Don’t Marry

“Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Allah on Nov 23, 2005, 9:14am

Dear readers,
This topic was broached some time ago, and I was hoping to see it explored with greater analysis, so here goes my take on it: normally, many women are repulsed by the very concept of prostitution, they often see a man who has slept with a prostitute as a lower form of life, worthy of scorn. I remember early in my career when it got out that a fellow teacher had shagged a prostitute, one of my female colleagues was absolutely repulsed by him, but I didn’t dismiss him as an unworthy person. After all, men spend money on women they barely like just to get sex in return, so why should a man who is direct and honest be castigated by half of society? Well, I was wondering, the perception of “johns” is often of a geeky, socially inept guy who collects comic books and action figures, lives in his mother’s basement and decides, at age 35, to have his first sexual experience with the money he earned working his minimum wage job at the magic shop at the mall or one thinks of the hooker clientèle as consisting of sleazy, gold chain festooned Joey Buttafuoco lookalikes who love to degrade women. What do you think? I wonder why “winners,” i.e., Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant and Jack Nicholson visit whores when it is commonly demonstrated in popular culture that only losers and scumbags pay for it. What’s your opinion. Allah would like to know.
Sincerely,
Allah

——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Nov 23, 2005, 9:24am

Marriage is eating the same sandwich for the rest of your life. One of the strategies for a healthy gene pool is to spread your genes as widely as possible. It is however not conducive to raising healthy and sane children. Hence Marriage as a means to protect blood lines, transfer wealth, and preserve property.

Men use hookers because of the sexual variety. Wealthy Men especially can score with no problems at all. Celebrities are inundated with Women wanting to screw their brains out. I had a friend who ran a night club in the 70s in Chicago called Harlow’s. Ted Nugent, Cheap Trick, and Journey got their starts playing there.

When they tour there is a never ending stream of hot, attractive young Women who throw themselves at these guys. We were at the State Fair in Dallas in 1995 when Cheap Trick was playing. We were invited back to their suite to party with them. Women were falling all over themselves to get us into bed with them. It was unbelievable.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by Niall NLIT on Nov 23, 2005, 9:27am

Well I think American hookers are all drugged up skanks but say a French hooker yes please sir!

Anyhow. $100 (or whatever it is I’ve never shagged an American hooker) and guaranteed sex versus what dinner, movie, flowers say $300 for no guarantee of anything. Sounds like a deal to me. Having said that you can shag Ameriskanks for free if you get the attitude the right so maybe the third $0 option is best but the question was about hookers so yes go with the hooker option.

As to what women think, who cares?
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by Snakey on Nov 23, 2005, 9:33am

I give hookers points for honesty, and I respect them at least as much as most women, probably more.

Of course I wouldn’t ever EVER get involved with one beyond the paid time. They are scrambled chix, self destructive, have more issues than the magazine rack, and are invariably jaded against men. I have spoken to a hooker on a dating site out of curiosity. I said she had plenty of male companionship – why was she looking for more? It turned out (some of this admitted, some deduced by her behavior) that she wanted an absolute “Yes Dear” type who would NOT ask her for sex, and who would cheerfully take all abuse she felt like giving out. She hated the men she humped for cash, hated with passion, and in her ad posted sexy pics of herself, while saying (in the ad) she was “tired of boys who want to fuck”. Surely some guy is desperate enough to subject himself to that – I pity him, and pity her if she ends up with him, because he’s liable to be a sorry sonofabitch.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by John Ross on Nov 23, 2005, 10:46am

LOTS of serious disinformation in this thread…
JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by Guest on Nov 23, 2005, 10:56am

Nov 23, 2005, 9:27am, Niall NLIT wrote:
Well I think American hookers are all drugged up skanks but say a French hooker yes please sir!

Anyhow. $100 (or whatever it is I’ve never shagged an American hooker) and guaranteed sex versus what dinner, movie, flowers say $300 for no guarantee of anything.

No offense but only a loser would spend $300 on a chick he hasn’t screwed a ton of times already. That’s why you guys have trouble with women, you supplicate to them.

A lot of French whores are very ugly. At least in Paris they were. Though French women tend to be hot.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by Niall NLIT on Nov 23, 2005, 11:09am

‘That’s why you guys have trouble with women, you supplicate to them’

Not me cowboy. Read my post in the dating thread. Was just using a general bloke example.

Shagged a French hooker in Paris once. She was smoking hot. Mind you was arranged for me by the concierge of the George V and cost a fortune but you only live once.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by King Karan on Nov 23, 2005, 11:21am

You may have a point there “guest”! Nobody should pay in the first place, and if somebody does it should be the woman. I guess payment deals with the hassle/time factor which irritates a lot of men.

P.S. “Allah”: For crying out loud please change your nick! It is truly distasteful to associate yourself with a primitive pedophile and a polygamist.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by IveFuckedHookersAllMyLife on Nov 23, 2005, 11:43am

Quote:
“Hookers are for Losers”

Nice shaming tactic in the post title!!!!!

Since IveFuckedHookersAllMyLife, as a public service, I will attempt to answer your questions and dispel any disinformation for you.

Quote: I wonder why “winners,” i.e., Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant and Jack Nicholson visit whores

There is saying that goes something like “Men pay hookers to go away after sex” – so yes, if you’re a rich/famous “winner”, you may want to have a variety of sexual partners, but none of the drama associated with fucking a bunch of different “normal” women.

Quote: normally, many women are repulsed by the very concept of prostitution

Of course they are repulsed, hooker’s are women’s competition. In general, women are jealous of other women getting any man, so you can see this would cause even more jealously for a woman.

Quote: the perception of “johns” is often of a geeky, socially inept guy who collects comic books and action figures, lives in his mother’s basement and decides, at age 35, to have his first sexual experience with the money he earned working his minimum wage job at the magic shop at the mall

That’s me!!!

Quote: sleazy, gold-chain festooned Joey Buttafuoco lookalikes who love to degrade women.

That’s me too!!!

Quote: Charlie Sheen, Hugh Grant and Jack Nicholson visit whores

Guess which one is me????

I may be all or none of the above. I could go searching on the internet for examples, but I think we have heard enough stories of these types of “Loser’s” bangin prostitutes:

Priests
Doctors
Businessmen
Pro Athletes
Politicians
Lawyers
Police Officers
Firemen
Teachers
Actors
Musicians
Women
etc.

I could go on, everybody fucks whores – it is not politically correct – so no one admits it.

Quote: As to what women think, who cares?

Exactly, and I will add – who cares what anyone thinks? You all, women, men, everyone – you all can label me a “loser” – I could care less. I’m getting laid whenever I want, by a variety of young, hot girls – and I don’t have to listen to any women’s BS – yeah, I am a total loser. I’m sure I’ll get flamed (“you must be ugly, poor, fat, short, etc.”) for this post, so what. This is the internet, I am not going to post a pic or my financial statement or tell you how successful I am, etc. I have nothing to prove to anyone and I’m going to continue fuck hookers for the rest of my life (damn, how’s that for a “Man Going His Own Way”).
John
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by trailblazer on Nov 23, 2005, 11:53am

Well, the traditional definition of “loser” is a guy who can’t get a girl. The men on this board don’t WANT one — big difference. As I posted on another board: Sex is the one thing for which a man needs a woman. And the one thing that’s completely legal to do, but not to pay for.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by TyHigs on Nov 23, 2005, 12:08pm

I’m still trying to remember how many whores I fucked before I discovered foreign women.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by Guest on Nov 23, 2005, 12:10pm

Nov 23, 2005, 11:53am, trailblazer wrote:
Well, the traditional definition of “loser” is a guy who can’t get a girl. The men on this board don’t WANT one — big difference.

Ummm that’s a very poor definition trailblazer. Jacque Chirac has both a wife AND a mistress. And he is still a looooser. Bobcat Goldwaith married a hottie like Nikki Cox. But he is still a loser. I bet Pee Wee Herman had a wife too before his bust. Pee Wee was a loser before and after.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by mikeash on Nov 23, 2005, 1:07pm

Hookers or escorts generally have a low probability of a false rape allegation, so that is a good start right there.

If you bed women that are looking for more than a one night stand, there is a much greater probability of one of those women throwing you to the wolves.

Sure, there are probably a lot of men who ‘have’ to pay, but there are just as many who do it to avoid the hassles that come with bedding non-prostitutes.

I laughed out loud when I just wrote non-prostitutes. They all prostitute themselves to varying degrees, but with the nonprofessionals (that’s better) you never know what you’re getting for what you put in.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by antiriad on Nov 23, 2005, 1:40pm

Anyone who thinks “hookers are for losers” is:

1. a woman
2. an extremely pussy whipped guy

No exceptions. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the history of mankind. It takes a woman (who is angry because she cannot exert sexual power over a man who can use a hooker) or a guy who likes to take it up the ass by his mistress and “reaches the same conclusions” that she does to make this absolutely absurd statement that “hookers are for loosers.”

Check ‘yo pants mang, see if you can still locate your nuts in your trousers.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” – Your Thoughts
Post by thechief on Nov 23, 2005, 1:43pm

Nov 23, 2005, 12:10pm, Guest wrote:

Nov 23, 2005, 11:53am, trailblazer wrote:
Well, the traditional definition of “loser” is a guy who can’t get a girl. The men on this board don’t WANT one — big difference.

Ummm that’s a very poor definition trailblazer. Jacque Chirac has both a wife AND a mistress. And he is still a looooser. Bobcat Goldwaith married a hottie like Nikki Cox. But he is still a loser. I bet Pee Wee Herman had a wife too before his bust. Pee Wee was a loser before and after.

Whoever this particular “Guest” is (i.e., someone without the courage to register and actually get in the game), he or she is an idiot.

Sooner or later, in one coin or another, all men pay for sex. And the “cash up front” option is often less costly in the long run and the larger sense.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by fortyniner on Nov 23, 2005, 1:47pm

I’m 29 and I don’t pay for sex in any way shape or form. Though I can understand it being different for much older guys.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 23, 2005, 1:54pm

Nov 23, 2005, 1:40pm, antiriad wrote:

Anyone who thinks “hookers are for losers” is:

1. a woman
2. an extremely pussy whipped guy

No exceptions. Prostitution is the oldest profession in the history of mankind. It takes a woman (who is angry because she cannot exert sexual power over a man who can use a hooker) or a guy who likes to take it up the ass by his mistress and “reaches the same conclusions” that she does to make this absolutely absurd statement that “hookers are for loosers.”

Check ‘yo pants mang, see if you can still locate your nuts in your trousers.

Hookers are great
Ha, well said, but in all honesty I used to think hookers were for losers when I was;

Young, and had shitloads of time to waste doing the bar / party thing. (eg, go out to the bars 3 times to get laid once after 250 bucks and 3 nights wasted in time.)

One day you wake up after 30, and if you’re single you begin to realize all women are hookers on a fundamental level.

Men - provide support via money and protection via physical strength.

Women - provide sex via money/gifts/putting up with them, and nurturing.

Its all cost benefits. Hookers are fun if you live in Small town USA with “girl next door” types – not the hard ass ones – ones who’re in it for a few months only.

Hell I became buds with a local escort service owner (pimp) and he used to send me his “new-first timers” under 25. It was just like having a new girl in your house.

These chicks were shy, sweet, polite, nervous (until you calm them down with a shot of peach snapps) and a great fuck.

$165.00 bucks for 1 hour, and if the girls ALWAYS leave you their pager number for a quicky on the side for $100.00 bucks an hour (without going through the escort service.)

Bottom line?

All women are prostitutes, as we get older we see the time/money benefits of getting a 24 year old girl once every 2 weeks.

That was over 5 years ago, prices may have gone up. (but I doubt much.)

My experience with larger city hookers is they suck because they’re too businesslike. I like the warm vulnerable girls “new to the scene.”

“Only take advice from those who’ve done it better than you.”

——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by fortyniner on Nov 23, 2005, 2:00pm

it’s really sad that chrisvet is a moderator on this forum. it could have been ok with someone with some social skills.

“My experience with larger city hookers is they suck because they’re too businesslike. I like the warm vulnerable girls “new to the scene.”

that’s brilliant chrisvet. lotlizards at the Interstate truck stop. avoid dating fellas so that ya have the free time to pick up prostitutes w/STDs like our glorious leader chrisvet.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 23, 2005, 2:01pm

Nov 23, 2005, 1:47pm, fortyniner wrote:
I’m 29 and I don’t pay for sex in any way shape or form. Though I can understand it being different for much older guys.

Ha again, I used to think exactly like this until I realized all women cost money and expect certain amounts of your:

- Time
- Money
- Ability to be a Emotional Tampon (to a small small degree if you play your cards right and put your foot down)

I always used to see guys like Hugh Hefner as shallow wierd guys until I tried it myself 5 years ago.

It was like having 25 young cute girlfriends who came over and were “fun” (talk for 30 minutes, fuck for 30 minutes.) When they leave you feel great. (treat em like they were your own girlfriend – they love that shit and instantly remove those moronic barriers they usually put up.)

Visualize doing this for 1 year (in between 4-5 other girls you dated for real) and you lived like a king for under 4500 bucks.

(way the fuck less than the cost of 1 GF.)

No bullshit, no emotional drainage, no whining, it was great!

Now I’ve been with the same GF for 5 years and am down to once a month sex.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 23, 2005, 2:05pm

Nov 23, 2005, 2:00pm, fortyniner wrote:
it’s really sad that chrisvet is a moderator on this forum. it could have been ok with someone with some social skills.

“My experience with larger city hookers is they suck because they’re too businesslike. I like the warm vulnerable girls “new to the scene.”

that’s brilliant chrisvet. lotlizards at the Interstate truck stop. avoid dating fellas so that ya have the free time to pick up prostitutes w/STDs like our glorious leader chrisvet.

Whats with the personal attacks?

Lotlizzards, gimmi a break buddy. They’re the bottom of the barrel. Not that shit, never, touch it with a 10 foot pole and you deserve STD’s. Those chics in daylight are like washed up strippers ran over by a steam roller. You can have em.

Chicks I’m talking about are collage students, 18-24, first timers, getting into it for a few months only. If its not for you, don’t let it tear your insides out.

People change. I used to be in your boat.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by fortyniner on Nov 23, 2005, 2:11pm

wow chris you live on this forum. how do ya find time to even have sex?

young chicks have the most STDs FYI. look it up if ya don’t believe me.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by TyHigs on Nov 23, 2005, 3:20pm

If prostitution was legalized:

1. No men would have their faces plastered on the web or on billboards to embarrass them.
2. It would be regulated, so there’d be no hookers with STDs
3. The prices would decline (due to increased competition) from $300 to $75 a pop.
4. Less sexually frustrated men willing to capitulate to psychotic biznatches.

Some problems I have with prostitution:

1. Condoms.
2. You only get to ride the train once per session, which sucks.
3. No kissing.
4. No sense of “conquering” her.
5. As of right now, unless you are willing to spend $400 and up, most of the hookers are the same type of women you’d spit on rather than have sex with for free.

——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by SM777 on Nov 23, 2005, 9:31pm

Gentlemen, how about, “Marriage is for Losers”?
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Syde on Nov 23, 2005, 9:41pm

That really depends on who ya marry.
My bro’s wife makes good money ($70k at age 33) and she is easygoing. She’s paying his way through grad school right now too.

I have a male friend of mine that’s a psychiatrist married to another Dr. A very hot, very nice, woman that’s a good mother to their kids too.

Not everyone has a sob story lol. Some guys marry very well.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by uzername on Nov 24, 2005, 1:16am

Women cant stand the awful truth about prostitutes and how they, without illusion, commodify sex.

Its the same old analysis of women trade on sex and its essentially how they land a man. Lets face it, if the didnt have a you know what you wouldnt carry them, hell you would prolly throw rocks at them.

When you just come out and say this sort of thing it makes their blood boil that you could so casually and effectively NEGATE the ESSENCE of THEIR POWER OVER MEN. That’s when all the usual tactics start, which is real funny, because a man who uses hookers AND admits it obviously has such a thick skin that a bunch of head games wont make any difference to this sort of man. Then again, most men l suspect just keep it to themselves because all those personal attacks can weigh down, even though you know its all crap.

You gotta wounder about a woman or a man for that matter who gets all bent out of shape over something that you do, to which all participating adult have freely consented, which doesnt involve them. l suspect it reflects a deep level of insecurity on their part.

Anyway, if you thin in those terms, the world is full of infinitely more loosers than winners. You folks who go around with this winner/looser way of thinking have a scarcity view of life, your glass is always half empty, win/loose limited way of thinking. Yeah, l understand some only use it as a put down. Hookers are a win/win situation if you are that sort of thinker. Otherwise, as long as you are happy, who gives a fuck what the twits of this world think.

Figured out a long time ago that the one’s who go about calling others loosers (and mean it) do it because they cant bear to look in the mirror and confront their own crap.

Sex is what it is. Its not rocket science. Its not complicated. Its not a whole bunch of self validating egocentric nonsense that people wrap it up in.

Outside of procreation its just a pleasurable commodity.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 24, 2005, 5:07pm

Nov 24, 2005, 1:16am, uzername wrote:
Sex is what it is. Its not rocket science. Its not complicated. Its not a whole bunch of self validating egocentric nonsense that people wrap it up in.

Outside of procreation its just a pleasurable commodity.

Precisely! There will always be whores, and until a man has one, or two, or 5, cut the other guys some slack.

Businessmen get whores, students get whores, nerds get whores, studs get whores, jocks get whores, Doctors get whores, Mangina’s get whores (well, wouldn’t go that far)

Been around since the dawn of time and every way you slice it – every woman is exchanging Sex for your protector / providership role.

Sex is the 3rd most powerful force next to food and sleep. The trick is to keep women where they belong in submissive roles via social constructs ran by men (lacking safety nets) – with plenty of whores that get thrown in the mix.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by thechief on Nov 24, 2005, 9:59pm

Women in “polite society” detest prostitutes. Not because they offer sex for money, but because they dare to offer up-front pricing.

Therein lies the problem for most women. Whenever they exhibit outrage at prostitution, realize it’s the same outrage a merchant feels when a competing business comes into town and offers the same goods and services at a lower price.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 25, 2005, 12:22am

Nov 24, 2005, 9:59pm, thechief wrote:

Women in “polite society” detest prostitutes. Not because they offer sex for money, but because they dare to offer up-front pricing.

Therein lies the problem for most women. Whenever they exhibit outrage at prostitution, realize it’s the same outrage a merchant feels when a competing business comes into town and offers the same goods and services at a lower price.

Yuppers, I can’t disagree. By nature women despise competition. Plain and simple.

Same with those “whining” businesses who hate Walrus mart. The guy with the best prices wins. Sucks but its true.

AKA “entitlement attitude.” Instead of diversifying into other products / more specialized stuff, trimming expenses to be more efficient, they scream @ city council to block Walmart.

In fact, I’d bank that every protesting guy who’s anti walmart is getting pushed from behind by a woman. These same women run to the lawmakers to keep prostitution illegal, to raise welfare, to grant more child support……..etc etc etc….entitlements…

Removing market inefficiencies is a good thing, but it always comes at the price of human cost.

Hate outsourcing? Vote out gov’ts that nail business with excessive taxation, unions, fiat dollars, subsidies to other competing companies, and you’ll have enough $$$ left over to keep our companies 25 years ahead of current Tech / Machinery that the US is now impregnating all over china.

Business didn’t kill R + D, big gov’t did.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Guest on Nov 25, 2005, 3:25am

women don’t often date men that they can’t compete for.

try telling 10 girls that you have no girlfriend then tell 10 that you are busy this sat. night and see what works better.
(answer #2)
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by A on Nov 25, 2005, 10:04am

I’m opposed to China*Mart 100%, and I’m certainly not being pushed by my wife (who incidentally WANTS to shop there). China*Mart uses corporate welfare and massive outsourcing of American jobs to undercut the local competition.

Removing market inefficiencies does NOT have to come at human cost. Increasing market share or competitiveness does not necessarily have to include massive wage and benefits cuts or selling a nation out through destructive outsourcing and insourcing practices. Real innovation, fair wages and standards, hard work, loyalty, ethics and positive worker moral can accomplish this as well WITHOUT destroying the nation in the process.

btw – It is not just big government which is destroying R&D. It is a decline in individual ethics, individual accountability (responsibly), educational standards, true national pride and a push by the “powers that be” (globalists/elitists) which is largely responsible for this.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by GuestWill on Nov 25, 2005, 11:01am

All the women on this board are clueless.

Most of the men who use escorts are MARRIED. I spoke with a high end escort in a metro area and she told me that the reason why most of her clientèle is married guys is that they have two kids, a huge house, nice cars, but their wives aren’t willing to have sex on a regular basis! These women want big houses, nice cars, quiet suburban lives but they aren’t willing to meet their end of the bargain to get it. Talk about a BREACH of an understood agreement.

Women don’t get it. Men work 60 hours/week at a “good” job that they detest (ask a lawyer, CPA, or doctor how much he “loves” his career. He will tell you that it “pays the bills”). When a man gets home from work, he doesn’t want to be nagged, etc. He wants to spend some time letting his wild side come out.

The idea that losers go to hookers is laughable. Most of the high end escorts cater to 1) married guys that are in loveless, sexless marriages and 2) single business men who travel around the world and don’t have the time to find a woman in the cities that they work in. If a guy makes $75 hour and he has a laptop in his room in a hotel, he could a) call a hot escort who will rock his world for the next two hours for $400, or he can spend the next hour getting ready, then another 2-3 hours on the prowl looking for a woman who wants a one-night stand (sounds safe! to me!), and then a few more hours convincing her to go back to his hotel room where she will not be nearly as good in bed as the escort.

High end escorts are safe (they use condoms, etc) and they will not call you to nag about things. They will be your fuck doll, your therapist, whatever you want them to be.

Don’t let the women on the board confuse you about hookers. These women will do anything you want. Additionally, if you treat them well, they will be cooler than any woman you have ever dated.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Riskbreaker on Nov 25, 2005, 11:55am

Gentlemen, this was all covered on nomarriage.

The title of ‘loser’, why prostitution is so ‘bad’, everything.

Are you a loser or a pussy?
Let’s translate “loser” from women-speak into English.
“Loser” in woman-speak simply means a man who is smart enough to do things that are in HIS best interest.

You don’t spend your hard-earned money on women – you are a loser
You expect regular sex – you are a loser
You are not interested in marriage – you are a loser
You don’t want to be stuck with kids – you are a loser
You don’t want to slave away 60 hours a week so a woman can buy a new SUV every year – you are a loser
You prefer South American women who treat you better – you are a HUUGE LOOOSER
The alternative to “loser” is a pussyfied man, or simply a pussy. A pussyfied man does what a woman wants – he is a docile schmuck who slaves away at work and pays her bills and not pesters her for sex. In other words, he is an ideal husband.

Ex. Let’s do the math. 2 decent mid-priced whores a week – $250/week (that’s if you know where to look) – $1000/month – $12,000/year – $120,000 for 10 years of quality fucking.

Sounds a lot cheaper than a wife, even without divorce ass-raping.

I have known men with ugly fat wives that looked like the Terrible Mr. Toad from the Wind in the Willows that spent $300,000.00 in 10 years on them and were lucky to get one fuck a month. Imaging the top flight call girls they could have fucked for that money.
http://www.nomarriage.com/whores.html
http://www.nomarriage.com/articlesexless.html
http://www.nomarriage.com/marriedsex.html
http://www.singleabroad.com/vacation_sex.shtml
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Chris vet on Nov 25, 2005, 1:46pm

Nov 25, 2005, 10:04am, A wrote:
I’m opposed to China*Mart 100%, and I’m certainly not being pushed by my wife (who incidentally WANTS to shop there). China*Mart uses corporate welfare and massive outsourcing of American jobs to undercut the local competition.

Removing market inefficiencies does NOT have to come at human cost. Increasing market share or competitiveness does not necessarily have to include massive wage and benefits cuts or selling a nation out through destructive outsourcing and insourcing practices. Real innovation, fair wages and standards, hard work, loyalty, ethics and positive worker moral can accomplish this as well WITHOUT destroying the nation in the process.

btw – It is not just big government which is destroying R&D. It is a decline in individual ethics, individual accountability (responsibly), educational standards, true national pride and a push by the “powers that be” (globalists/elitists) which is largely responsible for this.

Indeed, declining ethics / morals are due to socialism & big gov’t catering to 51% of the voter block – females. Logic and reason have been replaced with the PC feelings of “women.” A legal system hijacked by the fascist policy “for the best interests of the children” masks the current exploitation of the western male.

A system of excessive safety nets, welfare, child support, alimony, mothers allowance, have rendered the protector / provider role of the western male useless.

Fathers have been replaced by the state daddy, causing the inevitable destruction of the family unit.

Children from these homes go on to achieve less in facets of their lives. (90% of inmates are from single mother homes.)

Corporate welfare as you point out is yet another big gov’t intervention (which in all cases creates inefficiency.)

Part of the big gov’t problem is the unethical relationship it shares with big business. For years, large corps that fail to establish such a relationship lose a tremendous edge in the marketplace.

Everything from special tariffs, to excessive regulations are often lobbied by corporations that support the “current administration” to ensure dominance in the market place.

Like anything, monopolies do not last forever, however when big gov’t shares this relationship with large corps (mercantilism) – sustaining large monopolies are often a direct result of this unethical big gov’t regulation.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Chris vet on Nov 25, 2005, 1:51pm

Loser is a shame tactic used by women who feel threatened by easy sex escorts provide.

Sex is the only power a woman has over a man. (other than 942 male oppressive laws.)

Women naturally fear it.

Men who side with these women are manginas.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Chris vet on Nov 25, 2005, 2:02pm

Nov 25, 2005, 11:01am, GuestWill wrote:

All the women on this board are clueless.

Most of the men who use escorts are MARRIED. I spoke with a high end escort in a metro area and she told me that the reason why most of her clientèle is married guys is that they have two kids, a huge house, nice cars, but their wives aren’t willing to have sex on a regular basis! These women want big houses, nice cars, quiet suburban lives but they aren’t willing to meet their end of the bargain to get it. Talk about a BREACH of an understood agreement.

Women don’t get it. Men work 60 hours/week at a “good” job that they detest (ask a lawyer, CPA, or doctor how much he “loves” his career. He will tell you that it “pays the bills”). When a man gets home from work, he doesn’t want to be nagged, etc. He wants to spend some time letting his wild side come out.

The idea that losers go to hookers is laughable. Most of the high end escorts cater to 1) married guys that are in loveless, sexless marriages and 2) single business men who travel around the world and don’t have the time to find a woman in the cities that they work in. If a guy makes $75 hour and he has a laptop in his room in a hotel, he could a) call a hot escort who will rock his world for the next two hours for $400, or he can spend the next hour getting ready, then another 2-3 hours on the prowl looking for a woman who wants a one-night stand (sounds safe! to me!), and then a few more hours convincing her to go back to his hotel room where she will not be nearly as good in bed as the escort.

High end escorts are safe (they use condoms, etc) and they will not call you to nag about things. They will be your fuck doll, your therapist, whatever you want them to be.

Don’t let the women on the board confuse you about hookers. These women will do anything you want. Additionally, if you treat them well, they will be cooler than any woman you have ever dated.

yup, any way you slice it – women have no incentive to keep their end of the bargain. Society victimizes them by feeling “entitled” to pandering / unrealistic expectations that creates whiny-bitch mindsets.

Take a guy who hasn’t been laid in 6 months and set him up with a different 24 YO escort every 2 weeks and ask him if he regrets it after 3 months.

Not only will he have more money saved up (vs having a GF) his brain will function normally.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by GuestWill on Nov 25, 2005, 2:13pm

yup, any way you slice it – women have no incentive to keep their end of the bargain

Exactly. The marriage and divorce laws are too one-sided.

If you give incentives for bad behavior, women will continue to take advantage and initiate divorce, etc.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by travis on Nov 25, 2005, 4:24pm

Nov 23, 2005, 3:20pm, TyHigs wrote:

If prostitution was legalized:

1. No men would have their faces plastered on the web or on billboards to embarrass them.
2. It would be regulated, so there’d be no hookers with STDs
3. The prices would decline (due to increased competition) from $300 to $75 a pop.
4. Less sexually frustrated men willing to capitulate to psychotic biznatches.

Some problems I have with prostitution:

1. Condoms.
2. You only get to ride the train once per session, which sucks.
3. No kissing.
4. No sense of “conquering” her.
5. As of right now, unless you are willing to spend $400 and up, most of the hookers are the same type of women you’d spit on rather than have sex with for free.

If prostitution was legalized, there’d be chains of prostitution corporations owned by women. The economy would become much better than it is now (according to women anyway). A fraction of Fortune 500 companies would have something to do with sex. Oh wait it already does. Well, there’d be a much larger fraction. Women would make US$3.75 to every man’s dollar. The woman that made the most profit would be sued by other women in an antitrust-like suit. Men who would get rejected by women would sue the whole corporation for sexual discrimination and would probably win millions of dollars if the mangina/female judge wouldn’t throw out the case and say “suck it up”.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by thechief on Nov 25, 2005, 8:44pm

Nov 25, 2005, 11:01am, GuestWill wrote:

All the women on this board are clueless.

Most of the men who use escorts are MARRIED. I spoke with a high end escort in a metro area and she told me that the reason why most of her clientèle is married guys is that they have two kids, a huge house, nice cars, but their wives aren’t willing to have sex on a regular basis! These women want big houses, nice cars, quiet suburban lives but they aren’t willing to meet their end of the bargain to get it. Talk about a BREACH of an understood agreement.

Women don’t get it. Men work 60 hours/week at a “good” job that they detest (ask a lawyer, CPA, or doctor how much he “loves” his career. He will tell you that it “pays the bills”). When a man gets home from work, he doesn’t want to be nagged, etc. He wants to spend some time letting his wild side come out.

The idea that losers go to hookers is laughable. Most of the high end escorts cater to 1) married guys that are in loveless, sexless marriages and 2) single business men who travel around the world and don’t have the time to find a woman in the cities that they work in. If a guy makes $75 hour and he has a laptop in his room in a hotel, he could a) call a hot escort who will rock his world for the next two hours for $400, or he can spend the next hour getting ready, then another 2-3 hours on the prowl looking for a woman who wants a one-night stand (sounds safe! to me!), and then a few more hours convincing her to go back to his hotel room where she will not be nearly as good in bed as the escort.

High end escorts are safe (they use condoms, etc) and they will not call you to nag about things. They will be your fuck doll, your therapist, whatever you want them to be.

Don’t let the women on the board confuse you about hookers. These women will do anything you want. Additionally, if you treat them well, they will be cooler than any woman you have ever dated.

To the best of my knowledge, no woman on this board has had much to say one way or the other about prostitutes.

Other than that, everything in the above post is absolutely right.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 26, 2005, 3:13am

Well, I guess I’ll reply to GuestWill,

It doesn’t matter how high end a prostitute is. Prostitution is not regulated (because it’s not legal) so prostitutes don’t have to get tested every couple months like they do in Amsterdam. Because they have sex with a lot of people, you greatly increase your chances of getting an STD and passing it on to your wife. Condoms break, but if they don’t, there are STDs that you can get, like herpes or genital warts, that you can’t prevent with a condom.

You’re using the excuse that “oh, well she doesn’t put out in bed” to justify sleeping around on her. If you’re in a loveless marriage, then you need to deal with that, explain your situation and try to come to a different arrangement, or get the hell out. But cheating on her, especially if she doesn’t know, is not cool. It puts her at risk and it negates the contract you made with her. (If you hadn’t gotten married, well, maybe it would be a different story. Next time, don’t get married.)

I definitely think prostitution should be legal to protect the women who do it. It’s like pot. You can’t stop it, so why not just regulate it? That being said, if my man ever slept with a prostitute, I would kick him to the curb, just as I expect to be kicked to the curb if I ever cheated. (Flamers, please do not just cut and paste the first section of the previous sentence. Read on to understand what I’m saying.) Not because I think monogamy is the only way. Hey, if both parties agree to polygamy, then fine. But I’m making a sacrifice not sleeping around in, he should to. Are you telling me that you would be fine if your wife slept with a male escort?

To the flamers, if you think that men are justified in having sex with more women because it’s “nature’s way”, well, you can’t use nature to define human morality. I can give you many examples in nature where the females have sex with many males but the males are monogamous and still care for her young, or the males and females are both monogamous, or the males and females are both polygamous, or the males have sex with many females, while the females only pick one male per season. It runs the whole gamut, regardless if the males have many sperm and the females have few eggs. There’s also homosexuality and lots of hermaphrodites in nature too, in case you were wondering. And some situations where rape is the only way females get fertilized, other situations where the male is reduced to a sac of sperm connected to the female’s genital organs. Actually sex in nature is very racy. You should check out dueling hermaphroditic flatworms trying to stick it to each other with their sword-like penises. Kinda cool in a geeky sorta way.

On a completely different note, Chrisvet, I strongly disagree with you that declining ethics are due to socialism or single mothers. I was taught in Sunday School that the basic idea of ethics is, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. A pretty universal ideal that can be found in most religions. One of the ways this has been enforced in the past has been through community interactions. (It’s a lot harder to fuck people over if you have to live in close proximity to them.) Unfortunately, our culture currently has very little sense of community and people think that spending money on clothes or gadgets solves all problems. Short-term gains are more important than long-term goals. People try to emulate Hollywood stars and watch dumbed down television instead of being active in the community or even reading books. This cannot be blamed on socialism or single moms because there are many single moms who are active in their community. As much as I hate to say it, I think TV culture is partially to blame because it got kids playing off the street and made people feel more connected through their television and gadgets than through human contact. But I digress…

I have one more thing to say to GuestWill. Men and women are lucky enough in North America to have both the resources and funding (if they work hard enough) to get a career in something they enjoy doing. But as GuestWill said, many people are just in it for the money. What a waste. You spend all this time working at a job you hate so you can buy gadgets that make you feel better about yourself. No wonder so many people take drugs (legal or otherwise).

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

Peace out.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 26, 2005, 4:04am

“On a completely different note, Chrisvet, I strongly disagree with you that declining ethics are due to socialism or single mothers. I was taught in Sunday School that the basic idea of ethics is, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. A pretty universal ideal that can be found in most religions. One of the ways this has been enforced in the past has been through community interactions”

We’re going to give you a phenomenal answer that will link all the points of your argument together and aim them back at socialism.

Socialism creates a dependency on government. The male provider/ protector is replaced by mothers allowance, child support, alimony, and welfare. There is no longer a need for women to “be nice” to men, nor a great incentive for women to NEED men to remain at home. (A long story about women believing the grass is always greener on the other side etc.) Therefore, women look up to gov’t for assistance, not neighbors, family, or HUSBANDS.

Now, you’re saying well Chris, just because dad isn’t around doesn’t mean kids have problems. Well, here’s a surprise. Study after study has said over and over that kids from single mother homes:
- Commit more crimes
- are less likely to sustain long term relationships
- get lower marks
- get poorer jobs
- more likely to end up in jail
- more likely to become dependent on drugs and alcohol.
- more likely to become single mothers themselves
- more likely to end up on welfare…….you get the message.

So, what about socialism? Well socialism is in our schools. Teachers are pounding kids as we speak about past oppressions of women (which is bullshit) and creating “victim mindsets in our girls.” Big deal? Yes, its the same crap they’ve been hammering into blacks the last 40 years. Government tries to help, but inadvertently divides you from the rest of the group because your suddenly a victim with entitlements. (hence the entitlement complex.) “I’m a victim, you owe me one!!”

These girls are taught to “cut it like men” and literally to hate “femininity.” (Reasons we have girl power, tough bitch attitudes, miserable women etc.)

People who have entitlement complexes rarely go on to succeed in life, always believing the world “owes them one” – and in this case, women who are NEVER happy, walking around with a chip on their shoulders.

Moving on. We have a recent trend of police interaction with our youth. Now, instead of mom and dad solving 5 year old johnny’s problem with the principal – the police are called in and johnny is hauled out in front of his classmates in HANDCUFFS. This isn’t a matter of being tough, this is indoctrinating our youth with this mindset (and its all planned by big gov’t):

“The police will handle your disputes.”

Therefore, children are now growing up believing “big gov’t police” will handle all their problems. EG, they are less likely to do all that community stuff your talking about (by helping others when they’re down.) Because our taxes (socialism) have created groups of people within government who want to keep their jobs- thus compete for yearly money – thus adding more jobs, more laws, creating more conflicts, resulting in the state daddy.

Therefore: “they don’t have to help the kid who just got beat up because “someone from the government will do it instead.”

Well women are the same. They’ve been pandered to by political manwhores seeking short term brownie points and in exchange have developed the “gimmi gimmi gimmi” dependent mindset / entitlement complex.

The end of the story, is more gov’t = more taxes. More taxes = less money. Less money = less generosity. Generosity (and a real sense of community) is created when people are left to stand on their own.

For the first 200 years of US history, social groups, church organizations, and volunteers all replaced welfare. This was the real deal of “community.” And the difference between then and now? Excessive taxation replacing those volunteers with paid gov’t employees.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 26, 2005, 4:17am

I should mention that post was written after 4:00 AM (can’t sleep lolz)

If you don’t understand it, I’ll be sure to clarify any points you’re unsure of after a good nites rest.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 26, 2005, 4:21am

And ducky, I’m on the same page as you with the drug war – but it’s not going to end soon.

There are simply too many highly paid gov’t employees, court workers, police, special task forces, that all depend on this imaginary war. (you actually can’t wage war against an object)

The real deal is 65% of most of our prisons are filled with men on drug related offenses. IT costs billions of dollars to house and maintain these prisons, and the people who are profiting do NOT want to see drugs legalized.

Forget the fact if we legalize drugs quality product will get made, gang wars will stop (saving innocent lives), gov’t can tax the drugs – there is simply too much money being made by hundreds of thousands of western gov’t employees to make drugs legal.

And listen to this:

In 1910 Mary brown walked right into the drug store and bought morphine for grandma – along side with the aspirin – and she wasn’t looked at twice.

Why? Because Mary had a mom and dad living at home who instilled strict morals / discipline etc. Mary went on to become a wife and mother – running a household.

All that good shit has been replaced with welfare. (trust me, we’ll get this point through to you eventually.)

Socialism rots the very fabric of society.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by antiriad on Nov 26, 2005, 5:38am

Nov 26, 2005, 3:13am, canuckyducky wrote:
On a completely different note, Chrisvet, I strongly disagree with you that declining ethics are due to socialism or single mothers.
[...]
Unfortunately, our culture currently has very little sense of community and people think that spending money on clothes or gadgets solves all problems.

People develop a communal sense naturally, but you can never force it onto them. In fact, the more you force it, the more alienated people become.

This is the fundamental failure of socialism: you cannot force people to be social and any attempt to do so in fact only brings out their antisocial side.

You wonder why there is a decreasing “sense of community” (as you put it)? It is socialism – the alienation of people against each other, worshiping this “model of ideal conduct” – this abstraction that nobody lives up to. This IS what causes communal decline: socialism.

This is why women make naturally poor leaders: they want to mother everybody into compliance while refusing to acknowledge that they themselves hate to be treated the same way. This cognitive dissonance in women is the principal reason why they are utterly unfit as leaders. They are unable to essentially sympathize, to disconnect themselves for a moment and see that their own tendency is destructive (as they themselves acknowledge, though not in the same context).

A social system mothers people into perpetual adolescence. That is the whole problem. People must grow up and face the world. When “the government” does this for them, people remain children. Yes – sometimes when you fall on your ass, it hurts. But guess what: unless you learn that lesson, you never develop into a mature adult. You must have the experience of the fuck up to properly put it into context. You can simply not learn everything from a fucking text book.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by John Ross on Nov 26, 2005, 9:51am

Nov 26, 2005, 3:13am, canuckyducky wrote:
That being said, if my man ever slept with a prostitute, I would kick him to the curb, just as I expect to be kicked to the curb if I ever cheated. (Flamers, please do not just cut and paste the first section of the previous sentence. Read on to understand what I’m saying.) Not because I think monogamy is the only way. Hey, if both parties agree to polygamy, then fine. But I’m making a sacrifice not sleeping around in, he should to. Are you telling me that you would be fine if your wife slept with a male escort?

Are we talking a situation where the husband has shown no physical interest in the wife for a few years, he’s moved to a separate bedroom, AND the wife pays ALL the household’s expenses and gives her husband a monthly spending allowance to spend on anything he wants?

And now the wife decides not to have an affair with a subordinate at work, or the pool boy, but cunnilingus in a paid transaction with a skilled professional whose livelihood depends on his NOT giving any STDs to his clients?

The answer to your question is not “yes,” but HELL, YES!

CD, your typically female “deal with [it], explain your situation and try to come to a different arrangement, or get the hell out” response doesn’t work in real life, unless you realize that “dealing with it” DOESN’T mean “endure it,” it means SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

The husband has sexual needs. He also deserves to not lose his children. That’s the problem with “get the hell out.”

JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by GuestWill on Nov 26, 2005, 10:53am

Nov 26, 2005, 9:51am, John Ross wrote:

Nov 26, 2005, 3:13am, canuckyducky wrote:
That being said, if my man ever slept with a prostitute, I would kick him to the curb, just as I expect to be kicked to the curb if I ever cheated. (Flamers, please do not just cut and paste the first section of the previous sentence. Read on to understand what I’m saying.) Not because I think monogamy is the only way. Hey, if both parties agree to polygamy, then fine. But I’m making a sacrifice not sleeping around in, he should to. Are you telling me that you would be fine if your wife slept with a male escort?

Are we talking a situation where the husband has shown no physical interest in the wife for a few years, he’s moved to a separate bedroom, AND the wife pays ALL the household’s expenses and gives her husband a monthly spending allowance to spend on anything he wants?

And now the wife decides not to have an affair with a subordinate at work, or the pool boy, but cunnilingus in a paid transaction with a skilled professional whose livelihood depends on his NOT giving any STDs to his clients?

The answer to your question is not “yes,” but HELL, YES!

CD, your typically female “deal with [it], explain your situation and try to come to a different arrangement, or get the hell out” response doesn’t work in real life, unless you realize that “dealing with it” DOESN’T mean “endure it,” it means SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

The husband has sexual needs. He also deserves to not lose his children. That’s the problem with “get the hell out.”
JR

CD = clueless. If you are having problems at work and go to your supervisor, they can tell you to walk if you don’t like the situation. A woman can do the same thing.

Once a woman has kids, she no longer has any incentive to satisfy her husband. And that is the problem. Once a woman has her needs met, she doesn’t CARE about her husband. It is all ME ME ME.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by GuestWill on Nov 26, 2005, 10:58am

Nov 26, 2005, 10:53am, GuestWill wrote:

Nov 26, 2005, 9:51am, John Ross wrote:
Are we talking a situation where the husband has shown no physical interest in the wife for a few years, he’s moved to a separate bedroom, AND the wife pays ALL the household’s expenses and gives her husband a monthly spending allowance to spend on anything he wants?And now the wife decides not to have an affair with a subordinate at work, or the pool boy, but cunnilingus in a paid transaction with a skilled professional whose livelihood depends on his NOT giving any STDs to his clients?

The answer to your question is not “yes,” but HELL, YES!

CD, your typically female “deal with [it], explain your situation and try to come to a different arrangement, or get the hell out” response doesn’t work in real life, unless you realize that “dealing with it” DOESN’T mean “endure it,” it means SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

The husband has sexual needs. He also deserves to not lose his children. That’s the problem with “get the hell out.”

JR

CD = clueless. If you are having problems at work and go to your supervisor, they can tell you to walk if you don’t like the situation. A woman can do the same thing. Once a woman has kids, she no longer has any incentive to satisfy her husband. And that is the problem.

Once a woman has her needs met, she doesn’t CARE about her husband. It is all ME ME ME.

One other thing. If, as you suggest, a man walks away, his wife gets 1/2 of his assets and sole custody of the kids, so he has everything to lose.

So let’s look at his options:

1) Stay in a miserable, sexless marriage because he is trapped by the law (i.e. if he gets divorced, he becomes a poor man with limited access to his kids).

2) Get divorced and she gets 1/2 the stuff and the kids.

3) Stay in the miserable, sexless marriage and get a piece on the side.

Guess which option is most attractive to a man? What incentive does a woman have to make it work (Hint: None), which is why 70% of women initiate divorce.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 26, 2005, 12:08pm

I was going to type a long reply regarding socialism and this whole blame single mom thing, but I don’t have time because I have to go to work. So I’m just going to give you some paragraphs of what would have been a longer response on the whole choice you guys feel you have regarding money and seeing your kids. Because I think you have a point, but I don’t think that it necessarily means that single moms are bad and prostitutes are better than divorce.

You’re going have to deal with a bit of anecdotal evidence here, sorry. So, I’ve already told you that I was brought up by a single mom. I also board with a single mom household and I have friends who are single moms. Chrisvet, I don’t see what you’re talking about in these people. Yes, the woman I board with was on welfare for a while. She hated it and eventually got a job as a community centre supervisor (for kids with disabilities) where she makes enough money to pay for a duplex in the city and raise three kids. I kid you not. Her kids split their time between her house and his house.

Kids need both and male and female role models, there is no doubt about that. A father is necessary in order for a) women to have a healthy relationship with other men and not just pick a father figure and b) so that boys learn how to be men. So in a sense, you’re kinda right, but only in situations where the father is no longer a part of the kid’s life. In situations where the parents have, for the most part, remained civil and both been active in the children’s life, this cycle does not continue. Us products of divorced parents tend to have our fun first (20 – 25) and pick someone that we want to be with for the rest of our lives after we’ve figured out what we want. I have a feeling that many of you men are 40- 50 years old? and part of the first wave of divorces following the sexual revolution. You guys were the guinea pigs in a way, boldly sailing through unchartered territory and a lot of you got stuck at sea (oh what a cheesy metaphor). That really sucks, but it doesn’t mean that equal opportunity is wrong. It means we need to find a balance between the rights of man and woman.

So, the above statement is probably the reason why, even though you may think of me as a socialist feminazi , I strongly believe in father’s rights. I don’t think you guys need rights to have prostitutes whenever you want or the right to have all your money and spend it on yourself. The system needs to be equalized so that joint custody means JOINT CUSTODY and regardless of who fucked up or why the relationship went kaput, both parents have the funds, want, will and ability to be a parent. And yeah, I even agree that if the father is a better parent, he should get the children. (My father and siblings were raised by an alcoholic mother when they should have been raised by their much more responsible dad. This was in the 40s and 50s in Baltimore.)

To Chrisvet: we’re on the same page regarding the futile nature of the drug wars. Remember that our government — the one that’s more “social” than the American government — is also the one that wants to legalize pot. Actually, some of the biggest proponents are the NDPers (socialist = big government?), whilst some of biggest naysayers are the conservatives. The only reason we haven’t legalized pot is because Bush threatened to tighten the borders. And Bush = Republican = big business = big government … wtf? Politics are so weird these days.

Peace.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 26, 2005, 12:53pm

CD, firstly, I’m guilty of reading your previous post too fast and I assumed you were a guy. So you’re aware of my position, I find it impossible to hate women, I just hate the system. Moving on:

Firstly, your girlfriend. I understand, most of us have good intentions and want to do our best – thats humanity – getting the best deal out there. Right? You bet.

Her job, is part of a socialistic construct that takes “volunteer” out of the word “community” as Antiriad so eloquently pointed out. Your tax dollars build that very infrastructure that has killed our need to take care of each other. You can’t force community on people. Doesn’t happen.

Am I really saying cut the tax based jobs that rehabilitate people, help the crippled children, etc etc Yes. In fact, remove income tax completely (a libertarian philosophy) and put us back where we were 100 years ago. Tight families forced together, and forced to take care of each other. (along with a shit load of extra money.)

Those are the values you’re searching for. Everything else (including your girlfriends job) are fabricated societal constructs that remove the need for us to be good to each other.

Look at the blue pages in your Canadian phone book. Gov’t program after program, assistance, massive bureaucracy that shouldn’t exist in the first place. What would you do ducky if you didn’t have to pay income tax? I often state I’d donate 10 times more than I currently do. I believe you and others would feel the same. Hell, lets say you’re happy with your current income level and if income tax didn’t exist you’d work less hours? What could you do with 15 extra hours a week? Volunteer? Absolutely bang on.

Quote: “That really sucks, but it doesn’t mean that equal opportunity is wrong. It means we need to find a balance between the rights of man and woman.”

This is scarier than hell, but it’s actually factual evidence found everywhere:

In the exact order as follows, the most successful children are a product of:

1. Mom + Dad living together putting each other first, and kids 2nd.

2. Mom + Dad living together putting kids first (kids develop entitlement complexes)

3. Dad Raising kids alone

4. Grand parents raising kids

5. Mom raising kids alone

Now, for 1 moment, try to visualize our drug war discussion. Countless highly paid gov’t employees sucking billions in tax dollars. These folks (just like you and I) naturally fear losing their jobs. Hell, If I was a jail guard in a prison and 65% of the inmates were let out because drugs were no longer illegal, I’d sure as hell fear being 1 of those 65% axed job positions.

Nothing is different in any gov’t field. People fear losing their jobs. Special interest groups (gov’t funded) must maintain conflict between people in order to survive. Thats why they lobby for tougher laws, expanded definitions, present out of context statistics. Thats why each year we are pounded by propaganda from DV, RAPE, Sexual Harassment special interest groups claiming huge problems exist. These groups are actually taking tax dollars and further brainwashing society. Oh, problems have always existed, but hearing this crap over and over has developed a victim mindset in our women – and driven a wedge between the sexes.

And one final note, the term “equal opportunity” has always been about “equal outcome” – and that is the big fallacy within our system. Affirmative action creates inefficiency, resulting in more and more wasted tax dollars, higher product prices, and yet another reason for companies to outsource or relocate all together.

Remember Antiriad’s description of “mom” trying to mother everyone without being realistic? (by putting feelings ahead of reality) Thats exactly what big government does, by removing the imperative “competition” our market needs to remain at the top.

There is no incentive for our young women to be nice to men. They are taught they don’t need them. In most cases, our girls walk around with “chips” on their shoulders and unrealistic expectations of juggling careers and raising children. Housework is overrated, everything in the media is aimed at “pamper yourself” – “you deserve this.”

Why? The media caters to those who make 70% of consumer purchases = Women.

Thats why all programming, commercials, most movies etc cater to women, portraying them as victims, and men as the culprits. It keeps women coming back for more. More women viewers = more advertising dollars.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Guest on Nov 27, 2005, 1:53am

Morally wrong I think. My couple of cents.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 2:19am

Why? Elaborate. The church? Family? We lost our power of protector provider and got replaced by state daddy.

Women’s pussy quadrupled in power once it turned itself into the 30 second Rape machine – the kind of machine that “wrecks your life first” then “finds you innocent later” after court hearings, public humiliation, loss of job present and future, $1000’s in legal fees.

Do you know that over 30% of Rape accusations are false? Do you know that Rape has now been expanded to include “Inappropriate touching?”

Dude, thing’s “ain’t” as they once were. Explain your thoughts – please.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by Guest on Nov 27, 2005, 2:24am

I dunno man, I’m not trying to make speeches but it just seems that we can’t reclaim honor by being dishonorable ourselves. But forget honor I mean, don’t U kinda get that voice in Ur head saying “it’s wrooooooong” when thinking about hookers? I mean that’s not porn. That’s the real thing. Seems like it ain’t right.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 2:37am

Nov 27, 2005, 2:24am, Guest wrote:
I dunno man, I’m not trying to make speeches but it just seems that we can’t reclaim honor by being dishonorable ourselves. But forget honor I mean, don’t U kinda get that voice in Ur head saying “it’s wrooooooong” when thinking about hookers? I mean that’s not porn. That’s the real thing. Seems like it ain’t right.

Thats good enough reason for me. Every man has his beliefs, and I’ll extend my respect.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by thechief on Nov 27, 2005, 12:05pm

Nov 27, 2005, 2:24am, Guest wrote:
I dunno man, I’m not trying to make speeches but it just seems that we can’t reclaim honor by being dishonorable ourselves. But forget honor I mean, don’t U kinda get that voice in Ur head saying “it’s wrooooooong” when thinking about hookers? I mean that’s not porn. That’s the real thing. Seems like it ain’t right.

That’s an excellent reason for you to not personally hire an escort, and I also respect that decision. As far as I’m concerned you’re certainly free to not hire escorts all day long (more for the rest of us ).

But why should the state or anybody else have the right to tell the rest of us whether or not to hire hookers? (To be fair to Guest, he never said this so I’m not necessarily painting him with this brush). What business is it of law enforcement, the government, or anybody other than the people engaged in the transaction, so long as all parties do so willingly?
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 27, 2005, 12:27pm

Nov 26, 2005, 3:13am, canuckyducky wrote:
But I’m making a sacrifice not sleeping around in, he should to.

The Socialism commentary aside, I’d like to take serious exception to this comment of ducky. You can’t turn a pig into a princess. [ or a sow's ear into a silk purse ] You mean to tell me that you have irresponsible, casual sex with numerous partners and THEN you’re going to ’sacrifice’ and try to settle down with one guy ?

Are you not a type of ‘hooker’ already?

And you guys … are you gonna ’settle’ down with one of these creatures, who has ’sacrificed’ her lascivious lifestyle for you and you only? Oh, I feel so ’special’ being the fiftieth man on a fifty-man train !! Get real. This type of woman is NOT marrying material, hence DONT-MARRY.COM

Her mindset is such that “My puss is so valuable, so many men want it and have had it, that it is quite a ’sacrifice’ for me to limit it to one man. I think I will, for awhile, until he’s hooked real well … even legally entangled; THEN I’ll ‘open the doors’ again to any man-whore that’ll do me.” You’re sick. You’re mind is sick. Probably unrepairable. Any guys out there think that their chances are good for a successful marriage with a hooker/whore ? Better think again gents …
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by knighterrant on Nov 27, 2005, 1:49pm

Indeed all women are whores.

Winston Churchill:
Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?

Ho:
Course I would!

Winston Churchill:
Would you sleep with me for nothing?

Ho:
No way! What do you think I am?

Winston Churchill:
My dear, we’ve already established what you are. Now we’re negotiating a price.

——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 27, 2005, 2:37pm

Banjo,

Besides the fact that you’ve assumed I’ve had irresponsible casual affairs with numerous men, just to clarify, are you saying that it’s OK for you to have irresponsible, casual sex with numerous partners but expect your girlfriend to be a virgin before you date her? If so, double standard, and I don’t agree.

Also, I feel the need to defend myself regarding your hooker comment even though it was a bit ridiculous, but anyways, I pay for my rent, school, food and we go dutch. Please read this comment because it applies to you too:

Re: question about women’s lack of empathy
Post by #46 on Nov 23, 2005, 5:07pm

To Niall, just so you know. Even if you have a point that I would like to discuss, I will not reply to large caps or personal insults. You may take this as a win if you choose, I don’t really care. But I would rather discuss with rational people than those who resort to anger.

In other words, banjo, I don’t come here to be insulted. I come here to have debates with people who I know will not agree with my point of view. I enjoy this much more than debating people who agree with my viewpoint because it forces me to think independently, back up my shit and maybe even reevaluate some of my preconceptions. If you would like to participate, then cool. But not if your preconceived notions are tainting your ability to make reasonable arguments.

To Chrisvet, It is definitely better to have two parents than one, no doubt about it. While I’m not going to doubt your list, I think there are valid reasons for this list that have nothing to do with middle class single moms — the ones that many of you guys may have divorced. The reasons: Your list of parenting types doesn’t take into account the social standing of the parents — ie. poor, middle class, was the mom married beforehand? I was browsing a scientific journal on marriage and children (no kidding) and the major factors seem to be available money, education and type of parenting coming from the parent and the community surrounding the kid (i.e. there are many single moms in city ghettos — that type of community does not foster many successful kids for obvious reasons). What I’m trying to say is, “single moms” by themselves do not an unsuccessful child make. The socio-economic factors of the mother are extremely important.

Regarding the Dad raising kids alone part, I think both of us would agree that unless the mother is deemed extremely unfit or she dies, the father is not going to be caring for the kids by themselves. The courts won’t allow it. It would be interesting to see how this rating would change if the courts didn’t have this bias. Regarding the community thing, the problem is that we can’t go back to an agrarian society that fostered tight relationships and “family values”. There are too many people and cities are too big. And it’s been shown that if we cut out these community programs or cut out afterschool activities, kids get into a lot more trouble. I don’t know if you knew this, but the increase in gun violence among teens in Toronto correlates with a the cut of a community program for “at risk” children. In a city, community centres are extremely important because there’s not much else for kids to do except hang out on the streets.

You’re right, community cannot be forced on someone. But if you grow up in a family that is community oriented, you will be more inclined to be community oriented. This is because people realize that they’re actually happier when they’re part of a community.

The problem I have with your idea of abolishing taxes is probably the same problem you have with welfare systems. People who cheat the system. In a welfare system, people at the bottom cheat because they’re greedy. That’s a big problem in our system. In libertarian societies, it’s the people with money who cheat the system because they’re greedy. And it’s easier to get richer if you’re already rich. So there needs to be checks and balances — ways to make sure that the people at the top are not getting rich at the expense of their hardworking employees and ways to make sure that people at the bottom are not penalized because they were brought up in a low-income household by providing them with a solid education and medical care. There also have to be checks and balances to make sure that those people at the bottom have incentive to NOT be on welfare. This means taxes and limits at both ends.

I’m not saying the system we have is perfect. But it’s a compromise that takes some of the good parts of capitalism and the good parts of socialism in a great big mix.
Peace
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 27, 2005, 3:34pm

Nov 27, 2005, 2:37pm, canuckyducky wrote:
If you would like to participate, then cool. But not if your preconceived notions are tainting your ability to make reasonable arguments.

And this is the reasoning behind it:
- If I affirm that becoming the gf/wife/so of one man is ’sacrificing’ myself in some way, then my propensity is for quite the opposite (ie. whoring/hooking/etc.), that is called human nature. (possibly women’s nature)
- From a man’s perspective, when I hear that a woman considers it a ’sacrifice’ to be with me and only me, I know that her ‘natural balance’ is somewhere towards the opposite extreme.
- A man considers ’sacrifice’ to be ’serving one another in love’, not ‘limiting my promiscuous lifestyle’, as women think.
- This is a red flag comment, thus
- Don’t Marry (especially those who display this type of ’sacrificial’ lifestyle on your behalf guys)
- My ‘participation’, my line-of-reasoning, my 2 cents.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 27, 2005, 5:05pm

“A man considers sacrifice to be serving one another in love, not limiting my promiscuous lifestyle”.

Does that mean you believe as long as you love your wife, it’s OK to sleep with other women?

The main point I’m making (and that you keep on avoiding) is that having fun before settling down is not a big deal for both parties. I’m not going to get all harsh on women or men who’ve had lots of casual sex before settling down, even if it’s not what I did myself. That’s their choice and if it worked for them, then fine. But the double standard is ridiculous. You keep harping on the word “sacrifice”, but you’re missing the whole point of the post.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 5:55pm

Nov 27, 2005, 2:37pm, canuckyducky wrote:
To Chrisvet,
It is definitely better to have two parents than one, no doubt about it. While I’m not going to doubt your list, I think there are valid reasons for this list that have nothing to do with middle class single moms — the ones that many of you guys may have divorced. The reasons: Your list of parenting types doesn’t take into account the social standing of the parents — ie. poor, middle class, was the mom married beforehand? I was browsing a scientific journal on marriage and children (no kidding) and the major factors seem to be available money, education and type of parenting coming from the parent and the community surrounding the kid (i.e. there are many single moms in city ghettos — that type of community does not foster many successful kids for obvious reasons). What I’m trying to say is, “single moms” by themselves do not an unsuccessful child make.

Alright, the welfare scum in the inner cities is pushed aside and we’ll focus on middle class urban single moms.

They are takers. The system is geared to pander to them. Their children learn this. Dad – is the evil sonofabitch who is a deadbeat bastard. Me (mommy) and you (kids) are entitled to support because society tells us this, and the media is constantly pushing “Girl power!” “Boys Drool!” – an inadvertent side affect of the wealth shift in the US to women – the recipients of finely tuned programming and ads (women now make up 70% of our consumer base.)

Ok, so the above is extreme, but its consistent with dependent mindsets and entitlement attitudes found in the richest of single mother homes.

Argument number 2. Mom can’t discipline kids the same way dad can. Dad is tougher by nature. Dad teaches competition, mom teaches “dependency” and “softness.”

Dad teaches “Respect” and “take it like a man” whereas mom teaches “well, there’s a great government program that can help you Johnny.”

Argument 3. girls who grow up without a strong presence around a male role model fall into the same trap that perhaps you find yourself in – like nearly all women I know from single mother homes:

The only way they can relate to men is sexually because as children, they never had a father figure to learn how to love in a NON SEXUAL way. Therefore, they often lead dysfunctional lives with men who they can’t properly relate to.

Quote: Regarding the Dad raising kids alone part, I think both of us would agree that unless the mother is deemed extremely unfit or she dies, the father is not going to be caring for the kids by themselves. The courts won’t allow it. It would be interesting to see how this rating would change if the courts didn’t have this bias.

You say “the courts won’t allow it” with such “proudness” it kills me.

Quote: Regarding the community thing, the problem is that we can’t go back to an agrarian society that fostered tight relationships and “family values”.

Who said we need to go back to farming to make this work? What about 1950? Remove the safety nets, I’ll sell you on it in a moment, but first……..

Quote: There are too many people and cities are too big. And it’s been shown that if we cut out these community programs or cut out after school activities, kids get into a lot more trouble.

Ducky, take 1 step back – these kids get into trouble because big government removed their father!~!!!

Programs/snograms – Take away welfare and moms are forced to be nice to Clarence the Nice guy Carpenter who is stupid enough to take care of her and her 4 children from 3 different men. Clarence is stupid because he has a penis – his one vulnerability. In exchange for Bertha’s sex, Clarence protects and provides.

Simplify it – nail the root of the problem. (everything else is a band-aid, and we’ll examine it further)

Quote: don’t know if you knew this, but the increase in gun violence among teens in Toronto correlates with a the cut of a community program for “at risk” children. In a city, community centers are extremely important because there’s not much else for kids to do except hang out on the streets.

You’re putting a band-aid on the situation by creating more programs, when in fact this simple equation solves most of it:

Get dad back into the home. How do we do it? Stop extorting tax payers to give women a free ride.

Ducky, program after program – none of them work, and those that impact are usually grossly exaggerated by those seeking to get continued gov’t funding. You would too if you believed your job A. Was dependent on selling the “societal horror story” to govt each year. B. you believed you were actually making a difference.

Quote: You’re right, community cannot be forced on someone. But if you grow up in a family that is community oriented, you will be more inclined to be community oriented. This is because people realize that they’re actually happier when they’re part of a community.

What is this supposed to mean? Ignore communities. Focus on the family unit, and communities come second, State comes third, Country comes forth.

Quote: The problem I have with your idea of abolishing taxes is probably the same problem you have with welfare systems. People who cheat the system. In a welfare system, people at the bottom cheat because they’re greedy. That’s a big problem in our system.

Welfare creates dependency mindsets.

You are constantly indoctrinated to believe big gov’t is good, when every shred of economic evidence proves government intervention creates massive inefficiency. When left alone by government, the US was more prosperous than any other time in history. Low conflicts, people working, families tight, savings high.

Quote: In libertarian societies, it’s the people with money who cheat the system because they’re greedy. And it’s easier to get richer if you’re already rich.

Wrong. You believe government regulation is necessary when in fact government intervention with our large corporations (corporate welfare) is unethical and actually creates monopolies. Bill gates wouldn’t last forever. Somebody would come along and produce a better product for a lower price.

In a system without income taxes, savings are tremendous, and 3 things moderate companies:

Competition - charge too much or pay your staff to little and the next company will sell for less, and pay your talented staff more to get them working for him.

Consumer report groups – have been around since the beginning of time. Report you if you screw people over.

Insurance companies – will not insure companies / doctors, whoever who constantly loses lawsuits – why? because they are a risk to insure due to their negligence and poor business practices.

Quote: So there needs to be checks and balances — ways to make sure that the people at the top are not getting rich at the expense of their hardworking employees and ways to make sure that people at the bottom are not penalized because they were brought up in a low-income household by providing them with a solid education and medical care.

Socialistic arguments. Its OK to Extort more from the rich so the poor can watch TV on the weekends, drink beer, and play ball.

I got news for you, you don’t understand what makes millionaires special achievers. Its hard work and sacrifice. The downside to excessively taxing the rich is these achievers may retire sooner, give up altogether, or relocate to a more tax friendly country. (eg, hong kong 20% income tax) or Switzerland (certain provinces with very low taxes)

The fallacy most people fall into is they believe big government is fair. Well it isn’t. It extorts from the producers, and gives to an ever growing group of non-producers.

Every aspect of big government is corrupt.

If you run a rape crises center you are more likely to exaggerate how badly needed your publicly funded clinic is to ensure the continuance of your good paying job. (this doesn’t mean you are bad in the least! you are exercising the same greed that runs a free market – the only difference is if we contest your biased statistics – you’ll cry SEXIST!! You might even join the other girls and lobby for “slacker definitions” of the word rape. Now, instead of 10 guys getting charged with rape, 1000 guys are charged because “inappropriate touching” is – you guessed it – RAPE.

Special interest groups and big government depend on conflicts between people. These conflicts are a result of big gov’t intervention in the first place, mainly by:

Removing father from the household.

Constant victim indoctrination in our females and other special interest groups (eg, blacks.)

Things fail in big government because there is no moderator / competitor to call the bullshit they throw at us. Everything in big gov’t has been masked by oppression and “for the best interests of the children” (an actual Hitler philosophy)

Bottom line? Those who speak out against it are immediately labeled – SEXIST!! Women haters!! when in fact we know all that shit is what’s destroyed our society in the first place.

The emperor has not pants – Political correctness – substituting the TRUTH with bullshit.

Thats our problem. Thats why we’re pissed.

We don’t blame the women, we blame the political man-whores who USE WOMEN by selling them fear to gain re-election brownie points.

It’s all rooted in income tax. (the fuel of evil.)
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 6:06pm

And duckster, if I was attacking you – you’d know it. I’m attacking the ideas
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 27, 2005, 6:35pm

OK, I’m only on here for 5 minutes because I really have to study but a few thoughts:

1) Am I relating to you in a sexual way? I don’t think I have. In fact, in one post, you mistook me for a man ….

2) I’ll say this again, a male role model is very important for children. We both agree on this. You don’t need to keep bringing it up. I’ve seen this in my own life and others. (My step-father moved in when I was 10 which helped me but not my older brother — he was too old by that time.) You can have single-parent households where both parents are still active, or at least there’s a step-parent who has stepped in and your kids will be better adjusted.

2) All mothers do not teach their children to be victims. I think I’ve told you my situation. My mother took financial care of all three children with no financial help from my father whatsoever. She did not take welfare. She even refused her baby bonus. Is that a victim who’s relying on the government for money?

3) You say “the courts won’t allow it” with such “proudness” it kills me.”

uhhh… you assumed I think the courts act in a fair way. Not proud, actually think it should be a little more equal.

4) If the 1950s were so wonderful, then how come it didn’t continue as such in the 1960s and 70s? Maybe it’s because women weren’t happy. Society changed, women wanted to be part of public life too, not just stuck inside the house all day.

I’ll try to reply to the communitycentre/socialist/family values thing after my midterm.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 6:57pm

Nov 27, 2005, 6:35pm, canuckyducky wrote:
OK, I’m only on here for 5 minutes because I really have to study but a few thoughts: 1) Am I relating to you in a sexual way?

That’s not what I mean.

Quote: 2) All mothers do not teach their children to be victims. I think I’ve told you my situation. My mother took financial care of all three children with no financial help from my father whatsoever. She did not take welfare. She even refused her baby bonus. Is that a victim who’s relying on the government for money?

No, but you’re falling into the trap antiriad pointed out earlier, taking 1 specific situation (eg, – Yours) and applying it to everything. The fact your mother is an exception means absolutely Zippo in an ocean full of “takers”

Women often use this argument when they see 1 lesbian mountain climber therefore stating WOMEN ARE JUST AS CAPABLE OF MOUNTAIN CLIMBING AS MEN (because 1 hairy lesbian gorilla pulled it off.)

Quote: uhhh… you assumed I think the courts act in a fair way. Not proud, actually think it should be a little more equal.

Courts should serve to keep the peace. Nothing more. Disputes should get settled between adults.

Quote: 4) If the 1950s were so wonderful, then how come it didn’t continue as such in the 1960s and 70s? Maybe it’s because women weren’t happy. Society changed, women wanted to be part of public life too, not just stuck inside the house all day.

You’ve missed my whole argument about self-perpetuating special interest groups. Instead of typing it out again, I suggest you re-read the previous to see how income taxes were used for short term gain by politicians (who catered to 51% of the voting block – Women,)

You can take any group of women (rich, poor, fat, thin) and ask them if they are miserable and they’ll always do what they’re genetically programmed to do : COMPLAIN!!

Thats normal. Thats how women survived as a sex. Complaining, nagging, pushing their men to do ridiculous things in hopes for sex. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Its human nature.

Again, re read the previous until you understand it. (it may take 5 times cause its not easy stuff at first)
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 27, 2005, 7:01pm

ducky, for the most part, women in public life suck. They don’t belong in corporations unless they are masculine enough to tow the ruthless line of competition (which they’ve done a great job of removing by affirmative action / glass ceiling bullshit / wage gap myths (trust us on this one) / false sexual harassment claims.

The reason: Everything that goes on in a womans mind inadvertently is underlined (by nature) with the following: “how will I personally be affected by the outcome”

Testosterone 1000% – it makes the world go around.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 28, 2005, 1:52am

Nov 27, 2005, 5:05pm, canuckyducky wrote:

“A man considers sacrifice to be serving one another in love, not limiting my promiscuous lifestyle”.

Does that mean you believe as long as you love your wife, it’s OK to sleep with other women?

No, that means that I believe that women who think they are ’sacrificing’ by not sleeping around are not marrying material. Simple as that. Her ’sacrifice’ to the marriage is ‘limiting her promiscuous activities’; she considers it a sacrifice to be with just one man.

His ’sacrifice’ to the marriage means undergirding the family with steady, gainful employment for life; becoming the rock upon which the spiritual, moral, ethical and physical well-being of the family is dependent. By ’serving his wife in love’, he demonstrates his love this way; even to the point of giving his life for his wife. He wouldn’t be ’serving his wife in love’ by cheating on her. He also wouldn’t be ’serving his wife in love’ by thinking “Wow, I’m really sacrificing by not having sex with all these other babes.”

That’s not sacrifice, ducky; that’s a red flag. Women’s ideas about sacrifice and Men’s ideas about sacrifice are many, many miles apart.

I’ve read enough of the thesis which pass around the Men’s groups online, some of these papers go back hundreds of years, comparing the promiscuous single female to the average hooker/ prostitute/ whore. Most of these writers I consider to be quite brilliant men; I have to agree with their conclusions.

So essentially what we are talking about is ‘making an honest woman out of a whore, who thinks that it is a sacrifice to constrain herself to one man.’ This type of woman is a train wreck waiting for you to board.

Nov 27, 2005, 5:05pm, canuckyducky wrote: The main point I’m making (and that you keep on avoiding) is that having fun before settling down is not a big deal for both parties. I’m not going to get all harsh on women or men who’ve had lots of casual sex before settling down, even if it’s not what I did myself. That’s their choice and if it worked for them, then fine. But the double standard is ridiculous. You keep harping on the word “sacrifice”, but you’re missing the whole point of the post.

The point I’m making is that you can’t change a whorish lifestyle into a legitimate, honest marital union today.

It simply can’t be done or expected. The more whorish party, be they male or female, will always think that they are somehow ’sacrificing’ their ‘having fun’ for the other party. By demonstrating your belief in this type of ’sacrifice’, you have neatly placed a Big Red Flag on the mantelpiece of my mind and Nexted yourself on down the line. I’m simply attempting to give these guys some clues to look for, under the theme of hookers & losers, which will keep them on the Good Ship ‘Don’t Marry’ and off of the shoals of ‘Marriage to a Whore’. aye, aye Cap’n .
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by GIRL on Nov 28, 2005, 2:03am

Thanks for feeding fellas, you’ve been very productive tonight. He, he…
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by uzername on Nov 28, 2005, 4:11am

But what does the last few pages have to do with ‘hookers are for loosers’ ?
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by johnyquest on Nov 28, 2005, 5:56am

Nov 27, 2005, 5:05pm, canuckyducky wrote:
The main point I’m making (and that you keep on avoiding) is that having fun before settling down is not a big deal for both parties. I’m not going to get all harsh on women or men who’ve had lots of casual sex before settling down, even if it’s not what I did myself. That’s their choice and if it worked for them, then fine. But the double standard is ridiculous. You keep harping on the word “sacrifice”, but you’re missing the whole point of the post.

You’re attitude is the very essence of the modern, promiscuous female and why women are unmarriageable today. I could write a fucking book on this. It is NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD. Do you want to understand why? Then PAY ATTENTION. If the man is going to work every single day to support the wife, then wouldn’t he want it to be his, and ONLY his? Rather than some public toilet that every tom, dick and harry has blown his load in? If a woman is a virgin when she marries you, it signifies the following:

1) she obviously believes in preserving herself for the right guy and therefore takes her commitment much more seriously and upholds her wedding vows.

2) she hasn’t been fucked and chucked by tons of guys, she’ll be pure have no emotional baggage.

3) she doesn’t believe in screwing around – she ’s proven that she’s been able to abstain from sex until she married you, and she’ll be able to do so in the future

4) the guy knows that his offspring will be HIS because the woman doesn’t believe in screwing around

You see this is where you modern women simply DO NOT GET IT. I don’t particularly care anymore because I think traditional marriage is as dead as it’s ever going to be (thanks to feminism) but a man’s worth to a woman was his earning power and his ability to look after her and her children, and a woman proved her worth to a man by being virginal and pure for him. This concept is completely lost to women these days. They want to have fun and fuck as many guys at parties as they can when they’re young and then find a guy to pay for her party (and probably kids that aren’t his) for the rest of her life. Very little is expected of women these days. Society is accepting of the fact that women fuck around before marrying.. The government subsidizes women for fucking around. and look at the result – estimated 20% of men unknowingly fathering kids that aren’t theres. Men being forced to pay child support for kids that aren’t theres. Let me ask you a little something. If women didn’t get subsidized for being whores, how many single mothers do you think there would be? They would be a rare breed indeed. canuckyducky, your whole “let’s fuck around and screw lots of guys at parties” attitude is the very essence of what destroyed the nuclear family and created the garbage generation. If women kept there legs closed until marriage it would mean NO single mothers. No single mothers means 2 things:

1. no fucked up kids. No fucked up kids = less crime.

2. my taxes not being used to support welfare whores.

I know you think “not all women are like that” and only dumb sluts do that, but you’re wrong. let me tell you paternity fraud is widespread and common in all western countries. Where I live in Australia, even the most conservative estimates say that 15% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud. There are very few classy women around these days, and you whores aren’t doing the world any good. Society pays a hefty price for you whores.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex. If they didn’t fuck around, us men would have nobody to fuck around with, and we’d have to marry to get pussy. This would create stable families like it did in the 1950’s. Destruction of the nuclear family is dependent on the availability of whores. That’s why feminists encourage it.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 28, 2005, 6:05am

Nov 28, 2005, 4:11am, uzername wrote:
But what does the last few pages have to do with ‘hookers are for loosers’?

Point being … that the definition of ‘hooker’ probably needs to be expanded. The gf who is ’sacrificing’ herself by being with you only, is most likely a hooker/whore/prostitute also. I don’t believe that one can or should limit the terminology to only those who make a living off of their puzzy. A man is a loser if he puts up with this type of ’sacrifice’.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 28, 2005, 6:06am

Nov 28, 2005, 2:03am, GIRL wrote:
Thanks for feeding fellas, you’ve been very productive tonight. He, he…

Thanks for reading Trollie …
Consider yourself ‘enlightened’.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by hack on Nov 28, 2005, 8:28am

“I often state I’d donate 10 times more than I currently do. I believe you and others would feel the same. Hell, lets say you’re happy with your current income level and if income tax didn’t exist you’d work less hours? What could you do with 15 extra hours a week? Volunteer? Absolutely bang on.”

And you’re the same guy who says “you’re falling into the trap antiriad pointed out earlier, taking 1 specific situation (eg, – Yours) and applying it to everything.”

You could use a little testing of your own theories before you put them out there — it’s a good idea to apply the same rigour you demand from others to yourself.

Regarding the actual idea — people would contribute more if they were taxed less — that’s wishful thinking that runs counter to human nature, which says we’re greedy and competitive. Marx based his theories on wishful thinking (human nature can change to suit collectivism), and we got a very destructive 70 years of bad government thanks to that.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by canuckyducky on Nov 28, 2005, 8:57am

You could expand hack’s argument to say that Ayn Rand also based her theories on wishful thinking — that humans are honest and fair.

johnnyquest: you and I are not going to agree on this. If the men’s movement has your way of thinking, it’s not going to fly. Your idea of manhood is not reasonable or logical and it’s part of the reason why feminists came in to being in the first place. You don’t like feminism? Then stop treating women as if they’re less than people.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by hack on Nov 28, 2005, 9:08am

To complete the thought: Marx’ was a Utopian ideal, so is yours. Utopias have never worked, and there’s nothing out there that would lead anyone to think they will in the future. All societies are based on a mix of both Rand’s and Marx’ thinking, to cite the two relevant utopias. The key is getting the right balance.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by antiriad on Nov 28, 2005, 9:27am

There is no such thing as balance. There is merely transitioning from one extreme to another, typically with violent consequences.

When women lose their status in society (which they will, the question is when), they will sink lower than they had ever been before. Why? Because today’s level of extremism will cause the pendulum to swing far the other way.

Also, until women put in 50% of the effort, they will remain second class (even if this isn’t currently reflected by law). Today’s western woman expects to have her cake and eat it as well. Even at his most arrogant, man never expected woman to provide for him while he sat around and did nothing; yet this is precisely the expectation of the majority of western women.

At any rate, you can already see the system crumbling. Look at countries like South Africa to get a good idea of what socialism does to a country.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 28, 2005, 11:32am

Nov 28, 2005, 8:28am, hack wrote:

“I often state I’d donate 10 times more than I currently do. I believe you and others would feel the same. Hell, lets say you’re happy with your current income level and if income tax didn’t exist you’d work less hours? What could you do with 15 extra hours a week? Volunteer? Absolutely bang on.”

And you’re the same guy who says “you’re falling into the trap antiriad pointed out earlier, taking 1 specific situation (eg, – Yours) and applying it to everything.”

You could use a little testing of your own theories before you put them out there — it’s a good idea to apply the same rigour you demand from others to yourself.

Regarding the actual idea — people would contribute more if they were taxed less — that’s wishful thinking that runs counter to human nature, which says we’re greedy and competitive. Marx based his theories on wishful thinking (human nature can change to suit collectivism), and we got a very destructive 70 years of bad government thanks to that.

backwards bro. First 150 years of US history (prior to excessive taxation) The poor, unfortunate, down on their luck, disabled, were all taken care of by church groups, charitable organizations, and volunteers.

Socialism removes societies trait of “generosity” by creating a dependent mindset. It also creates a mentality to rely on government to settle disputes (excessive laws, policing) and care for others.

Eg, “don’t worry about the jobless guy who hasn’t eaten in 3 days and just moved into the city, welfare will take care of him.”

100 years ago, you and I would have taken him in, given him clean clothes, and set him up with Merv down at the lumber mill for a job.

The special interest group (womens rights, black rights, ) inadvertently sustains and magnifies the problem by constant indoctrination of a victim mindset – creating this “I’m a victim, its all about me and my entitlements” attitude.

When you have an entitlement complex you don’t succeed. Plain and simple.

70 years of bad gov’t due to Marxism? yeppers, you’re missing the point again – Marxism was about forcing people to do what was unnatural – eg, forcing the school teacher to become a farmer, etc. Current society is headed in that direction, straight toward were Russia was for the most part of the 20th century. We saw what that did.

The free market and minimal gov’t regulation is what made America great. The recent 70 years of Marxist policy turned America into shit (as you pointed out)

Marxism = advanced socialism.

In fact, our society is a mesh of socialism, Marxism, mercantilism, fascism, quasi-democracy etc.

You more than likely learned that we need excessive gov’t regulations in school. What most people forget is schools themselves are another hand of big gov’t and serve to “dumb down” and indoctrinate the population with current gov’t agendas.

So, examples of success can be found in the first 150 years of US history, current states within Switzerland (low taxation – highest living standards in the world), and Hong kong (20% flat rate income tax rate.)

Society is complacent, lazy, brainwashed, unproductive, and entitled. Socialism has historically led to the implosion of society (roman empire.) Thats inevitable unless R+D are voted out and people stand on their own 2 feet again.

——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 28, 2005, 11:40am

Nov 28, 2005, 8:57am, canuckyducky wrote:
You could expand hack’s argument to say that Ayn Rand also based her theories on wishful thinking — that humans are honest and fair.

Humans honest and fair? Look at current gov’t for that answer. Humans seek to get the best deal out there and in a free market 3 things moderate the “honesty of people”

Insurance companies (won’t insure reckless doctors, entrepreneurs, companies constantly losing malpractice lawsuits)
Competition (the natural moderator)
Consumer report groups

All 3 examples were defined in a previous post within this thread. (did you read the post?)

I’ll share something with you that comes with experience: The more money people have (due to less taxation) the more generous they generally are.

(For every rich miser there are 3 who are generous.)
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by knighterrant on Nov 28, 2005, 11:54am

Yep we’re living in some kind of quasi-communist femtopia with government acting like their ideal man.

What’s that sound? It’s just the wolf at the door.
——————————————————————————–
Competition…..
Post by logic101 on Nov 28, 2005, 12:06pm

Nov 23, 2005, 9:14am, Allah wrote:
Dear readers,
Many women are repulsed by the very concept of prostitution, they often see a man who has slept with a prostitute as a lower form of life, worthy of scorn.

Allah :
Tell the truth. What is really going on here? If these said women were honest. They’d admit it.

Women hate this type of competition. Hence why they hate a high end prostitute and why many also despise foreign women. Many AW have priced themselves out of the market. You’ll also see this with their girlfriends as well. It is rather noticeable in human nature. Especially with younger women.

That is the truth.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by thechief on Nov 28, 2005, 12:35pm

Nov 28, 2005, 6:05am, banjo wrote:

Nov 28, 2005, 4:11am, uzername wrote:
But what does the last few pages have to do with ‘hookers are for loosers’?

Point being … that the definition of ‘hooker’ probably needs to be expanded. The gf who is ’sacrificing’ herself by being with you only, is most likely a hooker/whore/prostitute also. I don’t believe that one can or should limit the terminology to only those who make a living off of their puzzy. A man is a loser if he puts up with this type of ’sacrifice’.

Ah, but there is an undeniable element of “good for the goose, good for the gander” that needs to be addressed here.

If a man is insistent that a woman be a virgin before going to the marriage bed with her, he’d better be a virgin himself. Fair is fair.

Personally, I don’t mind a woman with a sexual past. I’ve got one, so I have to cut her a little slack. As I’ve said in the past, the last few years of my marriage were largely sexless. Given a choice between “slut” and “frigid,” I’ll take “slut” every time.

To me, the fact that she has or hasn’t slept around isn’t as important as the judgment she practiced in doing so. Was it serial monogamy, or did she let just any guy ride her like Secretariat? Did she practice discretion and safe sex, or does she have a history of STDs, abortions or children without Daddies? Most importantly, does she now have a kid with a worthless ex that she never sees/gets any help from and is she now looking at me, with my good job, good credit history and lack of a criminal record and saying to herself “Aha! The solution to my problems?”

A healthy sex drive and even some experience? Yes. The village bicycle and a wreck of a human being? Next.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 28, 2005, 1:10pm

Nov 28, 2005, 8:57am, canuckyducky wrote:
johnnyquest: you and I are not going to agree on this. If the men’s movement has your way of thinking, it’s not going to fly. Your idea of manhood is not reasonable or logical and it’s part of the reason why feminists came in to being in the first place. You don’t like feminism? Then stop treating women as if they’re less than people.

Everything quest wrote is the truth.
Nowhere is he ‘treating women as if they were less than people’. He is trying to elevate you women TO the status of people, not common whores.

The ‘Men’s Movement’, if it is going to prosper and grow, must elevate people to being more than an evenings’ fuck toy. If it does not do this, then no change in the current arrangement will be forthcoming.

Society will slip into a dark age of despotism, eventually Islam will enforce Sharia Law upon whorish women. I can see an Alliance someday between men who are seeking to stop the slide of civilization into the gutter of whore-based feminism and Islam.

The reason that Socialism is having such a good run today IS feminism. Illegitimate children, fatherless homes, on-demand abortions, the rise of criminally insane single mothers, Liberalism and Big Gubbermint shoved down our throats, the crime and abject poverty of single parent homes … all of these continue this vicious cycle of sliding towards Socialism and ultimately our own destruction.

Thank You Feminism, along with your supporting cast of whores and manginas, for destroying what once was the greatest nation the world has ever known. But you’ll tell yourself, ” All I wanted to do was have fun before I settled down “. YOU are part of the problem.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by banjo on Nov 28, 2005, 1:44pm

Nov 28, 2005, 12:35pm, thechief wrote:
Ah, but there is an undeniable element of “good for the goose, good for the gander” that needs to be addressed here.

If a man is insistent that a woman be a virgin before going to the marriage bed with her, he’d better be a virgin himself. Fair is fair.

Finding a virgin today is like discovering the Holy Grail. It’s not going to happen. Mistakes in one’s behavior need not continue through one’s life ‘ad infinitum’ though. Learn from your errors and correct them … something western women cannot fathom. Virgin ? Probably not likely to happen … Virtuous Woman ? Possibly … start today to set your sights a bit higher than gutter whore standards.

Nov 28, 2005, 12:35pm, thechief wrote: Personally, I don’t mind a woman with a sexual past. I’ve got one, so I have to cut her a little slack. As I’ve said in the past, the last few years of my marriage were largely sexless. Given a choice between “slut” and “frigid,” I’ll take “slut” every time.

Slut = Slut ( every time )

Virtuous Woman does not = Frigid.

Just because a female does not jump on every Tom, Dick & Harry available does not mean she is frigid. Just because you can’t get her into the sack doesn’t mean she’s frigid either. She may have morals and standards that you do not possess.

The rest of this is pretty good stuff though:

Nov 28, 2005, 12:35pm, thechief wrote: To me, the fact that she has or hasn’t slept around isn’t as important as the judgement she practiced in doing so. Was it serial monogamy, or did she let just any guy ride her like Secratariat? Did she practice discretion and safe sex, or does she have a history of STDs, abortions or children without Daddies? Most importantly, does she now have a kid with a worthless ex that she never sees/gets any help from and is she now looking at me, with my good job, good credit history and lack of a criminal record and saying to herself “Aha! The solution to my problems?”

A healthy sex drive and even some experience? Yes. The village bicycle and a wreck of a human being? Next.

You won’t know whether your slut had numerous abortions and STDs. You WILL find out one day that your slut is STILL a slut however. You can’t change a sow’s ear into a silk purse … she will still be the slut you bedded initially.

What really bugs me is this attitude of the females which says ” I’m gonna slut around and there’s nothing you can do about it … deal with it. ” Don’t piss on me and then tell me it’s raining. The root issue here is the whorish behavior of the modern western woman. I’m not here to ‘find a solution that encompasses and encourages your whorish lifestyle.” The solution requires you to clean up your act to start with.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 28, 2005, 11:33pm

Nov 28, 2005, 12:35pm, thechief wrote:
If a man is insistent that a woman be a virgin before going to the marriage bed with her, he’d better be a virgin himself. Fair is fair.

Chief, you know those old double standards that beat us over the head as men. Well, on this one, I’m going to say its fine by me to be a nonvirgin and seek a virgin female as a companion.

It’s a man thing, and is hard as hell to describe, other than the fact were men, and should be running the show. (damn, I have a weak argument here, but theres just something that makes me feel totally inequal to a woman.)

Are women here to serve us? Yes. LOL Sorry, I just can’t buy the equality stuff (even though it sounds hypocritical.)

It’s just something you know deep down in your gut, and it’s hard as hell to describe. I look down on women, but in the same kind way I look down on children.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by guest on Nov 29, 2005, 5:45am

You’re still doing what you took Canuckyducky to task for — using your personal experience and expanding it to make broad generalizations. You claim lots, but there’s nothing but your assertions to back it up. You cite Switzerland, but Sweden also has one of the highest standards of living in the world, and we all know what the tax regime there is.

If you take a look at the supposed bible of free marketeering, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, you’ll find that he acknowledged the essential role of government in regulating a free market. There are some things, he said, that cannot be left to a free market to manage. Health care is one of them, for example. Balance is required.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 29, 2005, 1:45pm

Ludwig Von Mises all the way – nobody ever got it more right on. – it was he who “discovered” the commodity value of money. All the economic “education’ they teach us has been influenced by a big government that depends on our ignorance. If you think they “tell you the truth” – you’re mistaken – most, if not all of them do not know the truth. Greenspan did. And he sold out for prestige, and the belief he couldn’t change the system – so while in it, he’d do the best he could. Does that make him evil? nope.

No comparison between individual wealth of the Swiss (who live in the low taxation provinces) vs the Socialist Sweds. Sorry. There is no balance in socialism, only a dream. It’s a corrupt 1 way ticket snowballing straight for communism every way you slice it – and the evidence is everywhere. (expanding gov’ts, excessive taxation, fiat dollars, bullshit wars, loss of rights etc.)
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by uzername on Nov 29, 2005, 11:45pm

They almost all have a way of ‘hooking’ you in the end… be it figuratively or literally.

Terms like ‘he’s a great catch’ clearly demonstrate that women have a transactional view of relationships and sex is almost always at some point used as stock in trade.

Anytime l hear a woman say a man is a great catch l know that she thinks in terms of being a hooker, even if she has impecably constructed her denials and delusions.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by chrisvet on Nov 30, 2005, 1:03am

haha, they are all selling something. Even our own mothers (and I Love the old girl dearly.)

*one must be brutally honest to understand women.
——————————————————————————–
Re: “Hookers are for Losers” -Your Thoughts
Post by uzername on Dec 4, 2005, 2:29am

You cant get hooked by a phisher if you evolve, grow legs and lungs and leave the water for dry land. Them seas have gotten too stormy.

When the shit hits the fan l will not be in the same room. l will be 100 miles away at the power plant tripping switches and bailing up coal trucks. Or better still, l will have retired to my coastal shack with the bore water, wind turbine and solar cooker.
——————————————————————————–