Non-monogamy as an attitude - its not that complicated
David9999
The "nice guy" vs "bad guy" debate is not fiction, there's a huge amount of truth to it, regardless of causation. Proving the causation is evolution or some other factor is not critical as long as you understand the basic equation. IMHO one must understand that sincere, honest, faithful, and non-controlling males (all things equal) will turn on females in the all important "chemistry' sense relatively less than deceptive, insincere, non-monogamous, and controlling males.
Ok having the major (non-controversial) traditional Alpha traits is a great starting point, maybe a critical starting point for some, but to add the tinge of nonmonogamy or the gentlemen horndog angle or whatever you call it - its really not that hard. Simple comments over time will be sufficient to induce the affect and women tend to remember such things, for example now and then (not too often) alluding what other women you're screwing or one's you're hoping to screw, and maybe toss in how important safety is etc, or asking a dancer about other names of dancers in the club, for example on stage at the time, or comments about it being very unnatural for males to be with just one woman, or how young males unless they are crazy should never be married before age 35 and explain why -all these small things, combined with an overall attitude and vibe over time all add up to inducing this requisite impression of a non-monogamous attitude.
The wonderful thing is once this happens you're often automatically tagged (to some extent at least) as not having too much respect for women in general, and (invariably) as being deceptive - because when qustions such as come up such as (in less common cases) "how much do you love me"? or more commonly "what do you think about me"? or "how often do you think about me"? - they will accuse you of lying even when you're telling the truth. So you've avoided being a total asshole, and instead can be the gentlemen horndog women love, yet are gaining some of the other (nominally bad) Alpha traits.
Point is its not really very complicated to work.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
100 comments
Latest
Female A's exact words were "my concern is with the others you're lying about" (odd choice of words really)
My response with a 100% straight face: "there are no others"
Her response "yeah right"
I'm constantly being accused of lying even when telling the truth, which of course is a good thing in this context.
Now just today I was indirectly accused of lying or shading the truth in some way by Female B who asked (for some reason) specifically about another specific female (lets call her C)
B "You been with C this week"?
Answer "No, not this week at all" (100% true)
B "you sure"?
Answer: "no no not at all"
(she was trying to figure why I was not seeing her quite as much in recent weeks)
This isn't about jealousy, its this horndog vibe thing. Women can sense the vibe when you're constantly looking for new women to screw -and that's precisely (IMHO) what perks the chemistry up and gets them really into the "chemistry" thing and everything that derives from it.
I think you've so convinced yourself that EP and your own extensions are correct, that you see the world not really as it is but through a filter that tries to validate EP and your own dogma.
And while we are on the subject. I am not so sure it's non-monogamy which is as attractive to women as simply them knowing other women find you attractive. It's called preselection and is old news. Any proof that it's the non-monogamy and not just preselection that is attractive?
WHERE'S YOUR EXPLANATION THEN FOR THE THE NICE GUY ISSUE THEN? YOU GOT A BETTER PREMISE?
Scientists are not going to study this, so stop waiting for the studies. Everything I say is in good faith and my advice to Book Guy is a sincere attempt to help him, yup of coures I'm biased at this point, but no one knows who the hell I am per se -so its not about bragging, we're all annoymous in here, I am reporting things as I view them.
You'll note I didn't post for a number of months, because I was dealing with multiple women responding in similar fashion with the same basic outcome and I waited to I had something worthwhile to contribute, but in this case with Female B I've got a Timeframe X and a Timeframe Y comparison and I'm reporting it exactly as it occured. With this particular woman, I've gone from "nice guy" to something else (provable by her actions not just words) and the major variable was the perceived (apart from the married issue) monogamy issue, because I have never and still don't treat her like shit.
With other women, its been "gentlemen horndog" from Day 1 so I don't have a comparison per se, but both the intensity of their responses and the quality of the individual women -tells me something else is at work and I believe this tinge of non-monogamy is the critical factor. Try to retain the interest of 9 and 10 level women w/o putting out a horndog vibe thing -and see what happens.
You do make a good point on another issue (something that occured to me but I left out) on the normal rule as once tagged a nice guy its usually very hard to undo, if not impossible, however note when i first met her she did tag me a nice guy, but a married nice guy, which arguably is not really a pure nice guy as the term would be defined
Note even the other (usual bullshit) article from the relationship "expert" on Yahoo that I just posted in the other thread - concedes that the nice guy issue is real.
Seed spreading is an entirely logical explanation because its the essence of Alpha behavior in evolutionary terms. Yes, I may have a biased outlook but the theory holds together in all kinds of configurations, and once again (no one will answer) why are women being excepted from normal primordial influences whereas its widely acknowledged that males are impacted?
Everyone talks about nice guys vs bad guys but no one defines what they are, except the irrelevant side issue (e.g the yahoo article) about nice guys as wussy marshmellow ass-kisser pushover doormat types who worship women. Are we really supposed to be surprised that women are turned off by guys like that? OF COURSE THEY ARE TURNED OFF, however that is not what the nice guy debate is about and any rational person knows this.
Aside from the absurd wuss/marshmellow side issue, nice guys IMHO can generally be defined as sincere, non-deceptive, respectful to women, monogamous, non-controlling males vs jerks - who per women's own descriptions would be disrespectful, self-absorbed, insincere, deceptive, controlling cheaters sometimes with the propensity to be violent.
So if one doesn't buy that there is a real nice guy vs jerk/bad guy issue, all of this is irrelevant, however if they do - then they have to develop their own explanations better than what I've put forth. Keep in mind so far no one has resolved this issue, and non-monogamy as a critical offers a cohesive explanation to answer the ultimate question presented
Once again; the horndog vibe was not there last summer, and it was there the last 6 months and this correlated with nearly the exact time she first began dropping all the explicit sexual hints (soon followed by actions). In fact I've asked her why the big change and she claims its because she is now "less shy" and she was "shy" last summer.
The one situation I know of is if you happen to run into a hypochondriac type female, if she gets anything (e.g a sore throat), and as I told her "no I don't have a sore throat and no I don't wake up in the middle of the night with a dry cough, or any cough for that matter" (100% true) - she might start making all sorts of medical accusations. This girl who is very very hot and very young but not blessed with much in the IQ department, and she was even showing me an incredibly tiny wart on her index finger as if I caused it, which she probably got from her pushing her IPOD too many times. Other than this one issue, there's really no downside to adding a bit of the horndog vibe thing.
Aside from the profound logic of seed spreading being a key Alpha factor in evolution, if only by default the vibe of nonmonogamy appears to be a superior strategy given the difficulty of working those other Alpha negative attraction points. Personally I don't have the stomach to lie to women or blatantly disrespect them, and since I focus on longer term relationships such lies eventually would get confusing as to what has been said and what hasn't, and as I've said before once you got the right horndog vibe thing going, they will accuse you of lying about other women and probably think you a bit disrespectful of women anyways, but that flows naturally from the horndog vibe.
In regards to these NEGATIVE ALPHA traits I actually ended up (a bit unintentionally) ratcheting up a bit of the controlling behavior mixed in a small amount of physical force - with a certain dancer. However with dancers you of course take the risk of getting tossed out by bouncers if the dancer complains.
I had just finished a week of multi-day (expensive in this club) VIPs with this hot young dancer completely new to the business and it was discussed and understood by both of us, that in that month I would concentrate on her. After arriving at the club early in afternoon on the first day of the 2nd week I premptively arranged for a VIP session with her by actually prepaying several hundred dollars (her portion) for 2 VIP sessions while she was still on the stage, and explaining to her what I had in mind. When she exited 10 minutes later she mentioned about possibly passing-thru another guy for 3 or 4 dancers, and (as I always do before such longer sessions start) I suggested dancers grab the money while they can before I tie them up for a few hours. So I waited for her for probably 20 minutes as the guy (not surprisingly given her hotness level) went a few extra dances.
Apparently she didn't understand via the stage discussion that the pre-payment was 100% for her and therefore I was locking in multi-sessions VIPs and would pay (per my usual habit) the house portion directly myself once it was setup by the waitress/timer. So when she finished the dances with this guy, I got the impression (wrongly as I found out later) that he might be still looking for hang time after his dance because he had bought 4 or 5 dancers or whatever.
All of this resulted in me (mistakenly as it turned out) getting the impression she was thinking down-the-road she was going to give the guy hang time. (When I spend large sums of money I actually do control the dancer, but that's not an Alpha thing per se, its just what I do and I make sure dollars keep flowing to them) So my response was to grab her hand very forcefully and hold it and tell her exactly what was going to occur, (something I would never normally do) because basically I didn't want this prick hanging around when I was taking her into 2 VIPs and maybe other VIPs beyond that plus I (not him) would be doing the in-between hang time thing. I must have held her hand forcefully for about 2 minutes and pretty much physically controlled her, and I even called the waitress/setup timer over to review the plan that was agreed to (on stage) and make sure everyone understood the plan now - as the waitress/timer as was customary needed to setup the VIP room first.
Now those particular VIP sessions turned out even better than normal, as I was (somewhat by accident) handling her in a very forceful way. I could have easily been tossed out, but she didn't seem interested in complaining about any of it.
Point it this was Alpha behavior and she responded, but its really not practical to use in many situations.
I agree with the essential premise, that acting the "nice guy" is a ruinous tactic, by the way. Not debunking that one, not me.
If "nice guys" as a class truely just consisted of boring pushover marshmellows who ass-kiss and fawn over women (as the Yahoo article infers) - then by not doing those thing the problem is basically solved. However males who are that wussy cannot really change anyways, however in any case males that dysfunctional are irrelevant to the main issue and just confuse the ultimate issue.
Sincerity, monogamy, respect toward women, and non-controlling behavior are in fact the key factors that make a woman call a guy a "nice guy" So by being nonmonogamous or putting out the vibe - one will pretty much have undone being a nice guy and probably counteracted 1 or 2 of the other (non-Alpha) traits
To be honest most of these girls don't seem to even mind being manhandled in the club environment -Ok its sounds egotiscal but its exactly what I've sensed every single time I've done it. I think most are sick of our wussified culture males have been forced to worship and bow down to.
"I think most are sick of our wussified culture males have been forced to worship and bow down to."
100% on the mark, imho.
The problem with all of David's posts, with all due respect, is that they are a crock of shit. Not a crock of shit because David may be making everything up for all we know. Not a crock of shit because David's incessant musings about alpha males and seed spreading are, in reality, just lame vehicles for him tell us what a james-bond-like-sex-machine he is. Not a crock of shit because no one here can even say what an "alpha male" is in a modern world (is it the big loud obnoxious blow hard? or the soft spoken polite intellectual who crushes his enemies?) And it's not a crock of shit because there are not some women who like to be sexually dominated -- there are; indeed, some women will literally beg to be sexually dominated, tied up, fucked in the ass and have cum on their faces.
No, David's endless posts on this subject are a crock of shit for pretending even for a nanosecond that your level of "game" has anything to do with getting strippers to spend time with you. It just doesn't. They don't care. All they care about is making money (and not getting killed or arrested in the process). You can be really nice to them, you can be a real "alpha male" to them, it doesn't matter either way they'll suck your dick and let you fuck them. They all know we're patrons of strip clubs and pay money to watch women dance naked and have sex with us, so from their perspective, we're all perverts anyway. Even if they made a big distinction in their non-work lives between "nice guys" and "alpha males", they are not going to engage in the microscopic line drawing necessary to separate the "perverts who pretend to be nice but are really slime balls" from the "perverts who act like jerks so they can pretend to be alpha males." It's all the same to them. You think you're manipulating them? Bullshit -- they're manipulating you.
Most women, imo, seem to care very much about height.
I've never let it bother me because I care deeply about a woman's looks. Looks are all important to me. A tall woman almost always leaves me bored. A fat women leaves wanting to look away. Should tall and fat women be upset by my preference? Maybe, if I had a real choice in the matter.
I think that is the key. Some people yap that focusing on looks is "shallow" and I strongly think such yapping is shallow. A woman can get me excited or not based on her looks. If she is looking "ugly" to my eyes, then it doesn't matter how good she is at sucking dick---my arousal is going to be subpar assuming I even get aroused. And, it doesn't matter how sweet or intelligent or funny she may be.
Thus, a woman who doesn't like short men has my complete sympathy. If she doesn't like short, then for me that is good enough. The ideal situation for me is that she is just honest about preferring tall or average height men--that to me is very polite and nothing for her to feel guilty about.
I will always remember this dancer at The Trap. She's coming looking for a tip and I gave her the customary $1, but mainly I just wanted her to move on the faster the better. My interest in her was zero because she appeared to be so tall.
To my great surprise she apologizes to me and I'm thinking what the F is she apologizing for? She hasn't done anything wrong and seems like a pleasant person. She takes off these horrible high heels, which I think were special designed to drastically increase her height. Suddenly, I want her to stay and am extremely interested. She was adorable at her normal size. I still think how perceptive she was in understanding why I was just completely uninterested in her. Mr. Happy went from being totally bored to being very happy almost instantly; the change was amazing and I never realized what a huge difference a woman's height actually made to my level of attraction.
If a woman isn't interested in short men, then by all means let her choosed what makes her happy! :)
njcsfan: Oh dear, 'twas only trying to post some satire. (Although I guarantee you there are strippers who would like that, best not to try it on a first date no matter how alpha you are. Heck I bet even Bret Michaels would be likely to get kneed in the balls for that one.)
I agree with your statement about game making no difference to strippers if you are paying them. I think it's actually to your disadvantage to think your game matters to them. Just gives them another angle to scam you on.
Nevertheless, I like where these conversations are going. My initial intent, in posting the "Battle of the Sexes" thread, was more to bemoan the death of CIVILITY as practiced by females, than anything else. I was really just diving in to the notion that they seem to think, "If I CAN do harm then, WHEEEE, I must do harm, and I get to because I'm female!" It's a weird hate-filled world they live in. That's where I started.
I look around sometimes and I actually say, "I'm proud of myself for not having gotten married. Good for me, for staying true to my actual perceptions of the world, my real ideas of what really is true, rather than falling for the lies of media, or 'here's what you're supposed to do with your life,' or conformity, or hot chicks telling me I'm not 'nice' enough." But all that business about marching to a different drummer? Sure, it might make me seem like an alpha-male in the sense that I don't really get easily cowed into submission; I'm not a conformist; I'm not the sort of guy whom a woman can control. But I'm also kinda weird. I don't have a job. I don't have many friends. I spend a lot of time talking to bartenders, or drinking alone, or reading weird speculative books about nerdy ideas. I'm kinda Aspergers, but also kinda super-sociable. People have described me as "too aggressive" and "too nice" in the same breath; "very diplomatic" and "you piss everyone off."
It's like I'm bi-polar; but the poles aren't HAPPY and SAD (or whatever the real ones are: manic and depressive?). Rather my poles are outgoing versus introspective. In neither of them, am I SEXY. I'm outgoing like Bart Simpson, class clown, lunatic yellow flinging food at the Principal. Then I'm dour and introspective like Dracula, moody morose and grumbling that the fucking food is too fucking hot. Nobody fucks me when I'm in EITHER situation.
I'm hoping to change partly by going back to school. When I was working last, I simply didn't have time for social life. I didn't have time for anything. I had to work so much I basically wasn't eating or sleeping. (And I was getting paid less than $20K a year! But that's a different story. Another weirdness.) I don't know how people do it, this work-all-day-long thing. I gained forty pounds in two years, all of it "poverty weight" because I had no time for anything but fast food and sleep. I wore dirty underwear, or rinsed off my underwear from yesterday while I was taking a shower, and left it to hang to wear (slightly damp) tomorrow because I had no fucking time. How can someone have a relationship, or friends, or a normal life, like that? And yet, EVERY SINGLE JOB I'VE EVER HAD has been like that, and this is just fuggin' WARPED.
So, my "troubles with girls" are really a "trouble with real life." I'm just one of those "perpetual graduate students" by inclination. I simply don't have the metabolism to get up at dawn, or to act like I enjoy the office corporate workplace (though I try to pretend, they usually aren't fooled) with all that "happy member of a happy team" bullshit, nor can I really work for a full 8 or 10 hours a day without a break and actually be productive for that entire time. (In fact, NOBODY can, but evidently although we all know "you're supposed to try to," other people don't get fired for taking the kinds of breaks I had to take, like once every six hours or so, but I do. I still haven't mastered it.)
Maybe all my life I've simply been in a slave-driven position of one sort or another. Maybe all my bosses were really rampantly inept at running businesses. Or maybe I'm just fuggin' inept at everything I do. It doesn't really matter what the culprit is. All I can accurately say is, generally I know I've done a great job with women or with work, and generally people say I've done a great job, and generally people don't choose to perpetuate the interaction with me. It's all hand-in-glove, this weird dysfunctional "not certified for anything except the insane asylum" thing. I simply don't understand "what people want." They don't make sense to me.
I like dogs better. They lick my face and I like it. :)
Bookguy: you are a tough case. I was actually wondering about the Aspergers so I am glad you mentioned it. Wish there was a quick fix for finding one's way in life, but there probably isn't. I do think regardless of anything else you should not try to be anything other than who you are, consequences be damned.
However, if you add the horndog vibe thing (anyone can do this) and (for those able) throw the money around a bit, you will find some very interesting things happening with dancers, or with other classes of women if that's your thing.
As for BookGuy - sometimes you need to look at what you've got, not what you don't have. You're an american (a huge advantage in the world today) and you are obviously bright and inqusitive, and I presume you have your health. As for your "poverty weight", 3 or 4 miles a day of walking and running mos days of the week and some free weights will do wonders, plus if you have depression it going to cut it down probably 50% at least.
That particular bartender's reaction was a complete surprise and seem to come out of nowhere and no doubt she must have heard what that particular very popular young dancer had earned off me (approx 3500 with the club taking about 1500) in a fairly short time and (to much smaller extent) probably few thousand or so off some other (mostly)10 to 20 non-VIP random clients over a month or slightly more, and this bartender was feeling old (as absurd as that sounds at 28) and she just started unloading on me for basically no reason, Hey I was a convenient target and 20 dollars defused it. You do what works in life.
I could care less whether this bartender was or was not turned on by me, but to the tell you the truth, as most people understand passion of any type can be a good sign - if a man is looking for a woman to actually be turned on. Indifference would have more troubling in that situation, and I can tell you this bartender was definitely not indifferent toward me.
Women instinctively "get" that a man sleeping with many women has something wrong. That might not prevent them from sleeping with him as well or even wanting to date and/or fix him, but they still understand. Something which many men miss.
I'd like to relate all of this to my troubles with work, as well. It seems to me, that "fitting in among people" is the real problem that I personally have.
David9999's points about portraying a peculiar sort of alpha-characteristic are, I think, accurate. Different people will have to do it differently, and the trick is to calibrate it properly so that it comes across as "the real me" rather than an act.
(By the way, how many dudes here are REALLY ANNOYED when a chick says, "He should just be himself" about a dude who wants to know how to get a date? What the chicks mean, of course, is, "He should just be Brad Pitt and be himself" but they'd never admit that to themselves. Different issue though. They do have a point, that play-acting, in an obvious manner, will only make you seem un-genuine and fake, and that won't likely work -- though I'm often surprised at HOW FAR along the road of "play-acting on purpose" I can go and still get away with it -- so of course the women are offering a grain of truth. But only a tiny grain.)
Dudes who debunk David9999's comments by suggesting, for instance, one should just shove a cock down a throat against a girl's consent, are missing his point (probably deliberately) and taking it to an unreasonable extreme. He means, "Be your own man in subtle psychological ways," not, "Rape people." Though the two can, in odd circumstances, both fall under the aegis of "alpha male" but one is obviously sensible while the other is not. Rejecting the former by conflating it with the latter makes you simply seem stupid. There were other examples equally distant from his initial intent.
But the intent of David's advice isn't enough, I don't think. "Be your own man" (or, "be a gentleman horndog" or whatever other REASONABLE rephrase you wish to think up) isn't enough. As the King says, "I always knew how to be King, I just forgot how to SEEM to be King." I think that all my life I've been someone who didn't know how to seem.
Dogs (again, I say this; but I'm for-real about it, not just joking) really like and trust me. Babies too. Teachers too. Especially good teachers. Bad teachers hate me. Really bright people who run excellent non-profits think of me as a wonderful asset and an ideal volunteer, someone whose opinion should be valued because I see all aspects of a problem, come up with intelligent creative solutions, contribute to the whole. Bosses think of me as someone who won't capitulate to their slave-driving and who isn't "a happy member of a happy team" and fire me. Adult women, adult employers? No, they hate me.
In general, I'm very good at operating in a way that performs the organizations principle function. I'm very bad at self-promotion within that context. So, I'm a great guy. But I never get anyone to THINK OF ME as a great guy ENOUGH that they want (for instance) to hire me, or fuck me.
At least, that's my theory and I'm sticking with it. :) Maybe I'm actually an asshole and fucking inept as hell.
Doubt it. But by current evidence, it's quite likely anyway ...
1. YOU'RE the one making a big deal about 5k.
2. You are either judgement proof or an idiot - because no high net worth individual would risk a possible Mann Act Violation via the interstate transport of a personal prostitute - for what? to save maybe a $1000 or $2000 on the use of an escort at the final destination? Add to this a far more practical problem, that being a possible tort action by this same prostitute on perhaps (just off the top of my head) 4 to 5 different causes of action - as she would literally have you over a barrel.
When dealing with the "chemistry" of attraction and so forth, it clearly tied in with subconscious involentary female reponoses - clearly operating outside of the modern rational thought process.
Obviously if women know other women are attracted to a certain male, yes, they themselves are more likely to be attracted to the same guy, however to test the issue it would involve an A to B comparison (with each guy presumed equally attractive to women in general) - one guy as the confident nice guy and other guy as the confident guy with a bit of the horndog vibe.
Part of the problem is that the confident nice guy who comes off as monogamous - while he might be deemed to be attractive to other women, the fact that he's monogamous in a chemistry sense, makes him inferior to the horndog, since in terms of evolutionary logic he has lower odds of moving the particular woman's genes forward.
Pre-selection is really not relevant to this situation.
As for civil liability, you committed a tort by grabbing the girl's arm, and took a much greater risk of her bringing a claim against you for assault (not to mention the risk of being tossed out of the club). Precisely because I never disrespect the girls for anything, I never run the risk of an altercation. That's why bartenders don't get in arguments with me; we treat each other with mutual respect. The bartender who dissed you was probably right. You probably are a wise ass punk.
If you had a lot of money (which I doubt) you would be putting it at great risk by your behavior in the club. You draw a lot of attention to yourself (spending lots of money; getting in arguments with staff; grabbing a dancer in full view of everyone for several minutes). The result is that the staff will make a point of learning your real name, and so dozens of people in the club will know who you are. If you show everyone you have tons of money, you will be scammed or blackmailed. You probably already are being scammed, and the only reason you haven't been blackmailed (yet) is because you are still a useful cash cow to them. Guys who spend less money, are less ostentatious and stay firmly UTR are much less likely to get into that kind of trouble.
Everything you post confirms my suspicion that you are not the high roller you pretend to be. A person who was making seven figures a year would not be spending weeks in a single club on a single girl -- for a host of reasons: you wouldn't have time; you wouldn't risk the entanglements; there are better ways to get pussy brought to you if you have that much money; you wouldn't risk being found out by colleagues and friends, etc., etc. The super rich usually have a reputation to protect (not to mention a wife who would fleece them in divorce court), so they are not going to hang out in a club in front of everyone all day. Add to that your repeatedly ill informed statements (e.g., re the Mann Act), your illogical rants about seed spreading, and your gelatinous prose (oh, and your failure to ever post even one review), and I have serious doubts that you're gainfully employed, much less the high rolling alpha male you pretend to be.
I love the seed spreading posts. :) I read this book, I believe the title was the Mean Gene, and whether it was the subject matter---I was into gardening and breeding different types of plants; a novice though---or the writing style of the author, it just for me was interesting and fun reading.
The Wall Street Journal before the shift advertised by the editorial "No Guardrails" was also for me interesting and fun reading. I would wake up early early pitch black in the morning early waiting for my copy of The Wall Street Journal. After the shift, I lost interest and it was boring and tedious reading. I felt like some silver spooned mentally challenged individuals had seized control by birth right. Damn nepotism.
Now, I'm tempted to do a little research on their circulation numbers----------too much work and too inconclusive. :(
The incident I described was the ONLY problem I've ever had with a staff member and its duration was probably less than a minute or two, and it was about a bartender feeling old and maybe jealous of a dancer about making big money, and it was defused very quickly. However, I see you insist in making a huge deal out of it.
By the way, I've violated no laws as written in any jurisdiction in the United States.
As for the rest, you truely do not understand the deal. Your personal prostitute now has leverage over you for the duration of any applicable statute of limitations. Odds are she won't do a thing, however you have in fact exposed yourself to considerable risk. Save your "Mann Act prosecutions are selective and rare" bullshit for your negotiations with her tort lawyer.
However as for the general concept of "male non-monogamy as an innate attraction point for women" or any tie-in to the ongong nice guy debate, I don't think you will see it written about in any mainstream publications anywhere, unless its very recent. Apparently its simply too politically incorrect or is considered gender bashing of some type - and seen to give license for males to do all sorts of bad things.
The biggest problem appears to be the notion of genes as making "decisions". Probably 99% of people have considerable difficulty accepting that this is possible in any way when they first encounter the subject.
But anyway... I am not sure if non-monogamy is a turn on or not. There was this guy managing one of the local strip clubs who fucked half the girls there (not for money). The girls thought he was a slime ball, and not even attractive, and they all knew about his exploits, but they were fucking him nevertheless! At another local club, all the girls thought the manager was "super hot". But apparently, he was a monogamous sort of fellow. Guess what? That made the girls even hotter, loving the challenge.
Theoretical you could argue that non-monogamy should give genes a survival advantage, but, you could also argue by the Handicap Principle (see the Mating Mind) that monogamy is an advantage: It demonstrates a healthier mind, doesn't risk the father losing social standing or wasting resource on illegitimate children, and just plain makes him a better dad. (Having a few psychologically healthy children could be a better bet then a dozen illegitimate ones.)
I also think EP has overlooked memetic propagation. With illegitimate children the chance of you propagating your memes are much less then ones where you have a solid monogamous relationship with the woman.
Once again your posts aren't making loads of sense. There are only two places in the U.S. where prostitution in any form is legal, R.I. and Nevada. Neither one, however, would involve fucking a stripper at a club. In R.I., brothels are illegal, so paying the club for access to a stripper (for sex) would violate the law. In Nevada (and not in Las Vegas) there are legal brothels, but they are brothels, not strip clubs.
So once again your "story" is not adding up. If you are paying to have sex with a stripper in the club (and you say you are paying the club $1500 just for access to the vip room and the stripper) then you are indeed violating the law. If you are instead paying $5000 and not getting any sex at all, then you are the gentleman eunuch.
Add to your nonsensical statements the fact that you have never posted a review once, and I am compelled to conclude that you have never set foot in a strip club (and never had sex with a woman), and that your posts are the product of an imaginative 15 year old mind.
Evo-psych has this weird thing going on, where it partly wants to debunk current "how you're SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE" myths, but partly can't help but replicate societal expectations. So it partly says women are actually quite horny (this gets a rise out of the established press and media, which wants to repeat anything mildly titillating) and interested in getting a variety of fuck-partners. But then it also (or perhaps a different scientist also) says, men "spread seed" more than women, and generally that understanding comes straight from anecdotal evidence from the surrounding culture. Problem is, it usually doesn't do cross-cultural or cross-historical studies. If it had included evidence from Reformation or Medieval England, it would have found out that at least in some other periods mankind tended to assume that the FEMALE was the horndog and the MALE had to regularly fend off unwanted advances. Evo-psych tends to assume (as do most scientists in most fields, since most are only educated in technical analysis and not historical or humanistic study) that the current culture is "the normal culture" and not just "one possible option for the culture."
So, I recognize some of evo-psych's benefits, but I take it all with a large grain of salt. There is, after all, almost NO experimentation or scientific method possible (as with most psychology). We're just dealing with anecdotal evidence and the scrupulousness of the researcher, and with his own ability (or inability) to identify and factor out his own cultural presumptions.
A parallel example. In Victorian England, scientists used all the latest "methods" to PROVE beyond any reasonable scientific doubt, that African humans with dark skin were intellectually inferior to Europeans. They factored in such things as similarity to apes, kinkiness of hair, brain case size, muscularity of skeleton, etc. etc. They made it all make sense. Of course, those were Victorian methods, most of which we reject today; and Victorian presumptions,most of which we reject today. Nevertheless, TO A VICTORIAN scientist or layperson, these "findings" seemed rather compelling. It took a CHANGE IN CULTURAL MORES to allow for a wider general understanding that those "proofs" weren't proof at all. And though some scientists, at the time and in the interim before the Civil Rights explosion of the 1950s and 60s, might have viewed that stuff as junk-science, nevertheless the public perception was often guided by it anyway. If they had had The Discovery Channel in 1932, you can bet there would have been a few "scientists" who weren't really thought of as prejudiced at all, not by general standards of the day, who nevertheless told the viewers all about how blacks were dumb because of African origin, and all the proofs thereabout. And people would have had to buy it. Evo-psych is our current similarly questionable approach.
Science has some solid foundations, and some rather speculative hypotheses, and some out-on-a-limb assertions. The capacity to identify the differences among them is an important part of being a responsible citizen. These assertions that, for instance, "a woman wants a good provider" (or, alternately, that "a woman responds most to the tinge of non-monogamy") are generally un-prove-able. Or at least, not yet proven.
For a good handbook, on how you can distinguish, I recommend "UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation" by Jackson and Jamieson. In there are good reasons why I think global warming is real, second-hand-smoke risks are kind of real, and phrenology is fake. It's not just about what's true or false; it's about how YOU can figure it out FOR YOURSELF the next time you need to know. Things like finding a consensus of experts, being wary of numerical misrepresentation in statistics and charts, knowing how to hear "hype" and not respect it, and so on.
And frankly I think that's what we're really talking about when we talk about nice guys vs. bad boys. We probably all went though the bad-boy phase at some point during our adolecense, but most of us outgrew it in our eary 20's. The bad-boy act is just one more expression of selfish and self-centered manipulative behavior, which all kids learn at a very early age. Maturity involves the recognition that such behaviors are inappropriate for an adult. An 18 yo bad boy may seem attractive to other 18 yo's, especially since such behavior is often glorified by the popular media. But such behavior by someone twice that age is nothing but childish, obnoxious and disgusting.
I've had a lot of friends who remained bad boys into adult life, and every one of them ended up divorced. None of the guys who grew up and became monogamous nice guys did. So who has been more successful with women?
Doesn't seem realistic even if you were a vegetable. Not to put you on the spot and I sure as hell don't know the answer, but do you know roughly, very roughly, how many laws there are in any jurisdiction in the United States?
He who is getting it on with the hot babes, imo. :)
BookGuy - the issue pertains to a human and pre-human timeframe arguably running back 3 to 5 million years. In evolutionary terms the timeframes you are now citing are "recent history" whereas what matters in genetic terms is the larger blocks of time. You are in effect dealing with maybe 30 seconds in a 24 hour geologic clock, when the issue presented is about what happened (i.e what worked into DNA) during the other 23 hours 59 minutes and 30 seconds of "human" history.
Resource production by the male has always been a factor in female attraction, and its a primary reason why tribal systems developed. Certainly large amounts of wealth in modern times (maybe even a mere steady job in hard times) could be an attraction point, and in some cases actually turn on the female "chemistry" switch. However, today plenty of (confident) "nice guys" have the steady job - but it usually doesn't get them anywhere with the most attractive women unless they can switch it on somewhere else.
I like the *and interpreted* part. :) Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.
Just teasing a wee bit and hope you don't take offense.
So parking tickets and a few speeding tickets don't count? What is that mantra that I believe the government was pushing? SPEED KILLS! :)
A friend who was involved in a stabbing is charged with something like aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (guilt or innocence still to be decided or plead to avoid potential serious injury). That friend excluding marijuana use also "tend[s] to follow the law." :) So, how many bodies did you dispose of again?
Besides just joking around and I hope you realize it is very light hearted joking, the friend who I strongly believe to be innocent could end up a felon and it isn't a question of whether the law was actually violated. It is just opinion . . . I personally would find a polygraph to be a more compelling instrument of deciding whether the friend violated the law. But, even the polygraph is opinion.
Based on my longtime knowledge of my friend's behaviour, I *know* the friend is innocent. Yes, of course I could be wrong that is always a possibility.
I don't think you are giving him enough credit or I'm giving him too much. Here is what he originally wrote:
"By the way, I've violated no laws as written in any jurisdiction in the United States."
You notice the qualifier "as written"? He may quite legitimately feel he is exploiting a loophole in the written law when in comes to paying for sex. He didn't pay $5,000 for sex, but merely paid $5,000 for the woman's company. She was free to read poetry perhaps or just give a nice massage or tell some sexy stories or whatever. She chose with his apparent consent to engage in more adult activities, but being super law abiding he would never make sex a condition for receiving payment e.g. for receiving the paltry, to him, $5,000.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06222008/pos…
That is like suggesting ALL strippers aren't motivated solely by $$$, thus it must be FALSE.
No one has "trapped" anyone in a "corner." The problem is that Wikipedia "lawyers" like yourself rarely know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm aware now and have been aware for several years of any nuances in the law in regards to this particular issue as it might apply to me, and I'm also aware of the ongoing legislative efforts to change the law. For the third and final time "I've violated no laws AS WRITTEN (and interpreted) in any jurisdiction in the United States."
So please STFU once and for all.
Once again you didn't answer the question little boy. And the reason is because everything you say is shit. You're a 15 year old who has never set foot in a strip club -- which is why your posts are filled with senseless crap, and why you can't post a review. I've cross examined lawyers and tied them in knots, so cross examining a teenager like you has not been hard. Now get off your computer and go to bed before you get in trouble with your mommy.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Prostitution" means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
(b) "Lewdness" means any indecent or obscene act.
(c) "Assignation" means the making of any appointment or engagement for prostitution or lewdness, or any act in furtherance of such appointment or engagement.
(d) "Sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
(2) It is unlawful:
(a) To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.
(b) To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act.
(c) To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or to permit any person to remain there for such purpose.
(d) To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(e) To offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(g) To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
(h) To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection.
(i) To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/inde…
It should take too much intelligence to figure out that this relatively simple law can have many different interpretations.
If I seek a GFE for $80 from a young hottie, then would that be considered prostitution? :) Depends on who is controlling the courtroom.
When I use the term GFE a judge may declare that must mean I'm speaking of masturbation at the very least. Of course, I'm NOT a lawyer and my knowledge of criminal law is wanting. But, in civil law you can have numerous high priced attorneys give basically identical interpretations of the same law and don't expect a judge to agree or even lower himself to explaining his ruling.
State laws on prostitution vary, obviously. But the general principle is that prostitution is defined as performing a sexual act for hire. And "sexual act" is usually defined pretty broadly, and does not require, for example, penetration or climax. A lot of the very low level stuff that occurs in most clubs (e.g., rubbing guys dicks) nonetheless counts as prostitution.
You are correct that all laws, including the criminal laws against prostitution, are subject to interpretation. But you are incorrect in your belief that that makes it completely open ended. The interpretation of the laws becomes established over time in the case law develped by the courts, and those decisions are given just as much legal force as the statutes themselves. In fact much of our civil legal system is based purely on "judge made" law, i.e., the common law, which has been around since before this country was even formed. So while statutes can be subject to interpretation, there is no question that if you go into a club, pay $200 for a VIP room, and then pay $300 to have the girl fuck you, you have violated the law against prostitution.
Had David taken the sensible position (that he was violating the law, but felt he was unlikely to get caught) his post would have made more sense. Instead, he took an utterly idiotic and indefensible position, that he is somehow not violating the law. Pressed several times to explain how he is not violating the law, he can't give a straight answer, for the simple reason that there is no honest answer to that question. Either David is lying about not violating the law, or he is lying about being a gentleman horndog who has sex with strippers.
David got himself into that corner when he overreached with his comment about the Mann Act -- something a teenager would bring up, but not something a lawyer would bring up. A lawyer would know that the Mann Act (which is a federal law, not a state law) is going to be enforced by federal prosecutors. Federal prosecutors follow a set of guidelines issued by the Justice Department, which set forth when certain crimes should and should not be prosecuted. (Because there are a potentially limitless number of crimes that could be prosecuted at any point in time, all prosecutors are invested with discretion over which potential cases to pursue.) At any rate, the federal guidelines provide, with regard to the Mann Act, that prosecutions against end users (i.e., johns) are discouraged, unless they involve minors. But a nonlawyer teenage boy like David wouldn't know that, because he's never been to college, much less law school.
Every time David starts yapping away the contradictions pile up, and he reveals himself to be a phony. Then you start thinking, gee, what could be the reason that this guy never ever posts even one review? And then the answer becomes obvious: he can't post a review, because he is not permitted to see the inside of a club.
Any person can get on this site and post on the discussion board, they don't need to be a grown up. My kids take perverse pleasure out of going on the net and pretending to be adults on various web sites. That's all David is doing. No one should take this punk seriously.
The funny thing is some older men, especially, when they seek a GFE "for hire" don't necessarily require any "sexual activity" as strange as that might seem to an ignorant judge or jury. The older man may be perfectly content if the young hottie just watches a regular TV show with him. Gambling dancer's GFE with that one customer is merely pretending to be his fiance in that someday she might marry him (which is actually true; if for example he only has a couple days to live).
Now if the young hottie decides to get frisky on her own initiative the older gentleman may or may not object. It isn't unreasonable, imo, to believe that a young hottie would rather engage in "sexual activity" with the elderly man rather than watch CNN or President Bush or Extreme Dating or etc.
Violation of law is fairly subjective and generally you must prove your innocence, imo. My friend, who I'm certain is innocent, doesn't comprehend even a tad, how slow eithrt a judge and or jury can be AND how little evidence it takes to get a conviction. That friend may definitely be spending the next few years behind bars being raped and tortured.
Respectfully, there is a difference between a debate about how a law is interpreted, and a debate about what the facts in a particular case are. A john and a prostitute can claim that they didn't have sex; or that the sex had nothing to do with money. And a jury can either believe them or not. But there's no doubt that paying money for sex is illegal. David has previously claimed he only does "pay for play" because having a civilian mistress would supposedly put his vast fortune at risk. But then he is violating laws against prostitution. Remember we go down these little paths because David starts with one lie (he's getting all these hot chicks to go after him), and then another (he has to use only hookers because he has such great wealth that he needs to protect it), and then another (he would never do anything to put his wealth at risk), and then another (he would never violate the law). David's stories are some of the more obvious bits of fakery on this board, and as he has gotten more and more tangled up in his lies, his whoppers have just gotten bigger and bigger -- look at his crazy stupid post about "spies" in the club. I gave David just enough rope to hang himself and he did it in about two days. He is as phony as a three dollar bill.
I'm aware of case law and depublished opinions aka secret law that still count as binding precedent. In a civil case my family prevailed using what the judge called "secret law" i.e. depublished opinions that still have the full force and effect of law.
As I said my experience isn't in criminal law, but civil law and from what I've seen it is definitely ***completely open ended*** i.e. it is a gigantic fraud. I would sincerely doubt the criminal court judges are more intelligent or caring or honest than their civil court brethen. In fact, my corrupt civil court judge was from the criminal courts where he had a strong reputation as a law and order judge. He is a criminal, but because is a judge it is almost impossible to bring him to justice.
My high priced attorney could have been faking for my benefit, but under his breath in an emotional moment he mumbled the word crook when referring to the judge. Now, when speaking with this high priced lawyer I was very tame and upbeat; and in fact, I told him the truth---that he did an excellent job and really went to bat for me. The most negative that I got was after the judge ruled against me and I was before the judge and he asked me a question and I replied Your Honor it was become clear that I have NO rights in this country. The judge said you have the right to appeal and I asked the judge do you think the appellate court will really do a better job than you? Besides it takes real money to appeal and even more money if you lose. It is a sucker's game generally.
Now, please keep in mind this was an extremely simple case that went on for years and a years. It went on for years and years because the judges are corrupt and refused to provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law. And, even if they did do the work basic honesty even as to stipulated facts is a huge problem.
One huge advantage these crooked judges have is not only is the general populace fairly slow, but even the smarty pants wouldn't be able to comprehend the brazen corruption and open fraud unless they experienced it first hand.
There are some bad judges in the world but I think most of them are pretty decent. I am sure you had a bad experience, but it was a singular experience. I am speaking from experience spanning decades and hundreds of cases.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of laypeople (nonlawyers in this context) have only a very slight grasp of how the legal system works, even with their own cases. It would be impossible to meaningfully evaluate your case without having the entire file, frankly, but the great likelihood is that the problem lay less with the court than with your lawyer. When I have seen people get screwed it is more often because the lawyer mishandled the case than anything else. The big exception, I think, is family court, where the disregard for the law from the bench is extreme.
Just my $0.02.
The above statemnet isn't even true when it comes to the laws of the State of Florida. When the "sexual activity for hire" is between spouses it is specifically legal. Furthermore it doesn't include paying money for sex "for bona fide medical purposes." (Yes, sex can definitely be for bona fide medical purposes.) I'm sure published case law and perhaps there is even controlling depublished case law that provide even more exceptions the judges have "legislated" while on sitting on the bench. To think that judges will routinely obey precedent is downright absurd, imnsho, btw.
The medical purposes exception is for medical exams, because in those instances it is necessary for the doctor to touch the patient's breasts or genitals (and the doctor is being paid money to do so). It's not so doctors can fuck their patients.
The exception for spouses is to avoid any argument that because one spouse is giving the other money or some other benefit that therefore prostitution is involved.
We can assume, I think, that any guy going into a strip club is not being attended to by a doctor or his wife. Again, can defendants try to make somewhat ridiculous defenses? Yes. The D.C. madam who recently committed suicide maintained during her trial that she had absolutely no idea the girls were having sex with the customers -- but no one believed her and she was convicted anyway.
Well, then the judge was lying to me when he told me that my lawyer did an EXCELLENT JOB. The judge surprisingly to me was shocked when I agreed my attorney had done *more* than an EXCELLENT JOB and he worked his butt off to boot; I was very surprised and pleased with him.
It wasn't a singular experience in that my family has suffered a lot of misery in the family courts; as you pointed out: "family court, where the disregard for the law from the bench is extreme."
AGAIN: "family court, where the disregard for the law from the bench is extreme." Why would extreme disregard for the law from the bench be limited to family court? Sorry, but these judges that I've seen are true criminals and the problem can't be fixed because ordinary people are in general very simple minded. :(
BTW, I'm being harsh on judges and to be more fair---there are low lifes with respectable jobs who pretend to be honorable and yet are sleazy when there isn't any financial or other real reason for being sleazy. It doesn't make sense, but there are people who are sleazy for no apparent reason. Also, in defense of judges---the judges probably represent the moral beliefs of the American people better than I would. I'm surprise how many people believe in torture for example.
No. There are so called sex therapists that a doctor can actually prescribe for patients that have real sexual dysfuntions (sp?) that might be helped by sex therapy including sexual intercourse.
David: instead of trying to bob and weave on the board, or bolster your sinking credibility with more posts about fake encounters that you've never had, why don't you post just one review about an actual strip club that you've supposedly been to? If nothing else, it will be good for a laugh to hear a 15 year old boy describe what he imagines the inside of a stip club to be like.
Sex by Prescription: The Startling Truth About Today's Sex Therapy (Paperback)
by Thomas Stephen Szasz (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Prescription-S…
I've also seen television shows as well as read articles on the subject----of course, that doesn't make it true. However, some patients will severe sexual problems could definitely, imo, and I'm sure in some doctors' opinion be helped greatly by a "hands-on" sex therapist that may actually go as far as sexual intercourse.
I'm not talking about doctors having sex with their patients. I'm talking about doctors using "sex therapists" to help patients with real sexual dysfunctions. The patients may benefit from this type of medical care *by sex therapists* who are allowed to provide sexual intercourse as well as other sexual activities "for bona fide medical purposes."
LOL! :)
Sorry, imho NOBODY on this board comes across like a genius even if in fact they are a GENIUS.
Would you like to try a different approach? Here's a simple one. You say you are worth over $1 million, and that you make $500K per year. Well, gee, then you must be a pretty well traveled guy, for both work and pleasure. So certainly you've been to NYC several times, right? (Think hard before you answer that one David. It's a trap. Here's betting you won't answer.)
you're a fucking asshole
i don't answer questions from pricks like you
and my SS# and tax returns too?
The funny thing is no matter how out of character a poster may seem it is possible that he is what he says he is. :)
Too bad you guys can't meet at Shadowcat's TUSCL convention or maybe it ain't too bad. :)
You'll also note that we didn't miss you Davyboy...hint, hint...
Oh, and that "$20 bartender"? She totally wanted you...soooooo bad, but then you woke up...
Man, I thought that thing about bringing the ultra-young-looking stripper/whore along on the "company" trip while wifey was at home with the kids was kind of bad idea, but white slavery violations?? LOL...come on now...
"Neither one, however, would involve fucking a stripper at a club. In R.I., brothels are illegal, so paying the club for access to a stripper (for sex) would violate the law"
That's not my understanding of the way things are "enforced" down in RI. Cheaters in RI is basically a brothel, and you can get everything up to FS in a few other strip clubs as well. AMPs down there usually only get busted for not having licensed masseusees (spelling?) and/or immigration violations. In Davyboy's defense, if he's actually been to a strip club or AMP (who knows!)...it's definitely been in RI (if not in other places too). Hell, maybe he's Spitzer...lol...or maybe he read about these topics on the Internet...
"Every one one of my posts that pertains to factual matters is 100% accurate"
LOL!!!
"show me where it says we have to write reviews"
You're absolutely right...there's no "requirement" to write reviews here. The problem with this line of thinking is that if everyone did that...then this website would be shit (no reviews!). The concept behind this site, I think, is pretty simple. Regular strip club patrons post "honest" reviews of strip clubs that they've been to, and that, in turn, allows other potential strip club patrons to have some "good" info with which to base their decision on whether or not to go to a strip club. Together, we can do more good than we can alone...I STRONGLY believe in that concept BTW.
It's fun to watch two lawyers go at it, eh? :)