Sunday, October 4, 2009

Most Women Are Prostitutes

I have concluded that most women are prostitutes. I know this because my sex life has been sporadic for years, and I can't rely on any woman for steady, reliable sex. It turns out I've taken myself out of the market for steady, reliable sex for one simple reason: I refuse to "pay" for it.

I tell women upfront that I don't want a relationship or commitment, and that I just want to have no strings casual fun. And as a result I only get occasional sex. The fact that I don't "give" anything in return for sex is the cause of this. And since most women are prostitutes, the result is that most women want nothing to do with me.

And the ones I do hook up with usually don't stick around very long. Apparently, it's quite a challenge for women to keep giving a guy sex in exchange for nothing. So some will do it for a little while, but the inevitable feeling they have is that I'm ripping them off if this type of arrangement continues.

But I realize this is the price I pay for being a free man. And I think that's entirely a good thing. The last thing I want is to be a slave to some woman's "relationship requirements" just so I can get some on a regular basis.

I think it's most disturbing that it is this way, but looking back, that is exactly what I am forced to conclude. Women, for the most part, cannot enjoy sex by itself. They need an economic incentive to keep it going, otherwise they might get very jealous of all those other girls who are getting regular sex with all the extra goodies.

Some women will argue that women get more emotionally attached to a man after sex so that's why they can't keep it on a casual level. To this I say bollocks. Prostitutes (hookers) are able to have sex with many men (some of them for years) and you never once hear them complain about getting "attached" to their clients. Are prostitutes special? No, but they are getting paid, which is why they can keep doing it.

Naturally, payment can come in different forms, and the relationship format is the usual payment option men exercise in exchange for regular sex.

A relationship means:

• Giving her lots and lots of attention

• Dealing with her shit constantly, and putting up with any new shit that may come up

• Listening to her problems ad nauseum

• Dealing with her insecurities that you might leave her at any time, and giving her constant reassurance that the "relationship" is going where she wants

• Doing things for her (much more than she does for you)

• Buying her shit

• Letting her control you (at least to an extent)

Of course, not all relationships are parasitic dysfunctional arrangements, but the fact is that in almost all relationships the man has to actively "give" something (whatever that may be) in exchange for sex. There is always that certain something the woman will be demanding in return for opening her legs. Very few women, it seems, can enjoy sex by itself for any length of time without some payout. And yet, many women make frequent use of sex toys, so you can see the hypocrisy. It would be better if men were used as sex toys, and then let them go free to do whatever they want, until the next appointment. That would be more honest. But it doesn't work this way. Women are far too opportunistic to not use sex (which men want) to extract as much value as possible for their own personal gain.

Of course, the ultimate form of sex-ploytation is the modern marriage. And I won't even get into that particular hornet's nest. I'll save that for another post, as it deserves a stand-alone discussion.

Some will argue that many women already make their own money, and as a result they don't need a man to pamper and provide for them in exchange for sex. That's certainly true, but it doesn't really change the whore-tendencies of women in a significant way. For many otherwise "well off" women, a man is simply a way for them to get even more material things without extra expenditure and effort on their part. There are few women who wouldn't cash in on the "man factor", especially if they are attractive. As far as they're concerned, it would be like saying no to easy money, and from their perspective that would be foolish.

Women's liberation is largely to blame. As a result woman are now, more than ever, slaves to their emotions and selfish baser instincts. And they can' t be fixed. The current generation of western women is completely incurable in this regard. And how funny that they will act as if they are completely within their rights, doing what they do, and always reframing their actions to take focus away from the damage they cause.

No, educating the current generation of women is not the solution here. But training them might be, since training implies that we are dealing with an animal. And an animal can't be reasoned with, but it can be taught to do certain things and not others. This seems to fit well with the typical animalistic western woman who herself is beyond education due to her spoiled upbringing and tainted views towards men. These women can only be trained by men who refuse to take their shit any longer. This will no doubt result in them treating us better, but most likely it will not fix the core problem, given they will revert back to their former state given the first opportunity. So it's better to keep these women at arms length, as they will forever be damaged goods. Have your fun with them, but reserve your greatest sympathies for women who were not raised under the wing of feminism and the women's movement.


Lorne said...

yeah, I didn't even think about it like that but now I see that my views are not far off

Anonymous said...

I am not physically able to have sex with a man who has the free sex attitude like you portray in your post. It would not open up down there. Even if we agree that the relationship is short-term, I expect a little pampering. You may call it a whore, but I call it a primal instinct. They don't just go out the door overnight with feminism and the sexual liberation. I couldn't be attracted to him as a man and get all soaked up if he portrays a complete lazy attitude. I mean, the fear of responsibility factor already would curb my appetite for sex with him from a "rainforest" degree of wetness to a "deciduous forest" degree of wetnness., but when it is topped off with not even wanting to do anything to treat me like a lady at all within the temporary arrangement, you're talking about bringing this wetness degree level down to a desert. Now, I'm sure there are plenty of women who you slide up inside for little effort on your part, but I'm happy I am who I am as a woman who seeks a man who is willing to do a little work because I am not a Springer woman working 3 jobs to support my kids by myself.

Anonymous said...

You say that it's unfair for yourself to not have sex regularly without having to pay in some form... but perhaps you could think of it in another way:

By having free sex, with no commitments, you yourself benefit from it with... sexual satisfaction.
However, the normal human woman don't usually get such urges and therefore, the relationship will not benefit them as it does you.
Therefore, we have a one-sided relationship, where only one person benefits (you).

I'm not sure about others, but I for one think it to be incredibly stupid to do something that does not benefit me and could possibly harm me. No, I am not self centered, but I am self preserving. Sure, you use condoms, but, simply put, they can fail.
In such a case, who has to deal with it? The woman. Yes, you can get an abortion... but that just raises up more controversial issues.

So perhaps you could try putting yourself in the other person's shoes and see that, no, most women are not prostitutes. They are simply trying to protect themselves and are smart enough to know that agreeing with such a request is not.

*I know you mentioned at the beginning that your comments and posts might not apply to every place in the world, but I've lived in Toronto- and cities just aren't that much different from each other.

John said...

You may find the following post more informative:

John said...

There's a spectrum of behaviour here worth mentioning. On the one far end you have men wanting as much sex as possible, anytime they want, with no effort at all. On the other end you have women wanting sex only if it's paid for somehow, and the man had better pony up or go without. I am merely saying that the way things are now are mostly towards the latter end of the spectrum, and things should be more balanced instead.

Arguments against what I write here tend to be assuming that I am advocating the far end of the spectrum in favor of men. But this is just distorting what I'm saying.

Women are certainly in their right to refuse sex if it's not what they want but at the same time it really helps men to be aware of the possible reasons why, reasons that often stem from dishonest self-interest wrapped in innocent sounding reasons such as "I expect a little pampering" or "I'm just trying to protect myself", or "I have too much self-respect", or "I want to be treated like a lady". Certainly all these can be valid reasons if they come from the right place, but in a room full of women using these reasons as justification I would bet that many (or most) of them are flat out being deceptive for reasons of pure self-interest.

And to the previous commenter, cities in different parts of the world are often very different from each other on the sexual liberation scale. Different cultures are different, and although there may be similarities, the differences can be pronounced. It would be nice to some to think that women are the same everywhere, but (thankfully) they are not.

Anonymous said...

>>I am not physically able to have sex with a man who has the free sex attitude like you portray in your post. It would not open up down there. Even if we agree that the relationship is short-term, I expect a little pampering<<

Sex and 'somewhere to have the babies' are linked in a woman's mind. This is why they look to moneyed or famous men. It's incredible how things change when he's a billionaire.