Homeless girls: A frugal alternative to pricey prostitutes!

Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:

Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.

Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!

Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.

I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.

According to AD, all you have to do is to:

Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.

Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:

Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.

The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.

You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.

Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).

And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.

Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..

But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:

Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.

How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located

in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.

Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!

There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.

Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?

Just remember to keep to your budget!

Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.

And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:

Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.

You have hit the jackpot! 

Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!

Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.

Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!

Just remember:

They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.

Now that’s a motto to live by!

Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.

Simon invoked the c-word, before tossing in some racism:

Mate you are one deadset sad cunt. It’s no surprise to know you’re Indian.

Cathater broke out the other c-word:

Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.

Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.

Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.

Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:

This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.

Savrola returned to the theme of race:

There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.

Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.

What to do?

Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.

ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …

If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).

We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.

Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.

Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.

Men, the forgotten victims once again.

This post contains:

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on December 20, 2011, in $MONEY$, crackpottery, creepy, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, PUA, racism, rapey, reactionary bullshit, sex. Bookmark the permalink. 602 Comments.

  1. As far as more masculine occupations, vocations and professions, most of the work done is best done by men, and making women more available would simply intrude sexual tension and disruption where it need not be.

    Hey Mellertron xD Have you ever worked in a lab? I’m curious cuz you’re such an expert on it😀

    I have. And my mom’s a scientist, and she’s worked in a lab for 30 years. :3

    Perhaps you’d like to tell me about the social dynamics in my lab, and in hers that I’ve observed (since she took me to work a lot as a kid, hey women can hold jobs AND raise children!😄 ) :3

    So tell me Mellertron, sexual tension and disruption in science labs expert😀 How was it like?

  2. For a bonus! I’ll give you the % of men and women in each lab, and you tell me which ones got the most grants and which professors had the most papers published and I’ll tell you if you’re right or wrong?😀


    You ARE the expert after all. xD

  3. Hey Meller, I’m pretty sure when I was working as the only woman in a dagging gang, sex was definitely foremost in the men’s minds as they sweated over shitty sheep’s arses alongside me, and that it affected their tallies. Oh wait, it didn’t. You are full of it.

    Also, you don’t agree with us, stop trying to pretend you do, nobody’s buying it. Oh, and at some point you might want to try (oh god I don’t even know why I’m asking this) explaining exactly what you think is the ‘positive side’ to marital rape.

  4. I probably could have done more last week against that horrid piece of legislation than I have done. I stand corrected! I got more wrapped up in feminioid inspired controversy (over technology and society, no less) here than I should have done, and, even worse, got involved in it to people who are far too wrapped up in current scientific paradigms for them to be in any position to appreciate my concerns even if my attention here was warranted–and you’re correct zhinxi, it was not! I apologise!”

    Well, honestly, truly, and really, it was your loss. I mean, we’re all royally screwed in a larger sense, of course, but if I needed reassurance (And I think I did) that despite the noisy confusion in the center of it’s wacked out soul, despite Catoids and Randroids and the hypervigorous trolls, despite vulgar corporate apologetics and the conspiracy theories and the privelege blindness and the assorted headdeskery, this is still a beautiful libertarianism and worth being a part of? Well, great fucking week for that.

    We are, however, all royally fucking screwed.

  5. Also, really, answer Ami!!😄

  6. He won’t xD That’d mean that he actually has fleshed his theory out and is confident about it xD None of our trolls ever can apply their grand-unifying theories…when it came to giving me dating advice, both Arks and Ion turned back into sounding just like everybody else here, “be yourself” “be honest” “be friendly” etc… suddenly all the game theory they pushed vanished. xD MRAL admitted “I can’t know an individual woman’s life” when I asked him to tell me my life despite saying before that he knew all women’s lives and how great and wonderful every woman he saw’s life was like. >_> NWO backtracked like WOAH when Sarah confronted him with her assault and told him to apply his victim-blaming on her. Ion also backtracked on being able to explain what “benefits and privileges” that I or my mom got as survivors of rape and abuse >_> Even Melletron just excluded you from his theory that women cause their own domestic abuse. They certainly talk big when it comes to “THE WORLD IS LIKE XYZ, ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS MEN ARE LIKE THAT, GAME THIS EVOPSYCH THAT” but when asked to apply it they flee into the distance xD

  7. Even Melletron just excluded you from his theory that women cause their own domestic abuse.”

    OR HAS HE! I don’t know anymore! He might have bundled me back in!

    I dunno, I’m still seriously giggly about the whole… “Well, I guess you can give your daughter libertarian books but I dunno if they’ll do anything” theory. Also the “no homemaking skills theory” – Sure, I’m teaching her soldering… AND needlepoint… Both of which are useful in the home… It’s like he thinks I pulled her away from her princess dolls and said BE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE! UNNATURALLY! Because it’s just not natural for a girl to be curious about the world around her!

  8. And yet Mellertron thinks both you and her should be shipped off to a brothel cuz you don’t have a husband and she doesn’t have a father. xD

  9. Which reminds me, he never answered my questions about how these houses of entertainment are going to be so upscale in a free market economy and yet apparently hold most of the societies “unmarriageable” women.

    For repeating, Meller, can you expound on a problem I have with your House system that is not moral, ethical, feminist, anything, but purely economics? Even purely Austrian?


    As I said there –

    The HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT require a customer base too. And if so many women are crowding them, prices will be driven down, and overhead will be high on such large-scale high-brow ventures. You are going to have to see women actively being encouraged OUT of the courtesan field if the owners want to remain solidly profitable and maintain their position as up-market.

    So, you end up with the very nasty awful ununionized coerced brothels you say you really don’t want, if it’s about the poor women needing a job, or, rather about CONTAINING the non-married females…

    Or, you end up with much more independent options for women all over the spectrum, including sex work, and very little poverty with your HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT being much more of a niche option. So, basically, you either DO envision a great deal of dangerous, low pay, low quality, often coerced work for the bulk of sex workers and some upscale work, or you envision a society where most women are free to take on all sorts of other jobs, and sex work is a comfortable and flexible option for those who choose to make it their work. You can have upscale houses of entertainment and women doing all sorts of other lucrative jobs, or you can have upscale houses of entertainment and independent escorts and low-scale sex work where the “lower class” are economically or physically coerced, and the glut on the market makes prices low, allowing few opportunity for economic escape. Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a free market, because, you know, opportunity. Still…

    You can’t just have ALL UPSCALE and it features the bulk of your society’s unmarried employed women. Sorry. Unless this is some sort of centrally planned subsidized brothel economy?

    Can you explain?

  10. Which reminds me, he never answered my questions about how these houses of entertainment are going to be so upscale in a free market economy and yet apparently hold most of the societies “unmarriageable” women.

    Unmarriageable women can lay golden eggs.

  11. Never question Lord Mellertron!

  12. And fuck, we know gold is magically inflation proof…😄

  13. If Meller ignores the economic questions about his brothels… Er HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT and just posts about gold and inflation and tells me to read the same five books I ALREADY READ, (While still ignoring the existence of the books I rec, even though they’re often hosted on the same site) TAKE A SHOT!

  14. Meller doesn’t like addressing things we say because he’s learnt that it brings pain and anguish when he realizes how overmatched he is😄 We’ve basically been training him… xD He knows if he goes for door B, he gets an electric shock.

  15. He’s not overmatched! He’s super intelligent and well read! …I am seriously amused and kind of weirded out by his apparent ability to find, say… mises dot org, and it’s library, and yet only use it to read older books. I mean, when I tell him to read libertarian scholarship FROM THIS CENTURY, I”m not telling him to go far. It’s literally A CLICK AWAY. ON THE SAME SITE! And I link him right to them! But no, time warp Meller likes all his books nice and dusty, even on the interwebs!

  16. Anyway, Meller… Look, my shiny new blog!


    Come debate me on libertarian turf, y/n?

  17. “Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate.”

    I’d say that sinking to that level to exploit vulnerable people is the very definition of “desperate.”

  18. Zhinxy – I wondered about that! I don’t know how millions of women can all be high-class courtesans; is the courtesan market really that big? And the men who do hire courtesans will expect them to be exceptionally beautiful and graceful, which most women–even “wayward” ones–aren’t. It seems like we’d be facing a courtesan glut and tremendous poverty for all but the very top courtesans, unless they were heavily subsidized.

    Anyway, once the men unencumbered from having women in their workplaces invent sexbots that can also give you a backrub, it’s all going to be moot.

    Besides, if they can do that they can invent manual-labor-bots and skilled-labor-bots and customer-service-bots and bot-repair-bots and then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days.🙂

  19. Hoilly – “Anyway, once the men unencumbered from having women in their workplaces invent sexbots that can also give you a backrub, it’s all going to be moot.”

    Also – We can actually install these robots in labs, or, in the break rooms off the labs, so that men may avail themselves of their faux-fleshy charms, and after having done so, may work alongside women without their fragile self control being harmed. UTOPIA! WITH SEXBOTS IN THE BREAK ROOM!

    “Besides, if they can do that they can invent manual-labor-bots and skilled-labor-bots and customer-service-bots and bot-repair-bots and then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days. “

    I’m totally down with this. Unless they become self aware, and then we’re enslaving them, and sci fi has taught me that always happens.😄

    ” It seems like we’d be facing a courtesan glut and tremendous poverty for all but the very top courtesans, unless they were heavily subsidized.”


    Unless you can tell us why we’re wrong, Meller?🙂

  20. @HOlly: then we can all live in bot-provided luxury for the rest of our days

    Until they rise up and kill us all! AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH! I know what’s likely to happen! TERMINATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. @Holly and Zhinxy: I think DKM actually thinks that once the ‘natural order’ is restored there will be very very few wayward women to wend their ways into his lovely brothels/service joints.

    That’s another example of how he lives on a different planet: we KNOW all sorts of women doing all sorts of things (we can quibble over the amount of ‘free will’ involved, but that applies to men too) but he seems to be convinced that once the “true” women are freed of the feminist yoke, they will flee happily back toward servitude, leaving only us few, ugly, obnoxious, mouthy, shrikes to um……..yeah, well, I did say he’s on a different planet, right?

  22. I just hope that women can share in the robot-enabled luxury and/or apocalypse.

    I have this feeling that Meller will still want women to devote their lives to serving men anyway, just, you know, symbolically. I mean, what else are we going to do with our lives? Enjoy them? Silly woman, women don’t have subjective experience!

  23. “Men don’t choose who they have sex with, nope!”

    Not when they’re raped they don’t, no. It’s also questionable as to how much choice they have if they are in fact underage boys and the person who had sex with them was older and in a position of power over them. Under US law, in both of these cases if their rapist gets pregnant as a result they still have to pay child support to her. It’s for the benefit of the child you see, and obviously he or she benefits from being brought up by a female rapist enough that her victim should be forced to pay her to do so.



  25. Yes, I agree. People having to pay child support to their rapists is shitty.

    Back to sexbots! I’m pretty sure Ithiliana’s right: DKM believes there’s a small minority of sluts who’ll fuck anything with a cock, and every other woman secretly wants to be a fluffy housepet. The idea of women who are neither seems to utterly escape his notice.

  26. Monsieur sans Nom

    Not when they’re raped they don’t, no. It’s also questionable as to how much choice they have if they are in fact underage boys and the person who had sex with them was older and in a position of power over them. Under US law, in both of these cases if their rapist gets pregnant as a result they still have to pay child support to her. It’s for the benefit of the child you see, and obviously he or she benefits from being brought up by a female rapist enough that her victim should be forced to pay her to do so.


    You want some cheese with that whine? What a butthurt bitch you are.

  27. lauralot:

    For all the complaining MRAs do about how dirty or gross women’s bodies are, I can’t imagine that they’d actually hook up with homeless women.

    On the contrary, if all women’s bodies are dirty and gross, the difference between a homeless woman and the cleanest woman in the world is negligible.


    Can you please explain how on earth you got from “saying you are better than someone because they are a shitty person is comparable to saying you are shorter than someone because they are a tall person” to “if you say you’re shorter than a tall person, everything else you say is equally true”? Because that’s…a hell of a strange leap, even for you.

    Not really, there are quite a few examples of Slavey defending something he’d said that is factually wrong as though anything someone says being wrong is the same as everything they say being wrong. So it’s clear that’s exactly how he thinks.


    Just because any of you say something doesn’t make it so. Even if all of you say something, it still doesn’t make it so. This is not the genius think-tank you believe.

    There are some things that are judged true or not by consensus. So all of us saying those things are true does, in fact make them true.

    But I think you’re trying the perceived magic of “just because you say something doesn’t make it true” because you don’t know what that sentence means, you only know it’s used against you, and you’re flinging it right back.

    I don’t know if it’s possible for someone to explain it to you, but I’ll try:
    * Some things are facts. They are true. The truth of these things is documented. In many cases, it’s self-evident as well as documented.
    * Merely asserting something to be true doesn’t make it true.This holds no matter what the somethig is and no matter who is doing the asserting.
    * If something is true, someone who says it is saying a true thing, but this is a property of the thing, not a consequence of it having been said.
    * If something is not true, someone who says it is saying something that is not true, but this is a property of the thing.
    * The truth of a fact is not dependent on if having been said, or said by someone in particular.It is not dependent on having been documented either, but the documentation demonstrates that it is true.
    * If something is not documented, and it is not self-evident, it may or may not be true. Assertion will not resolve that to “definitely true” no matter who is doing the asserting.


    I wish we could get [Slavey] off the subject of “GRRR WOMEN” long enough to share our ideas on what it means to learn a thing, how you judge the validity of a new piece of knowledge into your worldview, and how you employ existing and new knowledge in debate.

    It’s difficult, but I think I’m beginning to piece something together.

    Words and phrases are magic talismans. Certain phrases don’t mean anything, but the kaballistically cause the person weilding them to win arguments. However, when he uses them, we don’t acknowledge that he’s won the argument. This can only be because of pejudice against him, personally, or against a group he belongs to, such as men.


    You’ve never seen me in real life. How can you possibly know how I act?

    So is he (if that’s his real gender) saying this is all a charade? That the thoughts and opinions of the NWOslave character are not those of the person typing the words?

    Though even in that case, they are the thoughts and opinions of the character, so criticizing the character on that basis is still valid.


    Yes, NWO, people dislike you. Because of what you say.

    And, furthermore, because of what he’s said throughout his tenure at Manboobz. I don’t know if he’s more confused or infuriated that the slate isn’t wiped clean with each post.


    Men don’t choose who they have sex with, nope!

    Fun fact: I have never declined a direct offer of sex.

    I haven’t noticed more subtle offers, if any. I freely acknowledge choosing, but in the form of whom to offer, not whom to accept offers from. And if I got offers from less attractive(-to-me) women, I’d probably decline them. If I got significantly more offers I’d have to decline at least some of them.

  28. What a butthurt bitch you are.

    Yeah, that’s not rapey at all.

  29. Yo, David, is Mr. Too Cool For a Name on moderation yet? I think he ought to be if he isn’t already; he’s clearly just trying to rile as many people up as he possibly can.

  30. Monsieur sans Nom

    Kladle: Don’t be a snitch.

  31. Monsieur sans Nom


    If an adult woman has sex with an underage boy in the US, gets knocked up, has the child and files for child support, then technically the boys parents would be on the hook until he’s 18. But in reality that’s not how the law works. Because she committed statutory rape the boy and his parents are totally exempt from child support and she alone is responsible for supporting the child. My sis is an attorney and she can confirm this. Seriously though, stop whining about this subject. Everyone here is sick of hearing about it.

  32. I’ll second Kladle.
    Boring troll is boring.

  33. Can we at least edit his comments to be funnier if he’s going to stick around?

  34. I’m with CassandraSays. (I wish we could make him open source editable Wikitroll, come to think of it… )

  35. I third the idea of putting him on moderation.

  36. Men don’t get to pick who to shag. I’m gay and even I know that. Men pursue women. Women decide if they want the pursuer or not. Men may choose and pursue what woman to charm but in the end, it’s the woman who choses the chooser/pursuer. She decides in the end. MRA dudes are plain ol’ jealous of the sexual power of women because 1. they ain’t got that kind of power and 2. they got to behave like civilized men if they want a sliver of a chance of getting the goods, of getting a woman to give them the cookie. Yeah, it sucks being a man in that regard but only if you aint got game. I reckon the mra dudes ain’t got no game. That’s why they’re pissy and whinny.

  37. Monsieur sans Nom: can you actually point to a case which actually went the way you claim it would? As far as I can tell, every time this has come before the courts – and it has numerous times – they’ve consistently ruled that even if the child was conceived as a result of its father being raped he still has to pay child support. I think I’ve come across one state where in theory, due to a recent law change aimed at protecting female rape victims, it looks like a statutory rape conviction against the mother in regards to the child’s conception should mean the father doesn’t have to pay child support, but I’m not sure how effective this is in practice, especially given how hard it is to get statutory rape convictions against women.

  38. Men don’t get to pick who to shag. I’m gay and even I know that. Men pursue women.

    Even if this were universally true, which it’s not, men pick who to pursue. No, they don’t get to sleep with every woman they pursue, but women don’t get to choose who pursues them. So everyone gets veto power of choice, but no one gets “I’ll take that one, please” power of choice.

  39. Monsieur sans Nom

    Well makomk, can YOU cite a case where an underage boy was compelled to pay child support??? Most statutory rapes involving a male “victim” and an adult woman are quite often cases where the boy initiated sex and the woman accepted. I find it laughable how butthurt so many MRAs are by the lighter sentences adult women get for statutory rape. Even if she’s the adult and he’s the *kid*, she bears the bigger biological burden when it comes to the consequences of sex. Sexual acts involving an adult woman a prepubescent boy are extremely rare. Most cases involve teenage boys.

    Funny how you folks call me a “troll” because you disagree with my posts and I actually know how to win arguments(when I do you swear at me). I guess some people just haven’t learned to accept being wrong about things.

  40. When do you win arguments? I must have missed that.

  41. When we swear at him. He just said.

  42. NWO: @Tatjna

    My comment was in reply to Katz. Your name was never mentioned.

    Was Katz talking to you? No. Then why did you think you had permission to speak?

  43. Molly Ren–December 22@ 1:22am

    Is it POSSIBLE for women, even FEMINISTS, to be that cussedly blind? Nobody was suggesting that men are not, or could not be homeless. The majority of homeless in every major city, according to police reports, dating since the ’70s, indicate that men (okay, single men) are the substantial MAJORITY of homeless.

    Happy now, Molly Ren?

    I was talking about the plight of homeless women–as homeless WOMEN–for the simple reason that the simple, clear, glaring point of the article refers to the vulnerability of single, homeless, unprotected women being victimized by men (who probably can get sex no other way) with what amounts to sexual cannibalism. The fact that homeless men face other problems, some even worse, more life-threatening and less open to remedy, is very important, but belongs in another post, discussing other articles, and probably on other blogs or websites.

    I was simply trying to keep my response on point to the article her on manboobz! Would that your replies would be intelligent enough to do the same!

  44. Zhinxi:

    Once your blog http://www.blackheartsredspades.com is online, I would be glad to participate. It would be nice to talk without interruption from the children, wouldn’t it?

  45. Awesome. I’ll work on setting that up then. Thankyou, Meller.

  46. It would be nice to talk without interruption from the children who bring up the constant failure of libertarianism, facts, historical precedence and proofs by modern economists that it’s total bunk, wouldn’t it?


  47. Meller: Men with strong paternal instincts may indeed be usefully and safely (both the child’s safety and his) employed in babysitting services, especially, but not limited to, if they had siblings that they took care of themselves when at home.


    I already said that occupations and professions independent of women’s sexuality could be encrouraged

    Care to list them? If so could you please explain why they are independent of sexuality, and all others aren’t?

    Look at the posts which you feminoids have scribbled against your antifeminist critics! If one wonders about what would cause an otherwise peaceful and easygoing man to explode in a tantrum of fury, one can only speculate on the effects any of your posts would do to a man –especially if spoken in front of his friends–who had the slightest amount of self-respect or self possession. There isn’t the slightest bit of effort on the part of women to understand his point of view, much less to see the enormous amount of hurt, both emotional and sexual, that must have been inflicted upon him by women in the name of gender equality and feminism!

    I have, and don’t see the same thing you do. I see a pretty clear understanding of his POV, and it’s not one that does “him” any good. Take yuorself. You say violence against women is bad… but it seems to be becaus it reflects poorly on the man’s self-control; he let a woman drive him over the edge with her provocation. You say rewards are better than punishment, but you don’t actually say one can’t beat one’s “woman”, only that one shouldn’t.

    Then you get all pissy when we point out the actual content of your words.

    Me… I am dude. I’m (as you keep reminding me) a soldier. I’ve spent a lot of time training to be actively violent. Never have I been induced to strike someone as a result of something they said. Some have said some pretty vile things (stuff to make your little fantisies of murders and fuckslaves look benign). The only person to come close was a man, saying that people ought to just shoot prisoners of war.

    Restoration of some kind of patriarchy is one of the ways that earlier kinds of society dealt with the problems of unwed and onowned women of child breeding age and above. You don’t like it, but you have nothing better, and neither does anyone else!

    Unwed and unowned?

    Are you serious? Why yes, yes you are. I have something better… equality. All persons being free and equal; able to do what they want with whom they want.

    Sort of like Liberty for all.

    You want slaves. We don’t. That offends your delicate little sensibilities.

    Which bothers us not at all.

  48. Ami Angelwings–December 22, 2011 @ 2:09 and 2:10am–

    It is frankly a little embarassing talking about the specifics that you request about why having men (or even teenaged boys) and women (or teenaged girls) in close and ongoing proximity to each other.

    A wise man once said that you should not be surprised if fire results from the presence of dry straw on one hand, and sparks on the other hand…

    Need I say more?

    One may add that there are few more powerful distractions for men then the presence of attractive (or even not-so-attractive) females and few stimuli more likely to generate rivalry for the attention and (hopefully) affection of the females. If there are married couples involved, it can become even more of a mess (for both males and females) very quickly, no matter how innocent and innocuous the original socialization. Jealousy and all that!

    I hope this all-too-brief overview answered your questions regarding the feasibility of close male-female interactions–even without overt sex!

  49. So Meller thinks that men can’t control themselves. Hey Meller, is this because they are unevolved, weak-willed, or naturally rapists? Just wondering?

    Also, don’t use female as a noun. It’s incorrect and makes you look ignorant.

  50. Men’s entertainment centers, would, like service providers with ANYTHING, vary widely in the quality, reliability, and diversity of entertainment services provided, as would the women hired, the quality of the training, supervision, ambiance and environment, food and drink, and everything else. Not ALL Entertainment centers would be high-end luxury establishment-and those wouldn’t have much to do with the women that are the subjects of discussion here anyway, for obvious reasons. Most entertainment centers would NOT be the coercive sex-slums that you suggest either. Like all market services, they would run the gamut from fairly cheap, discount-intensive-high turnover retail to custom tailored, fit-for-a-king, personalized services for (generations of) millionaires, and everything in between…

    Zhinxi,. I don’t think that women would invade and occupy male vocations, professions, and businesses anywhere nearly as much in a genuine free market (one more reason that most feminists had, and have, a decidedly socialistic tendency) but there would be SOME female accountants, scientists, journalists, engineers of various types, mechanics, welders and metallurgists, woodworkers, architects and draftsmen, and so on.

    To this would be added the women–probably the great majority–who would work in more traditionally feminine crafts and occupations, taken from the home and domesticity in a lot of ways, from childcare provider to pediatric nurse (Okay, I KNOW that science and math are involved in Pediatric RN and Physicians Ass’t, so don’t rub it in), from kitchencraft (Coffee and Tea services, cooking and/or baking, sweets ‘n’ treats, and so on, cleaning services and domestic assistance, etc. This doesn’t rule out the more sex-related professions, or the hostessing and companionship these centers would do best in offering, but it certainly shows that you would NOT have an “overabundance” of low-level prostitutes contrasted with a few very high level courtesans. Indeed, it is really trying to compare apples with oranges here. The high end, ultra-luxury exclusive Entertainment palaces would be Cartiers or Tiffany’s to your Jack-n-the-box surprise, or the Waldorf-Astoria–at its best–to Howard Johnsons.

    The fact of the matter is simply that there are sexual factors, as well as other habits, inclinations, talents, aptitudes, and preferences, that go into our selections of career training, choice of occupation or profession and so on. Maybe the choices involved aren’t altogether gender-specific, but the human sex template and gender identity, powerfully hardwired as it is into our primary genetic and chromosomal system (XX for females, XY for males) and reinforced from the moment of conception with the presence of sex hormones (both male and female-based), although in different ratios for boys and girlsin the womb, is so unyieldingly “engendered” into each of us, from long before birth, that to ignore its inevitable effects, LONG BEFORE any gender socialization can take place, is sheer folly! That is what most feminists try to do.

  51. And now I find myself wondering what sort of thing you’d find in a women’s entertainment centre in Mellerworld. Knitting pattern books? But wait! In Mellerworld, knitting is work! How will we entertain the womanslavebots when they are not sexin’? Enquiring minds want to know!

  52. Tatjna–a.k.a. smartass–December 23, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

    The pressures occuring in “coed” environments work on both females (oops, I mean girls and women) and men to considerable degrees, whether men “control themselves” or not. There are also rivalries among the ladies for male attention, there emerges a “pecking order” of access (can anyone spell ‘sexual harassment’) intensifying existing rivalries and hostilities among both groups of F’s and M’s. The quality of work perfomance certainly is unlikely to improve under these conditions, or anything like them.

    As far as “female” being used as a noun–we are talking about living human beings here! The last dictionary that I looked in, human beings were “nouns”–even female ones! Using ‘nouns’ to refer to “nouns”-names describing persons, places, or things, is hardly ignorant.

    Guess again!

  53. Check again, Meller. Female and male are adjectives, used to describe something. You can have a male horse, a male plug connection or a male human, but when you say something is ‘a male’ it is wrong because it does not tell you what the noun is. We are only assuming that ‘a male’ means a male human when you use it as such, and one such as yourself should not be so slack as to allow us to assume anything.

    Meanwhile, please explain to me why my presence in the dagging gang did not create a drop in production as you would predict based on your theory that sex trumps everything else in the workplace. We were working hard, wearing minimal clothing and ‘showing off’ our bodies in a physical envronment, yet there was no sexual harrassment or even chest-beating. Maybe we were all asexual?

  54. Since you, along with the other manboobzettes, INSIST upon running this into the ground, I will speculate that, yes, you, like many feminists, are effectively frigid and asexual, and are incapable of stimulating or pleasing (heterosexual) men. I didn’t want to get nasty about this, but the problems associated with close proximity of, and “co-ed” arrangements of sexually active or mature men and women are so self-evident that it should be unnecessary for me, or any observer, to cite warnings about such sexual proximity or rivalries becoming inevitable in such an environment!

    Maybe you, and other feminists, ARE indeed so unattractive to (heterosexual) men that you do not arouse any sexual passions, any desire for physical contact, and no rivalry with normally sexed heterosexual women. This says nothing about the folly inherent in a general policy of of mixing men and women in close proximity in schools, laboratories, factories, houses or worship, offices, etc.!

    tatjna, I didn’t want to get nasty about this! Most feminists are either, as a rule, hypersexed and frantically promiscuous uber-sluts who feel that they have something to prove with their own sexual activity somehow being related to her personal “freedom”, or, on the opposite hand, far too many of you are frigid, bitter, and often over educated man-haters whose effect on heterosexual male arousal is about the same as sarin nerve gas.

    Feel better now? I don’t know what you, and other feminists raising this point here, proved by making me write this way, but you have my answer!

  55. Oh, sure, you don’t want to get nasty. You always want to get nasty, but you’re too mealy-mouthed to do it right.

    You’re awful too, Meller.

  56. No is making you write your obscene glurge, Mellertoad. You do it because you want to.

  57. Oh, now I get it. I have successfully managed to work outside the home without my workplace turning into an orgy or a fight because I am a hideous ice queen who can’t get a man. I guess this would be the case for all the other women who are currently working.

    Wow, there are a lot of ugly and fridid women in the world! I guess I should go tell my partner that it’s ok, I’ve seen the light, I now know that I am unattractive and unable to arouse him and he can stop pity fucking me and go find himself a compliant sexbot instead.

    Oh hang on. Before I do that I just need to get my facts right. I can buy that I’m a hideous bush pig and that every man who’s ever found me attractive has been suffering from an inexcusable lapse in judgement, but given that in my country, women make up 47% of the workforce and there’s nary an orgy or mass fight in the papers these days, that must mean that pretty much ALL of us are ugly and asexual. Even the non-feminist ones.

    Or maybe you are living in some kind of fantasy world peopled entirely by imaginary friends and dolls that comply with your warped worldview because no actual real people will. Gee, I don’t know which is more likely to be right – you or the rest of the population?

  58. hellkell-23 December 23, 2011 @3:01pm

    I am only nasty when pushed to the wall–by feminists like you!

    Who asked you anyhow?

  59. Okay. We start around January 20th? Very flexible

    You can quote anything I said on manboobz, I can quote anything you said on manboobz. I will actually leave out, say, your stormfront postings.

    There will be seperate comments threads for people who identity as libertarian, and for general comments. This way, we can talk to each other without interruption, and we can get feedback from the tribe of loonies as to your position and mine. We will be able to respond to commenters in those threads, but they won’t interrupt our conversation.

    I’m willing to discuss with you how many responses we each get to make, and how long we talk on a topic.

    At the end I’ll ask the libertarians what they think about this libertarianism of yours. And mine.


  60. Aw Meller, did I push you to the wall with my militant insistence that I’ve never been in a workplace orgy? You poor poor thing. It must be incredibly difficult for you, to be harrassed to breaking point by people asking you questions. Maybe you should go have a lie down.

  61. Meller, you’re not the boss of this board. You put your foulness out where anyone can comment on it, and people will. Deal with it.

  62. Meller, you’re a nasty man in general, no need to push you into a wall (the poor wall).

    Go play with your dolls.

  63. I will speculate that, yes, you, like many feminists, are effectively frigid and asexual, and are incapable of stimulating or pleasing (heterosexual) men.

    Lol, I’m sure you enjoy speculating about the sexuality of feminists, don’t you? Well, this one just spent a very nice evening with a quite avidly hetero male last night🙂

    I’ll spare you the titillating details that you’re no doubt fishing for, but I’ll tell you this much: We had a very, very good time. Several times. Each. And then again this morning lol.

    So speculate all you want, but I am not ugly, or frigid, or incapable of getting a hetero male off. And even if I was any of those things, it wouldn’t make my position on any subject incorrect.

    Remember: stereotypes are bad because they are shortcuts in thinking. Lazy, crude and the mark of someone with a small mind. Don’t say I never did nothing nice for you, either.

  64. I like how the over-educated label goes to the frigid shrews. So you can either be a hypersexed bimbo feminist or an overeducated shrew feminist, and never the twain shall meet. I suppose the hypersexed, overeducated shrews and frigid bimbos are by default cuddly, real women then?

  65. Especially considering that from DKM’s point of view an “overeducated” woman is one who knows how to read.

  66. I’m also intrigued by how I’m a bitter man hating feminist wrongy wrongerson, but also worth talking to away from “the children.”😄

    Which we shall do, yes, Meller?

  67. Shadow–23 December 2011 @ 3:26pm

    Cuddly, affectionate, pretty and feminine women are outside the feminist box altogether! They all have more worthwhile things to do with themselves to bother about “equality”, all sorts of “rape”, sexual harassment litigation, womens’ crazy careers, and so on…

    “How can I please the man in my life?” is paramount in her thoughts. Being yielding, adorable, tranquil, affectionate, lovable, and docile are the signature qualities of this lovely creature. Feminists, of both types, on the other hand, YEECH!!

    There are a number of websites and networks which can help you if you wish to evolve into a real woman, as cited above:


    While they address the needs of fundamentalist Christian women most overtly and explicitly, their good advice is usable to women–and the men in their lives whether they are religious or not.


  68. @Holly

    You wrong DKM so!! If I remember right, he was perfectly willing to accept that women should be allowed to learn to read in order to peruse the many ways in which they can learn to be better and housewives and even maybe a few ways to scintillate that oh so special man (married to you of course) in the boudoir

  69. you know, actually, this is odd of me to say, but… I think you’re doing those movements a disservice? I mean, really, both those sites are… Well, I don’t agree with them, but they’re almost feminist compared to a lot of the stuff you say around here. Seriously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,152 other followers

%d bloggers like this: