It would also have to be cheap.jamesbond wrote:If prostitution was legal, none of this PUA stuff would be needed.
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss dating, relationships and foreign women.
Cornfed, if you want to target the bottom end of the market, struggling working class women, why not a rent a wife type scheme aimed at women? Have a man help you bring home the bacon and help at the house without the control and responsibility of a husband etc. Then leave the terms open to be discussed...Payment via sex etc.
SA is too high end. The hot ones that want luxury. Many men don't want that and many women would prefer a man that would help more in day to day things than a luxury weekend.
Straight nsa is too many men and not many women. Women want more than just dick.
Last edited by Kradmelder on December 19th, 2016, 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah, temporary wife arrangements would definitely be one thing to offer.
That's kind of thing you could even advertise as terms to be discussed so legally it is not prostitution. I would prefer something like that than some tart I must wine and dine. I don't need a wife as I am a good cook, have a maid, kids old enough. I am handy, cut and split all my own braai wood from the property, maintain the house etc. Can do husband chores but want no relationship besides sex and some domestic companionship. Would be better for me than some heifer that wants the high life I can afford but don't want.
There would be a bunch of concepts that could be offered. For example, a paid first date, where some guy pays females a few bucks to initially go out with him and then the relationship proceeds or not in the traditional fashion. Or impulsive decisions by females where, for example, a solo mom worried about paying the rent sees and ad for dinner and sex + $100 and thinks “Well, he looks OK and I would probably f**k him on the third date anyway, so I’m just cutting the crap and can pay my rent” and doesn’t necessarily see herself as a hoe.
I can't see paying for dates. I can get that free just paying for the meal. Plus it is bad start as it puts them in gf mode and they think they are on a pedestal. The crap needs to be cut at the very beginning, like there won't be dates, just sex and cash, or sex vs chores and companionship. Sex must be the bottom line or there is no point. i certainly don't want women to talk to, or do things with as my hobbies are generally male oriented, and as I mentioned, the wife domestic chores I already have covered minus the BS and moaning about it.
The date thing can be done the traditional way or from dating sites. Plenty of women will go on a date for a free romantic meal and drinks, but won't give sex. Why should I pay their enetertianment for nothing in return? Just for the favour of being graced with their BS? I think many men want to avoid the whole date thing. I certainly have no desire to date.
Just because you don’t want a service doesn’t mean others won’t. The date thing could be spun as men saving time by not having to pursue females. In a sense it is starting off on a better footing than traditional dates in that the man is paying for a service to be rendered, rather than begging/wheedling a date out of the female, as many men have to.
My kids were watching Keeping Up with the kardashians. Is it a tongue in cheek over-done mockery, or are american women really that plastic and obnoxious? They are really horrid women with over inflated self worth and toatlly brainless. Who would want to pay those things for a date, also pay for the dinner, and endure hours of that conversation as well? Even if I didn't have to pay I would say no thanks. The only possible thing is to stick your dick in their mouth just to shut them up, or flee.
They are the exact opposite of what a desirable woman should be; humble, respectful, kind, soft spoken, polite, thrifty etc
+1 One of your best posts
+1 also for your first post without bringing up 'darkies'
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
I thought you were respectfully disagreeing when I wrote the same, that is that women should be submissive.
Why do you entertain Cornfed? He isn't thinking in the realm of reality. Sorry to say but he is in a complete fantasyland where he wants to reinvent the wheel. He has eliminated all the choices that normal men choose: marriage, girlfriends, prostitutes, and even real mistresses (he has a different definition than what you are thinking of).
This is just jibber jabber from some guy who is chasing his own tail, running in circles. Really, he should keep these thoughts to himself until he has them figured out.
Adama, my point is Hebrewwood is portraying the ideal woman as loud, obnoxious, entitled, race mixing, brain dead, plastic, materialistic, money focused, God complex as if she is above everyone, flashing body, heavily made up. The exact opposite of what any man would want.
Why would a man pay to date such harlots? That kind of woman is strictly pump and dump if you can stomach her for more than 5 minutes.
The reality is that behaviour has infected women to varying degrees. The not infected ones have long since married and stayed married.
Given the situation, I don't want to marry or be in any relationshit with such women. Except of the mistress type with those of the less extreme above type. I would agree with Cornfed that the economic downturn has resulted in women needing money; those that don't have good jobs and rely on men. Those with harlot like natures would not be averse to taking money or gifts for a mistress arrangement. I favour this as I don't want a relationshit with a harlot.
I just would not want to pay to date them. You don't date whores. Just pomp them. Dating them puts them on a pedestal and feeds their entitlement. I would only ever date a decent woman, if I still wanted one. Such a woman would not accept cash. I don't know of any decent women I would date who are not married. I know plenty of entitlement Queens I would only bang. They are everywhere. But I have also seen that the decent ones you marry also play the whore's game, selling their body for the best deal they can get and then making sure you feather that nest to their satisfaction. And if they leave, they make sure they get well paid.
I simply no longer want to go there. I have had enough of relations with women. I prefer to pay a little to keep emotional interaction to a minimum and just satisfy physical needs. In that sense what Cornfed suggests has merit. As long as so many women peddle their bodies, why not make the payment conditional on no relationshit and leaving afterwards, instead of paying them to move in or marry. Then they are free of the man control they hate and can take the cash and behave like the Kardashians and I don't have to care about it nor expose my kids to it by seeing I accept this behaviour.
Frankly I don't have to give a shit whatever drama and bs they want to do as they can do it away from me. Around me they must be decent in behaviour and indecent in bed or I will get rid of them. The same as I behave towards them.
Exactly, that's why cornfed's idea is flawed. Those insufferable "Like OMFG" m*fers are only good for quickies. The thought of paying them to hang out doesn't make sense. Like I said, shitty location, shitty p4p/service, with exceptions. As for the ones that are more palatable to interact with, they are unlikely to take money, or you may not need the scheme to begin with, but are most likely taken.
Last edited by droid on December 20th, 2016, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
To give you an example, last woman I went out with, as in not a mistress, it didn't take long until she started showing me pics of the diamond she expects. Then she will sell her car so I can buy her a fortuner (an suv). Then to save costs she will move into my place and I can take her kids to school.
What was she going to provide in exchange for the long list of demands? She doesn't even cook. Just her kunt? Wasn't all that great in bed anyway; she didn't swallow women place too high a value on their kunt. It is not a rare commodity. Half the world has one.behaving that way it is women themselves that degrade women, not men. Women make it a marketable commodity. Men just pay according to supply and demand.
I dumped her quick. Since she was willing to make material things for herself a basis, with no talk of what value she would add, i should just have told her how about I just give you so much to help with your own place and just come visit once every 2 weeks? She can only say no and no loss since I wasn't about to pick up the whole tab just to be in a one sided relationshit. Like many men are prone to.
Not so flawed. Quickies and pump and dump are simply not good sex. First few times with anyone is not great. It gets better after a few times, so a regular is better. Also a regular needs no chatting up, so it is more time efficient. A financial arrangement keeps the games and bs away for a while.
But such concubine mistress relationshits have a shelf life. You can extend it by seeing them only once a month or so. Sooner or later they want more. They see it as more lucrative if they hook you. They start with, why are you single, you are such a decent man, what about I come on Friday for the weekend, why don't we go out with friends etc. Then the nagging and games start for bf behaviour. That is the time to remind them of the initial agreement but women don't respect agreements so the relationshit is at sell by date.