn women for giving you this option?

    Try putting yourself in her shoes. Surely most men have had an experience of some girl they weren't particularly interested in give them strong "take me" signals of interest. If you weren't sexually aroused by such girl then you probably wouldn't bother hooking up and would just ignore her.

    Now imagine if that hypothetical plain girl offered you 2000$ to fuck her. Would you accept it? Who wouldn't do a bit of in and out for 2000$ as long as the partner isn't disgusting (ie. extremely fat or unhygienic).

    Those 'gold-digger prank' videos shouldn't criticize women for accepting money for sex but mainstream dating advices which contends that women are morally superior and that you have to spend $$$ on dates in order to have sex.

    1. Ah, well – the issue here is, that many men would have sex with such an upfront girl entirely without the money incentive, provided they find something (trait, physical feature) about the girl, which they find arousing. And they certainly wouldn't consider that girl or the experience to be "worthless" .

      The thing is – and Anti-PUA-Johnny elaborated on this in his cool essay "The proof is in the Prostitutes" – that women actually CAN be as relaxed and open about sex as men and that they are actually not that justified, to be that extremely picky. At least not from a purely biological point of view.

      So, when a women fucks you for the money, basically in her eyes you're devoid of any real value, at least as far as short-term-mating is concerned. It's in a way charming, that said blonde was that honest and agreed to his offer. But the point is: where is the sexual tension in this and where is the fun of the man in getting that girl at least w/o paying some $$$ according to his rules? The gay evaluated the chick only according to her looks and that quick convo, he didn't touch her at all and didn't force any response, any feedback about her sexual behaviour. He doesn't know at all, whether she's really a hottie between the sheets. So why pay money for a presumably lame fuck, i. e. for a woman who basically considers you to be worthless in her eyes and about whose sexual potential you know nothing about? I'd say that is stupid.

    2. Go here for "The proof is in the prostitutes":

      But it makes you think though, all the resistance women put up when it comes to having sex, is often just a charade to get shit out of you. I mean, once a woman reaches a certain level of maturity (like 30+), there's no good reason why she should ever hold out on you. So it's either shit or get off the pot. It makes me think of how all this effort that goes into making a woman feel "just right", can be circumvented by just placing a $100 bill next to her, and then watch the resistance evaporate. How can any man in his right mind work hard to get sex while knowing this?

    3. Those two articles by the same author are a great addition to his "Proof is in…" text. I referred to them, albeit without mentioning them directly, they deal with the issue, of how picky women should actually be and for what reasons:

    4. Female choosiness is present in entire animal kingdom. How the hell can you say it is not biologically justified. This is basic evolutionary biology 101. The gender which invests more in offspring will be choosier. In some species males invest more and in those cases females are aggressive gender which fights for access to males.

      Johnny says female choosiness is result of cultural conditioning. Let me offer alternative explanation.

      In no strings attached sex males only invest their sperm and small amount of time while females will possibly have to invest 9 months of pregnancy. To overcome this difference in investment you have to be much better looking than the female - hence "sexy sons theory". Only thing that can break this pattern is money and social status (As far as I remember even Sleazy stated that he was much more successful in more intimate alternative venues, especially after adjusting his wardrobe, than in mainstream venues which essentially consist of bunch of strangers tightly packed in one building).

      Johnny used example of promiscuity in chimpanzees. Researchers found out that females use sex to build social alliances. Now I ask: what does this have to do with cold-approach? Researchers didn't find that lone male chimps come to foreign tribe and mate with their females LOL.

      Lastly lets talk about contraception argument. Scientists explain that hidden ovulation in our species evolved because it allowed females to trade their sexuality for protection, status and goods(food, clothes, later money etc...) without the risk of getting pregnant. So during her infertile period female will use sex as a means to extract resources. When she becomes fertile she will seek the most genetically fit male to mate with. This is well backed up by research - if females cheat they tend to do it in their most fertile period. And they are extremely selective with whom they do it with unless they are doing it to manipulate their current partner.

      I'm not saying that it is our duty as men to put up with female bullshit. I'm just pointing out that female choosiness probably isn't conscious choice created by our culture. After all you won't find a culture in which females aren't the choosier sex. Also hopefully now it will be clearer why I consider that guy in the video to be an idiot for condescending that girl for accepting money. Female willingness to trade sex for resources actually makes the playing field fairer. Without it we would have asymmetrical dating in which hot guys would hook up with attractive girls, average guys would have sex with landwhales and ugly guys would get nothing.

    5. Quick reply here: all of your reasoning is based on the "standard narrative" of evolutionary biology and/or psychology. The standard narrative basically morphs women into whores and men into pimps. The standard narrative also assumes, that women are less horny than men (haha). The standard narrative is tighly connected to established religions and strongly correlated to the switch from hunter/gatherer societies into the agricultural age (on which Jared Diamond once so aptly commented that it caused "a collective trauma the human race has never really recovered from).

      The argument is not against female choosiness PER SE. Of course we men are choosy as well, i. e. we wouldn't have sex with a women who wouldn't turn us on. The thing with us men also is: we even couldn't without a hard on. And we don't usually need to turn sex into a bargaining chip.

      Now, in hunter/gatherer societies, which never really surpassed 50 - 70 people roaming around in nature, sex was never that strong of a female bargaining tool, because this was not necessary. Sex was "S. E. EX." = socio-erotic exchange in societies characterized by group leveling and non-possesiveness. Sex as a means of fun, of pure enjoyment, and especially for strenthening social bonds, i.e. human communication. All of this within closely interdependent groups of humans, where everyone knew each other. The ego-based choosiness of todays females would have no justification in such a setting. And given the fact of female subfertility even at its highest peak, it is ludicrous to assume, that sex were only ever a matter of reproduction. Humans aren't rats after all.

      In those societies and/or tribes, which haven't been infected by the hierarchichal system of agriculture (most tribes in the amazon and in Africa; in Asia the Mosuo, an ancient society in Southwest China etc.) all those characteristics are still present (of course utterly unacceptable for any Catholic priest). The female vagina also isn't made to let just one guy's semen in, but have her inseminated by many guys and let the different spermcells then find their way due competition, while being aided or hindered by the intra-vaginal millieu of the women, to choose the sperm-donor, who would fit her genetic blueprint best – a process entirely unaffected to ANY concious reasoning of the female person in question. With most African or Amazon tribes for instances it has been documented, that they consider children to be accumulated semen from MANY guys. So the mother will deliberate engage in sex with a great variety of men, each one sporting one different talent or preferential trait, which the mother would like her child to benefit from, thus fucking – even after her period has stopped – e.g. a guy who is really handsome, another one who's really strong, another one is intelligent, yet another guy is a talented painter, and fucking the musician who plays the bone-fute so beautifully etc.

    6. (continued from my previous post)

      And since there is no need for one single guy to invest in the women and shield others off of her, it's also not necessary to get the parternity issue fixed on one guy, becasue in a sense all those men are partially fathers of this newborn child. Of couse in such societies, who would depend on every child to make it and survive, the children would be cared for by the whole group and the child would have several "mothers" and "fathers" in addition to the clearly identifiable biological mother. And where strict paternity is more or less irrelevant, men tend to be relatively unconcerned about female sexual fidelity. And why should they?

      If you want to know, what the real nature of human sexuality looks like, then take a close look at bonobos, in that sense they are our closest relatives and they live the kind of life, we were made to live – and seen yourself in the mirror. (Albeit without mobile phones and the internet.)

      There are many snags and dents in the "standard narrative", that just make it highly implausible – and it never really correlated to human sexuality that well anyway. We all love sex, it's one of the basic sources of joy in life, and human male and female bodies tell exactly this story, from the enormous size of the penis & tenisticles (compare ours e.g. to the little ones of Orang Utans or Gorillas!), to female asses and beckoning breasts, contantly swollen to indicate "please fuck me". So, many – if not most – sexually dysfuntioncal human marriages are nobody's fault. Our sexuality is still the sexuality of the hundred thousands of years of bonobo-like forager societies, and not the few thousand years of agriculture (despite all the civilizational and technical marvels that ensued from it). Societal programming cannot change it, it is deeply engrained inside of our brains and is not going to morph into something different easily.

      But let's meet again in 100,000 years and see what might have changed by then. ;D

      Read "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá for more on this. It's really worth and it and scientifically sound as well. ;)

    7. @the anynomous making excuses for women

      The same logic you use to justify women's behaviour, would justify men going around pillaging, raping and killing.

      We (humans) are more than base animalistic instincts. But we live in a society that encourages women acting out their most primal animalistic drives, with no concern for consequences to society. Yet at the same time it demonizes male sexuality (biology) to the fullest.

      Civilization was invented when a society came up with the idea of supressing both male and female animal drives and rerouting them to the benefit of society.

      Then feminism came along...

      - It liberated women from their side of the contract, encouraging them to be as animalistic as women were pre-civilization

      - Yet at the same time it tightened the grip on men even more

    8. @Sex at Dawn book.

      I'm not expert enough to say whether it is true. But it makes a strong case that we are most closely related to the kind of primates which use sex as recreation, not a bargaining chip. Apparently in these primates chicks are easy, fuck everyone all the time, and everyone has orgies all around, its all just fun and games.

      But the sex and down claim is just a theory and not everyone agrees with it.

      Other primates (chimpanzees) do act just like modern western women... they bargain for sex, they play hard to get. They make the males jump through hoops and give them ressistance.

      Personally I have no idea which one we're biologically descended from, and I don't care. I don't care if the "sex at dawn theory is correct" or whether its critics are correct.

      What I care about is that in the 21st century, women have no excuse to act like animals, whichever set of animalistic instincts turns out to be the real one.

    9. honestly reading marco alternative was kinda liberating in a sense that
      relationship were non exsistent as they are now, they are only made up
      arrangement so females have consistent source to get shit from.

      alek maybe guys should start acting like animals as well, but with a lot more

    10. @Marco, I appreciate you posting some of the main arguments of that book. I've learned what you call 'standard narrative' as a part of my evo-psych course but I'm always open to alternative viewpoints. I'll have to read that book when I get some spare time.

    11. @Marco
      This was a very interesting read, thanks.

    12. Wasn't sex at dawn debunked in the book "sex at dusk"?

      Also, something about that argument just doesn't make sense to me. Back in our hunter-gatherer tribes, there weren't any contraceptives. If you're tribe consist of 70 people and they all start fucking like crazy, you'll be at an enormous disadvantage.

      First, you won't be able to ensure decent food supply, since agricultural productivity isn't that good yet. So in a sense you would need 10 people to gather food, in order to feed maybe 10-15 others. Now, if you have tons of children, it's going to take some time before they can actually be a productive laborer but they would still need to be fed.

      In a sense polygamy and having multiple children with different partners, would make a whole lot more sense today. Since, it's almost impossible to ever be without food, due to technological developments and many countries actually have decent childcare, where an extra kid gives you an extra cash incentive. But even then, let's say a couple sticks together, they'll be at a much bigger advantage then say, the women (or men) with multiple children from different partners

      Also, wasn't sperm competition debunked already? Sleazy, if I remember correctly, I think you mentioned this in an interview with Illuminatis.

      The entire argument sounds too simplistic to me. If there were tribes who ate other humans, does that mean that society surpressed our desire to feed on human flesh? These type of arguments, "society surpressed it", sound a lot like paleo arguments. This is our natural way of eating, in this context that would be, this our natural way of being.

    13. What I meant was neither narrative justifies women's actions and overly inflated fake pickiness and hard-to-getness ploys.

      Standard Narrative: Human females have a highly precious resource and they have to guard it by not banging just anyone, for millions of (pre-civilization) years human females played hard to get, gave resistance and bla bla... so its a deep instinct bla bla...

      THEN: How are animalistic instincts a justification for actions today... we don't justify men going around pilaging and raping, do we? And if these animalistic instincts are destiny, then how come they disappear at the sight of a $100 bill?

      It's not like you can feed yourself for 9 months and the child for 15 years on week's worth of income... Obviously the guy giving the bill is gone after he comes...

      SexAtDawn Narrative: Human females are happy go lucky sex-loving and we're descended from primates who just have jolly good sexy fun times all around, not caring about nothing, having multiple orgees every day with random people... it's like having a chat... not a big deal. Everybody chats with (bangs) everyone else in the village... who caressssssss.

      THEN: How are women justified not doing what is "natural" for them and forcing you to jump through hoops and pretending to not like, what they actually do like?

      So basically neither narrative justifies modern women's behaviour.

    14. @ Geert & Novy:
      Just to set some things straight, which I might have retold slightly superficially with regard to „Sex at dawn“:
      the basic premise of the book, founded upon scientific evidence and maybe also on sound observation, is that humans are not naturally monogamous creatures (just as other primates aren’t either) and that we still haven’t adapted to the changes which came upon us with agricultural society, the power structures that ensued from it and the often psychologically painful limitations it imposed onto male & female sexuality.
      Our bodies tell a different story than the „standard narrative“, the often noisy conduct of women during sex does as well, male penis length & testicle position and size, in-depth observations about tribal societies which still exist today etc. pp. (I won’t mention all those relevant aspects, I’m just too lazy).
      Due to the slow process of evolution we’re still accustomed to live and thrive in smaller units of hordes living in cooperation, sharing and egalitarianism, where the imposed restrictions on male & female sexuality don’t exist any longer (cuz they’re not required). Now that doesn’t mean, that it was all fine and dandy back then. It also doesn’t mean, that women back then would fuck any guy from their tribe, all the time. Certainly back then women also only liked to have sex with guys whom they found attractive and at times, when they felt a horny itch. Either way this would have only applied to a minority of guys, but women could have much freer, to follow their urges without having to lie to others & themselves and to cover up their actions. Since the human species is a a particularly sub-fertile species, even under more promiscuous circumstances it’s not very likely, that such free sexuality would have resulted in a huge rise of tribal population. Natural resources in general in fertile regions of the world were – albeit plentiful – less reliable to be available in larger quantities, which makes it logical to also limit the number of children born and to be fed to a reasonable amount and not ho overboard with it. A sustainable rise of population only becomes possible in agricultural societies.

      @ Geert: yes, a „patchwork family“ arrangement, where a woman can milk several men in her advantage is of course much more feasible to pull of nowadays. In hunter/gatherer-times the economic incentive within egalitarian societies strictly relying on mutual cooperation within the tribe, such economic incentives just don’t exist. So women just wouldn’t have needed to milk several men and play them out against each other, since they’d and their offspring would be cared for by the entire tribe anyway.

      I don’t know about „Sex at dusk“, but I’d wager it to be evident, that any research and any conclusions which don’t support traditional monogamy as THE everlasting role-model for making & raising children and structuring society, is of course met with shunned by the established discourse and by people rooted in Christianity as well. The „standard narrative“ is also psychologically closely related to the Judaeo-Christian „creation myth“, which is still so deeply engrained in „Western/European-civilization“, that it’s very hard to not judge evidence by those standards and not to interpret behaviour of a past era according to the memes and standards of our prevalent culture and our times – the authors Ryan/Jetha call this erronous thought process „flintstonization“, e. g. like mistaking the bonding between male & female swans as being the same as human pairbonding among heterosexual humans or considering „rape“ among apes the same as rape among humans.

  5. Well, actually in Spain there was a guy named Torbe, who roamed the street, looking for cute girls, and when he find some interesting girl, he approached them and pulled the same thing: offering money for sex. But as he is the owner of many pornsites in Spain, he taped himself fucking those girls.
    If you're interested in that, just look for "Pilladas en la calle" from Torbe. The first videos are legit, but I feel that the most recent are staged.
    Interestingly enough, some girls that he meet and fucked, later becamed pornstars.

    1. Staging that sort of video is the oldest trick in the book in the porn business, you should suspect ALL of Torbes videos to be fake. It's just that some girls are better at acting surprised than others ;)

  6. I think girls pickiness has to do with the fact that they get way more ego gratification from being desired and not fucking than by fucking a dude they like, unlike us. People do what they like, or are conditioned to feel good about. Not a surprise that money can overturn this, if you go around asking straight dudes if they would take it up the ass for 20 000 euros, I'm pretty sure many would say yes.

  7. If such a study was conducted you just know that other women and beta white knights manginas would DENY it to the death of them...

  8. This really isn't that surprising. Newsflash: Most women like sex. Sex feels good and requires minimal effort. It's not like someone paying you to build a house. If an average women walked up to a guy and offered him $2000 to have sex with her, as long as she wasn't hideously ugly and/or fat, would he accept? No shit, he would. It's a win-win situation.

    And even then, once you go below a certain attractiveness threshold, even money won't save you. Sex has to be nice, and doing it with uglies and/or fatsos isn't that pleasant. Some might do it for money, many average people will refuse.

  9. Not that women aren't whores, but you have to be fucking blind to believe this isn't scripted. Another fake youtube prank videos out of thousands.

    1. Would you mind telling us why exactly you think this is scripted?

    2. Are you kidding me? The woman's response. It is breezy, calm, glazed over, plastic, contrived. She sounds like a carefully placed airhead milf model. Similar to GLL's fake daygame video.

      Normal women respond in awkward emotive bursts, whether negative or positive. There is an authentic spasticness to it.

  10. Aaron, how have you not seen this website? It's definitely topic related. I highly recommend everyone see it:

    It's basically women of high beauty caliber, willing to get shitted, pissed, cumed on for a couple grand. Definitely "redpill" as hell. I suppose Pablo Escobar was right, "Everyone has a price."

    Check it out.

    1. I didn't know about this site. It's indeed quite relevant to this discussion.

    2. Jesus-fucking-Christ.

    3. As I expected before clicking on that site, those women are ugly and low class.

    4. Yet, men of the highest social strata pay tens of thousands of dollars to fuck them. It seems something about your reasoning doesn't quite add up.

    5. And yet rich men are often vulgar. Hugh Grant paid for sex with a hideous black crack whore. That Edelstien billionaire kept a vulgar dumpster ho as his mistress.

      To each his own, I say. I have no problem with rich men paying for ugly dumpster 'hos.

      But the women at that site are not high beauty caliber as the other poster says. They are quite ugly and perfectly trashy.

    6. Wow, you must bang women who are unimaginably beautiful if you call those women 'ugly'. Well, it's either that, or you're insecure because you don't get laid, or only bang bottom-tier caliber women, and therefore need to tell yourself that hot women are ugly.

    7. To each his own. I would not touch any of those women.

      I notice Germans have tastes in women that often seem unusual to other western Europeans, perhaps more similar to Arab tastes. The women on that site are more geared towards Arab tastes, with huge asses, gigantic boobs, and some of them just plain fat (very fat) as you scroll further down.

      I am reminded of a German movie I saw a while back about an east German intelligence office who defects. I forget what its called but it was quite good and was a sensation in America. The high ranking German officer has a regular meeting with a prostitute who turns out to this utterly hideous enormously fat ugly woman, who treats him like shit, and apparently services many high ranking officers. The German officer was good looking and athletic.

      I remember thinking why the hell would he even go near that???? Is he insane? He's a high ranking officer he should be able to get cute thin women? Or remain celibate!

      But no, apparently this hideous ho was the most popular among high ranking officers.

      It's a German thing. Its cool.

    8. I looked some more. Some of those women are indeed hot. I didn't scroll down enough. The ones at the beginning aren't.

    9. Nahhh, kept on looking. The vast majority are ugly and low class. Would never touch them.

    10. Is the woman in the video ugly too, in your opinion?

    11. No she's attractive. She's not my type but she's attractive. One or two of the women on that site are similarly attractive, one or two have good faces but fat asses, but most are ugly, too fat, and low class.

    12. BTW I don't deny there are extremely attractive women who offer sex for money, often high class girls, uni students, PHD's, etc. Its quite common. They just busted a a ring in Romania involving TV presenters and models.

    13. so if a girl is a uni student or phd she is high class?

      by the way i wont touch the women too ,i mean they are hot but i get a bit
      disgusted with the 25k for a fuck.

    14. I'm going to go toward the anonymous on this one.

      Yes, the word "ugly" might have been exaggerated... but I find most of those girls unattractive also. They fit in the "kim kardashian" definition of "hot" - which I wouldn't even get a hard-on-for.

      Most of these are

      - bodies built like kardashian (personally unattractive to me)
      - have average faces plastered with tons of make up.

      So saying they're ugly was an exaggeration (their faces are average, not ugly)... but yeah these are your regular six putting on a lot of fat, some implants and pouring massive amounts of makeup. Then jiggling that fat in tight jeans...

      There are a few not-fat chicks, but they're also just your average girl who managed to not get fat, then put on a ton of makeup and slutty clothes.

      There are even a few skinny chicks (with average faces), but none that looks like she's ever worked out in her life. Just skinny with implants.

      I did see one chick with an above-average (modelling face) who was also skinny... Most aren't that hot (just hot makeup/image).

    15. Is the woman in the video ugly too, in your opinion?

      What video are you guys discussing? All I'm seeing is a blog with endless scrolling that has instagram photos of fat skanks bragging about being bought for by arabs?

    16. Oh ok. I think the anonymous was only reffering to the linked blog in the comment here when he said that they were nasty low-class fat hoes.

      Not implying that money only buys you fat skanks - just replying in the context of the linked blog. That's how I read it.

  11. I have to say that watching this video and the one right here:

    cofirms my belief about suspects in my university who fuck rich dudes to get money.

    Even though I have silently watched how all these are going, it is still hard to find words to describe my emotional convulsion after reading these stuffs.

    Bye bye family! Bye bye wife (only "fe" not "es"), and bye bye kids!

    1. I only know a few sponsorettes in real life (at least to my knowledge).

      But the ones I know were banging older dudes and blowing guys in bathrooms anyway :D Even before anyone offered them money for it. They just seem to like doing it, and money seems to be a bonus - "being offered money for what you do anyway? who'd say no to that".

      Obviously that's not all sponsorettes, but from what I learned in Uni (I actually had a subject and exam on prostitution)... apparently studies do find that women in this line of work... are above average in sex drive.

      But that's just an average. Not all sponsorettes/prostitutes have a higher-drive... some might even be asexual in their private life...

      Its an average because there are different groups of women who get into it. Some get into it because they're naturally super-promiscious (they banged dozens/hundreds of guys for free before they even thought about asking money for it). Others get into it because of other reasons, and don't like the sex (just the money)... so it depends.

  12. Hey Sleaze, I think I'll just try out your "haggle"-script for a few times and see how it goes, just for my own bratty amusement:
    "Ha! Shit, I only have about $700 here. Can we do it for $500 as well?… for 200? 150? 100? Or hey, how about 50?! … whoa, wait – if you agreed to 200 bucks, you could equally as well do it for 100, and if you agreed to 100, it'S not that much of a step to 50, it might do the trick quite as well… or how about YOU pay ME, since I'm gonna service you much better anyway and put a huge smile on your face, than you are gonna to satisfy me…" ***LOL***

  13. I am relatively new to this blog (and enjoying it, btw), however I do have to speak up about this post since it struck a chord with me. I haven't read all the comments, but there seems to be a striking consensus...that most women are prostitutes. That your average woman, given the right about of money and circumstance, will take payment for sex. This is simply not true.

    When I was 19 I spent one summer in NYC to study and sight see. I stayed in a hostile run by nuns (the only way I could convince my parents to le me go). Big city life is expensive, so to supplement my savings I took a part time job book keeping for a small clothing store. Knowing it wasn't enough, my boss set me up with his accountant for a job interview, filing and such. The accountant wanted to meet at an outdoor café in Central Park, which I initially thought was a bit strange since every interview I had done was always at the place of employment, but I went along anyway. It turns out, the accountant wanted a girl on the side. He had seen me at the store, said I reminded him of a woman from his teenage years. This woman had essentially dominated him, whips, etc. and was hoping I would do the same. He was pushing 60 and couldn't get these memories out of his head. I was floored. Completely and utterly shocked. I sat in stone silence while he explained in detail what he wanted from me. He offered to pay me a large sum of money, every week. He even tried to give me money at the "interview" which I refused. When he was done talking, I quickly stood up, said "I'll let you know" and left. I dropped all contact with him and even quit the book keeping gig. I remember feeling such burning embarrassment and shame, and I had done nothing wrong. I was terribly disappointed, too, because I really needed a job. I could have very easily taken this guy to the cleaners. I could have demanded more. But because I have morals, integrity and character, I would never have been part of it.

    Now, I don't tell the is story to make myself sound superior, but to let you know that there are still very good women out there...we just don't make it onto Youtube videos.

    1. The consensus isn't that all women will take any Money (bank notes) to have sex with anyone.

      Even a professional street-Walker will refuse a 60 year-old obese guy with super-weird fetishes. What if that guy was younger, and "kinda cute"? Would you have still said no?

      The consensus is a bit more subtle. The consensus here is that:

      - Most women are willing to accept money in exchange for attraction points

      - If she requires AT LEAST 90% attraction to have a one-night-stand with a dude "for free"... she'll also have a one-night stand with a guy who's a 70%-er, but offers 100$ on top of it. (most women will)

      - And the women who won't accept monetary exchange for a guy buying those additional 20% through actual cash?

      - They also sell that additional 20% in exchange for goods and resources. They require other resources such as attention, pursuing, dates and dinners.

      So yes, all women ARE prostitutes. Even if the exchange isn't in the shape of banknotes. So called self-proclaimed "good women" merely charge a different currency... It's still the same transaction economically speaking. There doesn't have to be an exchange of fiat currency for it to be prostitution.

      Men are angry about women lying about it

      The same woman who says she's not that kind of girl and needs you to court her for 3 months to "earn the sex", will blow some dude on a beach in Rio De Janeiro, when on vacation, 3 minutes after meeting him. (or she'll do it for money).

      A feminist might come in and accuse these angry men of "being entitled" and "you just think you're entitled to sex"...

      The answer would be "I don't fucking feel entitled to sex, I just fucking feel entitled to HONESTY". Don't lie to my face that your body supposedly needs 3 months to prepare for sex... just say you're asking for an exchange and that you're selling the sex.

      Tell me that I'm not attractive enough for free sex, and you need me to pay something extra for you to fuck me, don't lie to my face that your body needs 10 dates to be capable of sex (yet if I'd pulled out a bill, or you met Johnny depp, suddenly it would be capable in 2 minutes flat).

    2. Alek, I love your explanation! I'd like to comment a bit on "Men are angry about women lying about it" part though. It seems that there is a contradiction in men's behavior. We want to have lot of casual sex but at the same time we are quick to judge and stigmatize women for being promiscuous.

      Here we talk about how women shouldn't have such high standards for short term relationships, they shouldn't play hard to get etc... but at the same time lot of men label promiscuous women as sluts, immoral and proclaim they aren't long-term relationship material. Whenever woman acts on her sexual impulse she is risking lowering her social status.

      It is double-standard in our society, promiscuous man is labeled as stud while promiscuous woman is labeled as a slut.

      Part Two:
      As I said, I love your "all women are prostitutes" explanation. This isn't to bash women but just to drive point home. I think your explanation can be succinctly stated as sex = sexual attraction + incentive

      Incentive can come in many forms. First to come to mind is money, but it can also be things such as bragging rights(if you are celebrity) or making her feel special by giving her lot of attention, going on dates etc...

      Sexual attraction is composed out of two components: long term and short term attraction. Short term attraction is based purely on your looks while long term attraction is based on other qualities such as personality, artistic skills, socioeconomic status etc..

      Now here is the interesting part. How is incentive related to long term sexual attraction?

      If you give 300$ to a prostitute then it is incentive. But if you make lot of money (and you also have decent physical appearance) then does this fall under long term sexual attraction which makes woman more sexually attracted to you on physiological level or is it just incentive for her to act on pre-existing sexual attraction which is based purely on your looks?

    3. hi i want to say to ALEK good post as always i like, this economy and women
      are spoken on the same terms.

      the other guy i think you got it wrong incentive doesnt increase sexual attraction
      sexual attractrion is purely based on your looks,
      its that when you give her money or its proovable that u have money,
      you play to her female entitlement biological calling, this isnt exactly sexual.
      infact long term attraction is purely incentive based, its something u have and others dont that makes well off compared to others, the female wants to get some of that shit to her , driven by her entitlement.

      and this incentive is traded for attraction points, its sexual attraction get replaced
      by economical attraction.

    4. @Anonymous

      There is no contradiction...

      We (the guys who want to have tons of casual sex and bang chicks in 3 minutes from meeting them) are not the same group as the guys who call women sloots and hores for doing these things.

      It's only a contradiction if the same guy believes both things at the same time.

      But wait alek, you just ranted about girls blowing guys in 3 minutes from knowing them!!

      As I clarified. Guys in our group (who have no problem with casual sex), aren't mad that a chick bangs guys in bathrooms 3 minutes from knowing them.

      We are angry if she LIES about it as a way to PROCUR more resources.

      Does the clarification make sense? I don't have a problem with a girl putting out the same night... IN FACT I DISRESPECT girls who WON'T bang me the first night.

      I (in my own personal life) anti-slut-shame, like I actually call girls PRUDES if they state a belief about postponing sex on purpose.

      If a girl tells you (or rather insinuates) that she is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of having sex in 3 minutes, yet she's only saying this in order to procur RESOURCES from you (attention, dates, gifts, whatever) ---> THEN THIS is manipulation.

      Is it more clear now? Guys are fundamentally upset with the manipulation part of it, not the fact she was easy to other guys.

      It's like this

      - I'm ok with the fact you banged some dude on the beach in 3 minutes from knowing him

      - I'm fine with the fact that I'm not as hot as he was, so you need additional payment

      - Just don't lie to me about it, and pretend like you are physically incapable of having sex quickly... just be upfront about your bartering, don't lie, don't manipulate. State your price and I'll decide if I want to pay it.

      But, but but... Double Standards!!!

      You're saying this as if double standards are wrong?

      If men prefer relationships with less sexual women, what's your point? They have every right to do so. The fact that you want to have a ton of casual sex with highly sexual girls, and then marry a less sexual girl is wrong how exactly?


      Studies are clear that women do most of their casual sex with one type of guy, then marry or get serious with another type of guy. Why is this an issue we need to call a "double standard" or imply its immoral?

      Why is it immoral to have a different standard for hookups vs marriage? Both men and women do it, and its rooted deep in biology.

      >If you give 300$ to a prostitute then it is incentive.But if you make lot of money (and you also have decent physical appearance) then does this fall under long term sexual attraction which makes woman more sexually attracted to you on physiological level or is it just incentive for her to act on pre-existing sexual attraction which is based purely on your looks?

      Dunno, sounds like it can be both or a mix of the two...

    5. @Original Posted who refused intimacy for banknotes

      But because I have morals, integrity and character, I would never have been part of it.

      That "morality" was invented by society and merely says "don't accept banknotes when performing this transaction, only accept and ask for other less obvious currencies".

      - This morality you speak of frowns up women who charge a guy $500 in actual bank issued bills

      - This morality you speak of approves of women who charge the same guy $500 in time, effort, dates, dinners and other resources equivalent to $500

    6. Great comment, Alek.
      Ironically, all this reminds me that shitty book of "50 shades of Gray". If Mr. Gray wasn't attractive, young and billionaire, well, no girl wouldn't even give him a blow job.
      And as you point up, the thing that makes us angry is that bullshit thing of "well, I don't like you, but I don't see any problem in letting you dine and wine me until I got bored of you or I got horny and fuck you".

    7. Alek, number 1 way women insult each other is by calling each other sluts. If you want to insult a man you won't call him a manwhore(that would probably be a compliment), instead you would insinuate that his woman is having sex behind his back...

      Point is that all women eventually do want to settle down and having promiscuous past lowers marriage value for women much more than for men.

      And not only do such women have lower marriage value compared to promiscuous men, they are also generally looked down upon by their peers ie other women and 'normal' men.

      This is the double standard I'm referring to. I wasn't referring to the fact that men and women use different standard for long term relationships. I'm referring to the fact that in context of long term relationships women will be punished for same kind of behavior(promiscuity) much more than men.

      Men are said to have much lower standards for short term relationships, but plenty of men have turned down sex with okay looking girls because they thought it would lower their value in the eyes of their peers. I can only imagine how much stronger this effect is for women because they are judged much more negatively.

      On the other hand having sex with someone popular(or very attractive) raises your status - I guess this could explain why average looking people hook up much easier after they become celebrities, even small-time celebrities such as being a guitar player in a crappy band.

    8. Damn, Alek, I love you ! You're a genius.

      Now I will try on every girl that seems attracted but a little bit reluctant that I will give them 100$ if they come home with me tonight hahaha ! And then I will try 80$, and then 50$, etc.

      Let's see how many lays I can get with that !


    9. @Anonymous, it's not that simple

      That would only work if she has sexual attraction to you (not merely romantic), and you can differentiate the two.

      If she has a lot of romantic attraction, but little sexual attraction (she just needs a little bit more pursuing to accept you as as a boyfriend provider), an offer of money would probably trigger a slap, not sex.

      And even the biggest sloots who sugar-daddy like crazy would get offended if the offer is done in a too-direct a way.

  14. I think the blog TagTheSponsor has been mentioned here before. In one of their recent posts they revealed the story about prostitution among Polish Instagram "models". There were 10 girls mentioned and they all agreed to be shit on by Arabic royal for 25k USD. Group sex was priced at 10k USD. The whole deal was brokered by Polish Playboy model who resides in Dubai. There has been massive uproar in Poland as the links to girls FB and Insta profiles has been posted on Wykop website

  15. On the subject of "all women as prostitutes" and "payment doesn't have to be in fiat currency" - there are now major stories, a multi-million campaign and editorial pieces running promoting Sandberg's "we prostitute out for laundry". (it's even on the cover of time magazine, and running during all NBA games)

    Literally, there's now a mainstream campaign where guys are being advertised that they need to pay for sex with "chores". I don't even want to get into a debate about that campaign in specific, its merit, feminists etc (it's off-topic anyway).

    The on topic thing here is that... almost all women do sell sex, even if the price isn't in fiat currency. To me "prostitution" is whenever you trade sex for something, or if you use sex as payment for something. The payment doesn't have to be in actual bank issued paper notes.

    The only times sex is free is when its:

    a) for reproductive purposes
    b) for pleasure, she just want to feel the pleasure of having sex with you

    Any time it's not for A or B... it is prostitution.

    1. Interesting.

      Now I have some questions Alek :

      1. If the girl heavily makes out with you within 15 minutes of meeting but only spread her legs on fourth or fifth date, what does that mean ? She's really prude or she just isn't enough attracted to you ? Note that I'm only talking about girls that quickly make out with you and that are very into it, I'm NOT talking about girls that don't even want to make out with you before second date (and when you make out, you feel that she isn't really into it).

      2. So now that every woman is a prostitute, are we doomed ? What do we do ? I'm still a hopeless romantic. What do I do ? I will not be able to enjoy a LTR again now that I know that. The foundation of a relationship for me is that the girl genuinely likes me. I'm not interested in having an "exclusive prostitute".

    2. 1. If the girl heavily makes out with you within 15 minutes of meeting but only spread her legs on fourth or fifth date, what does that mean ? She's really prude or she just isn't enough attracted to you ?

      How the fuck would I know? I'm not psychic.

      The point is that there are many conflicting drives and mating is very complex. Nobody knows which part of which of her drives influences what how much in one specific situation.

      All I know is (for my personal life) is that I only consider women who required zero-barter to sleep with me. That's just me and my own personal value system, everyone has to create their own value system.

      My own value system is (but this only came about after laying every type of girl I'd wanted to lay at least once)...

      - I refuse anything less than fair. I only accept a process where she puts in at least 50% of the effort to make things happen.

      - If I detect even the slightest amount of games, bartering, i delete & block her number, block her on facebook and never talk to her for as long as she's alive

      That's just my personal (extremist) value system. I don't think anyone should model me. I'm a narcissistic and bitter over-ambitious over-achiever who's trying to be super-succesful at several fields at once. So I have super-crazy boundaries*.

      *-Not just for women, for male friendships and business partnerships also

    3. Thanks for the answer, that's what I do too. I refuse games and I refuse chasing. Either she makes it super easy for me, either I stop talking immediately to her.

    4. Just read up on that Facebook COO Sandberg shtick: I've gotta say this is easily the most absurd stuff I've seen in quite some time.

      First of all; nothing relevant or worthwhile comes out of Facebook. EVER. They are today’s AOL. Taking the fraud Sandberg as role model is totally ridicolous in its own right.

      Secondly, isn't it any wonder more and more single men of a certain age could care less now for marriage? And yet statistically/allegedly 80% of men want to be good fathers?

      Also, way back in 1971 Esther Vilar wrote in her classic book "The Manipulated Man": 
"Men have been conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves… A Man is a human being who works while a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex."
 Mrs. Vilar got death threats from feminist organisations for what she said, so I find it ironic that 44 years later "one of the world's wealthiest working women" can publicly validate her viewpoint and STILL be called a "feminist" without any substantial public criticism.

      Now what if some hubby follows her advice by going, „oh, my wife does the laundry, she does almost all the housework - that's her job. And I’m fine with it, cuz I DON'T want more sex. The prostitutes I frequent are better and far less of a hassle.“ **ROTFL**

      And taking marital advice from Sheryl Sandberg seems like taking fashion advice from Lady Gaga: even if you think it's a good idea, you won't be able to afford it. Why would a woman of the likes of Sheryl S. have any wisdom or indeed any interest in telling us men how to succeed in the boardroom or anywhere else?!

  16. Hey Aaron

    Just a pointer that the cuckoldry number is most likely wrong.
    Razib Khan of GNXP explains here.

    He has more posts on this as well if you google them.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.