Comments by David9999 (page 8)

The "science" will eventually prove it to be true, however the subject is currently off limits in most of academia because (as i've cited) it appears to give license to and make excuses for bad male behavior Now if you happen to pose the question to an attractive single female, probably 99% will disgree with the premise, which is hardly surprising because most females do not understand their innate desires nor what causes them anyways. For those females, I suggest you ask them who (if at all) were they attracted to more, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Then ask why?

"What is decidedly lacking is any evidence that the male's non-monogamy has any benefit to the female, or that the women are more attracted to the man because he has multiple partners" The issue regarding male non-monogamy is not whether there is an ACTUAL benefit to the woman per se. Certainly in the world we live in today I will readily concede there is no benefit. The issue instead is what mattered during the dominant timeframe of evolution. The "chemistry" of attraction or why women "fall in love" with particular males is clearly not primarily a conscious volitional rational process and by most evidence operates to a large degree at the (subconcious) arguably genetic level. As Wright referred to in the Time Magazine Cover piece male non-monogamy at one point in man's existence was the optimal strategy, probably for most of human existence. Human genes (lagging environmental factors and are very slow to change) are very likely to have difficulty recognizing modern constructs such as marriage and committment. Massive wide scale seed spreading as a genetic survival strategy at a time when probably a very high percentage of women died in child birth - would have had signficant advantages both in advancing the male's genes (along with his female mates) and advancing the human species in general. It is true some might argue that many of these arguments are correlative and not necessarily causative, for example the tall good looking male attracts more women, therefore on average he would probably be less monogamous than the average male, so of course its absurd to use this in and of itself as proof that the non-monogamy is the key attraction point. The evidence in fact goes way way beyond this, and (just to cite one class of examples) everyone knows some of the biggest sleazebag borderline ugly losers around who are chick magnets - and the common thread nearly always seems to be that they treat women like shit and have a non-monogamous attitude and disrespectful nature toward women in general. Once again modern women in general believing themselves to be utterly so civilized seem to think THEIR somehow beyond primordial evolutionary based influence - yet readily claim and will admit males (when given the chance) certainly tend to follow their base instincts. This purported lack of reciprocity between the two genders clearly defies common sense. The entire "nice guy" vs "bad guy" debate is not fiction, and in fact the central premise has a major amount of truth yet no one has ever quite explained (except via the usual alleged women's "low self esteem" approach) why this occurs, and its pricisely why more than a decade back I ran the exact question by Robert Wright.

Ask youself this: can you really be an Alpha if you're not cheating or giving off a cheating vibe? In theory its probably possible in a modern sense, but certainly not in an evolutionary context and (i'm convinced) its evolutionary based DNA of some type that absolutely is tied into all this "chemistry" women always focus on. By the way the "science" is late on all this stuff, in part because academia and left wing dominated "gender studies" and related university departments see the entire fieldof socio-biology (on these matters at least) as a sort of excuse and advocation for men to cheat and/or disrespect women. So its very non-politically correct to even bring up these ideas. I started asking these questions at least as early as 14 years ago, actually several years before that. As for the evolution connecting to the (well known) nice guy vs bad guy issue - sorry its not from any book per se, or at least it wasn't 15 to 20 years back. Go back and try to find it, you won't. I specifically recall asking in 1994 Robert Wright (non-scientist reporter) author of the Moral Animal (also author Time Magazine cover story the same year regarding male nonmonogamy as an evolutionary norm) the following quesiton: "has anyone made an evolutionary connection between certain females well known propensity to be attracted to bad guys and in effect turned off by nice guys"? Wright's answer was while he thought it might be worth studying, that he knew of no connection made by anyone nor any study, and Wright was the main reporter describing what was then state of the art information on these issues at that time. So here's the reporter writing pretty much the definitve survey of this field from a non-scientist perspective, and he's not even covered or though about or heard about any alleged connection in these matters. The bottom line is socio-biology is still wide open and in its infancy relative to other fields, so you're not going to necessarily to get it all from books per se, you've got to deduce things yourselves and come up with your own ideas as is necessary -despite often times everyone trying to shout you down.

Njscfan - you asked the same question on the March 3, 2008 thread entitled: Why women love cheaters." I've consistently said that I believe the "tinge of nonmonogamy" vibe or whatever term one might label it - is (despite the counter-intuitive nature of it all) in my honest opinion is an important attraction point particularly with young attractive women, and probably more important than even I previously realized. I don't recall saying random 10's were just throwing themselves at me (as another poster alludes to) however I absolutely 100% believe that pronounced faithfulness or the absolute pereception of sexual fidelity, no matter how well intentioned, is probably detrimental to the all-important "chemistry". If being "in love" were simply determined only by the volitional intent of the female instead of some purported mysterious magical feeling - it would be another matter, however the evidence I believe is clear that there is some connection in these important matters to humans primordial based genetic survival instincts. Your question back in March was: "David, remind me, why are you paying for sex when you have more "top shelf" women than you can handle?" My answer is the same: "Very high net worth creates very high risk for actual substantive relationships." To explain further: one nearly always gives up one's actual identity in such relationships whereas anonymity is innate to most no strings attached open and honest type pay-to-play situations. "Real world" interactions usually being in the nature of an "affair" usually have not only clearly identified parties but (often) false promises of future committment and exclusivity. In my case with this later group where the (generally unpursued) opportunities have arisen, these would usually among other things be related to contacts in the town I live in, at the country club I am a member of, or with various professional associations, health clubs, interactions with colleagues, support personnel at work, clients, or other collaterally related parties. Pay-to-play done openly and honestly permits both parties or at least one party to avoid any emotional involvement, and thus technically in my honest opinion would not be deemed "affairs" as the term is generally construed. However even pay-to-play can involve emotional issues. As I've said on the March 3rd thread its "my long held belief, when women today speak of "chemistry" being a requisite to sustain a relationship with a man, they are actually talking about "falling in love" and that all-critical component I believe is in the nature of a a bio-chemically induced non-volitional involuntary feeling - and all of that relates to earlier times, whether ultra early stage man, pre-pair bonding or overlapped with pair bonding, there is some kind of distinct connection to earlier times and primoridial instincts and urges." You can read what you want into that, because I'm not going to lay it out girl by girl. If you think any guy merely by throwing some money at various dancers can get those kinds of things going in multiple situations simultaneously, hey that's your opinion. In any case, one can induce this added factor themselves quite easily and see if it matters or not for them. I've told you what I've encountered and as I've said, there's really not much downside no matter what.

"that women "fall for" a bad boy WHOM THEY KNOW IS BAD FOR THEM." Actually I give credit to SHOT for making this perceptive point (on the other site where I never post but I read them) - women when they start a relationship (bad boy or not) alway CLAIM he is a "nice guy" - thus muddling up the issue even more. "He was such a nice guy when I met him". Of course weeks or months later when the "nice guy" starts bossing them around or cheating on them or lying to them -well then he's a jerk. Of course the guy never was a nice guy at any point, he was a jerk from the beginning and he's a jerk later.

If anybody were a candidate for foreign woman, I believe BookGuy would be, because several issues are probably resolved 1. the height issue 2. his relentless insistence on hot women. In the past he's written them off because they supposedly all become westernized almost overnight. I don't buy that it necessarily happens that fast, however in any case BookGuy doesn't seem to have a better plan at the moment. Simply by living in America we are conferred enormous advantages, and those advantages (relative to 2nd and 3rd world countries) may soon not be offered the way they are currently, so I wouldn't just dimiss them outright.

Fondle - it you think its just "dumb" females that go for height, I can tell you some of the hottest (real world) girls I dated a few decades back (one 5 ft 8, 123 lbs, stunningly pretty long legged blonde model type, modest A cup) and other 5 ft 6, large C's, about 128 lbs very curvy, rita hayworth looks, playboy type body 1. height was a major issue with them and they told me this over and over 2. these were extraordinarly bright women by all the traditional indicators: mensa and beyond IQ's, valedictorian status etc You act like its a volitional choice with these women: they either like you or they don't, its not something they can just wish away

"if you are already a tall, good looking, assertive, successful alpha male exactly why do you need these strategies, and how can you tell it is these strategies that are making a difference?" First of all, I'm certainly not claiming to be a 20 year older version of Tom Brady, instead the "presentability" issue itself was brought up specifically to counteract the typical presumptions that: 1. middle age or older strip club patrons are for the most part short, fat, out-of-shape bald guys 2. (or younger patrons) are often social misfit geek types, gang-banger wannabee losers, or wise ass punks getting drunk. Maybe that's 80 to 90% of all patrons I'm not sure, but sometimes there are other categories of customers. Of course there's some difficulty knowing whether its the "gentlemen horndog" thing that's working or something else, but I do have at least a few situations with the same women comparing the attitude toward me currently vs early last summer, where the only change added - was the horndog issue, and its like night and day with those women. The second factor is nearly all these women are 10 level or very close, a few ultra young (all legal of course), and its not just one or 2 its others now, and the opportunities being offered are not just pay-to-play at this point, although involvement in that regards I view as super-risky and thus too risky for someone married. What you'll find is that as you build it up these women can sense the gentlemen horndog vibe thing (maybe they subconsciously pick it up in the attitude or tone, that in effect you're commoditizing them and thus disrepecting them in some way) because what happens they begin to view nearly all your statements as lies or half-truths. If for example you tell them they're beautiful, (even when you believe it), they claim its a line of some type - because they judge you in the horndog context. In fact they will start accusing you of all sorts of things, most of its false, but it kicks the drama up - and because nearly all these high level women are drama junkies of some type, its a net plus. There are what I call "benign" Alpha characteristics and there's hardly any controversy with those because nearly everyone accepts them as being attractive to women: things like height, looks, strength, intelligence, confidence etc (although in fairness plenty of women do in fact like short guys, so I'm not saying its always the case then) - however we know Alphas to achieve genetic survival success had to also have "malignant" characteristics: among them deception, controlling behavior, nonmonogamy, and at times the ability and capability to resort to violence if necessary - and today we've developed this fiction that our advanced civilized nature means women today could not possibly (STILL thousands of years later) be attracted to such traits. It seems very odd that while modern women will nearly all admit that MOST men by nature (i.e. via evolutionary baggage) tend to be nonmonogamous, if not by act then at least by desire - at the same time women (through some apparent feat of magic) have risen above the primordial swamp and advanced to such a high level of human civility that none of this would affect them. I would argue it does affect them, and the evidence is all around us, and it clearly ties into that all important "chemistry" (or being "in love) part of a relationship that nearly all young attractive females are continually seeking to acquire - like a crack addict looking for their next fix. In addition from the standpoint of nature and logic, this supposed lack of reciprocity or lack of mutuality - where one gender supposedly is far less influenced by genetic baggage - simply doesn't make sense.

"Im gonna try this with a woman I wanna score a date with who is a waitress at a dive down the road from me. I will lie to her and abuse her and let her kknow I love to cheat. I will post back the results." Its not marginal in the fact that its a trivial added factor, instead it works "on the margin" meaning generally only working once the basic platorm is already in place. "Abuse" per se is not necessary and its this tinge of nonmonogamy that seems key with many hot women. Of course you've got to be in the general range of what a particular class of women find attractive. Many women come across men all the time fitting their general criteria, yet its only certain males that really turn them on - and you'll soon notice how crucial putting out (for want of a better term) the gentlemen horndog vibe actually is. Yes, its counter-intuitive to "nice guys" brought up to respect women and takes time to accept, but its 100% accurate.

Bookguy is saying now "I want to land a nice girl with a hot body." Unless you can change your height (yup chicks like tall guys, believe me) or your cash sitatuation (lots of cash is a big plus and it projects confidence) or cannot even project even them most basic threashold Alpha factors which athletic/in-shape guys can - then your standards are too high. Changing the world (and women's DNA) is simply not going to happen, they are enslaved to to a large degree - so accept it and deal with it. As I've said before, the things I mentioned in this thread and prior threads a few months back work at the margin, you cannot (despite certain posters suggesting I've said otherwise) - simply induce a few of these "malignant" Alpha characteristics and all of a sudden have all these hotties drooling over you. Its common knowlege many women are turned off by nice guys and turned on by "jerks" - the only spin I am adding is the evolutionary based underpinnings to all this

Women's innate "choices" are largely controlled by factors outside of their direct control, so stop trying act like its volitional or their fault. Its clearly tied into primoridal based instincts, flowing from early ages, 100's of thousands or millions or yrs back Interesting thread, but instead of trying to change the world, you've got to work the Alpha angle constantly - and as I've said in the past - instead of becoming a complete jerk if you simply focus on most critical Alpha skill -wide scale seed spreading, today represented by the gentlemen horndog, you will be very shocked at the results. The tinge and vibe and impression of nonmonogamy must be present at all times and every available potential sex partner woman you run into must be convinced that you are presently having or plan to soon have sex with every over 17 under 35 hot chick in town under 35 that isn't nailed to the wall or otherwise preoccupied. Now some you will lose because they think you're spreading disease - but you will gain 10 more for every one you lost.

Happen to matter of factly ask a fairly hot bartender (8 to 8.5 level) the following question the other day (just per chance after dropping a 15 dollar tip on her for one drink) "are you an ex-dancer?" and I truely meant is as a compliment. Now this is a club where only hot girls dance so to a normal person they would consider it a compliment and not make a big deal about it. However she said she was never a dancer and she somehow interpreted as a suggestion that I was inferring she was over the hill, so she became real hyped up and started calling me a wise punk and some other choice terms (and not in a joking way) Turned out she had just had her 28th birthday and was feeling old, she said. So to shut her up, aside from explaining the women even in their low 20's often switch from dancing to bartendering, I gave her a 20 dollar bill. Last time I say that to a bartender.

use ebay not craigs list, the first is a proven system with many safeguards, the 2nd ripe with fraud

I question the entire central premise of the thread. The opposite seems to more likely The problem is many dancers who haven't worked on regular jobs in a long tim can get spoiled and lazy. Put them in a factory for an 8 hour shift or Walmart as a cashier standing on their feet for hours ... and they'll be bothered alot less by getting rejected. Real world hard work can be a wake up call, and if anything makes these girls worker harder, which nearly always involves a better overall attitude, soliciting for more customers, and putting more effort into giving a quality dance to each customer, (and in some cases) may nor may not involve getting a bit more liberal on the dances. Just like the Brazilian girls who nearly always have seen poverty first hand - they give customer good value, clean dance or not.

Ask yourself this with the alcohol based strip clubs. How many patrons would they get if the club had no naked women and only served liquor. In some cases, relative to other nearby (non-strip) bars - they would probably lose 95% of their traffic and yet their drink prices are usually far higher than a regular bar Also watch the register, and how many times its used per minute, and you realize the gold mine some of these clubs are One fairly large club I'm familiar always has 2 or 3 guys on the floor at all time that look more threatening than Tony Soprano and his crew (plus regular bouncers), watching every move (except for private booths and VIP areas - they want that business to flourish. I've seen the Brinks truck pull up to this club on early weekdays right before opening. The club is a gold mine in a city that its now nearly impossible to start up a similar club

The GFE and related definition are not set in stone, and I recall seeing some web site out of Canada (where they have qausi-legal status in some provinces or cities) - they were trying to standardize it in some way and couldn't. I think "hobbyists" will confirm that GFE usually means it supposed to like a long lost love girlfriend situation, where usually everything except penetration will be uncovered, and as the Canadian discussion pointed out - what kind of a "girlfriend" puts a cover on her boyfriend for BJs?

Depends If one were to buy a club, the price paid would already normally factor in the high profit nature of certain clubs The clubs that are making it huge - are in situations where a party has owned the club for a number of years, and local ordinance or other laws now restrict new start-ups, for example ones that can both have adult entertainment and also serve liquor. Combining booze with naked women in one of these qausi-monopoly type markets where there are few clubs in existence yet very high entry barriers to new start-ups - can be very very profitable. You can often tell how valuable a club is by how closely the managers watch (nearly) every move by every customer and dancer, as they know one major blunder can bring down the the entire cash-cow franchise

Interesting thread, how would you rate this dancer on a reasonably objective 1 to 10 scale - and the reasons why. Sounds like a bargain to me

most important rule is to always remember and to remind yourself each and every time you enter the strip club, that these women are working a JOB. Its makes it better for you and them both longer term.

write it off to the economy, however you better be ready for a quick exit if and when some more bad info hits

As you've stated "She is a great and effective manipulator. She knows what to say to a man when to say it in order to maximize her money gains. She is a prolific liar" I find that even true with dancers who are not into drugs, and it seems to a large extent more connected to their longevity in the business and knowing what works and what works over a number of years. What I've found even more interesting, is that many of these lies seem to operate on a subconscious basis, i.e they don't even know they're lying half the time. Now admittedly its not unusual for people in the sales related fields in general to follow this same trend, an example would be real estate agents, especially some of the more sucessful ones, the difference being that real estate agents get no benefit by romantic or sexual manipulations of clients, whereas with strippers we're dealing with a very unique profession.

Defining an ATF in the mildest sense as only a strong regular, supposedly the industry average is only about 3 to 6 months - which is the reason why dancers (who cannot handle the constant rejection) that are not willing or able to do "wanna dance" approach - not only miss the random customers, but they fail to replenish strong reg/AFT types

The TATS including numbers, size, position and precise nature, or absence of TATS generally is a good indicator - pretty much a direct correlation in many cases. However that said, there are many (otherwise) quite sane normal girls who dance, especially some of the foreign dancers who have little options in regards to work in the USA

I was only in a few clubs briefly in the early 1980's, so I cannot compare A to B. However, its my understanding (as summarzied in wikipedia) that certain Canadian Sup Ct decisions in the 1990's were crucial to certain critical changes that occured in many jurisdictions in the United States, whether by case law, statute, or local ordiances. Its amazing today what's going on in strip clubs, if you know what states to go to. (from wikipedia, lap dancing) "In 1994 – in a ruling which was to have an impact throughout the English speaking world – a Canadian court (Judge Hachborn of the Ontario Court, Provincial Division, in the case of Pat Mara and Allan East, the owner and manager of Cheaters Tavern) ruled that lapdancing did not contravene laws on public decency and defined what lap dancing should mean. This was a huge victory for the sex trade. A number of conflicting judgements were passed in the years that followed, including decisions to close certain bars in which sex acts took place on the floor of the club and other rulings in which patrons were allowed to touch the dancers as long as an actual sex act didn’t take place. Finally, in 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that lap dancing was legal. This led to the displacement of strip clubs and table dancing clubs in Canada by lap dancing clubs. Lap dancing arrived in Britain, with the American Spearmint Rhino clubs, in 1995."

in certain parts of the northeast USA, while customer traffic is acceptable and booze sales keep the clubs alfoat - few dancers are selling VIP or Champagne Rooms. However there is flip side,(particuarly for cash heavy customers that can meet at least the threshold levels of physical presentability that most dancers prefer), the situation is a virtual gold mine as far as it concerns digging up new talent. I have to keep this vague, but imagine recently finding a very young near perfect 10 with a down-to-earth personality, great sense of humor, bright, articulate, non-smoking dancer - though while working a number of months - has only sold a few VIPs. Imagine how grateful she might be when she finally runs into a customer with large sums of cash willing to focus some of it on her. There's no way a few years back when the economy was rolling, that a girl at his quality level wouldn't have guys just lined up.