Blessed be they as virtuous, who when they feel their virile members swollen with lust, visit a brothel rather than grind at some husband’s private mill. – Cato the Younger
Those who read my “2011 in Review” column may have noticed that after adjusting for several very popular picture searches, my second most popular column was “Ashley Madison”, published one year ago today; discounting those who viewed it on the home page, it was viewed 3569 times last year. The reason for this is simple; upon seeing an ad for this con game disguised as a dating service, many people try to look it up online to see what others have to say about it. Noel Biderman, the Toronto shyster who dreamed up this scam, anticipated this and acted accordingly:
Do a Google search for any phrase like “Ashley Madison scam”, “Ashley Madison fraud” or “Ashley Madison review” and you’ll find websites stocked with testimonials for the agency and either insinuating or outright stating that escorts carry venereal diseases. Of course, as my regular readers know this is a crock of shit; escorts have a vested interest in staying clean, and promiscuous amateurs have far higher rates of every known STD. Why are these sites so eerily similar and why do they all carry praise for the agency when their names suggest otherwise?
Because they’re all owned by Biderman, of course, as a quick whois search will reveal. It took me a bit of diligent digging to find any REAL criticism of the agency…
What I found was revealed in last year’s column, and it’s not pretty; male customers have to…
…buy “credits” which are needed to do pretty much anything on the site (send a message, receive a message, start a chat, etc). The agency employs a number of shills and/or robots which bombard male members with fake messages that cost credits to open, and sending messages to the fake “too good to be true” ads costs credits as well and goes nowhere…Everything is set up like a casino or a carnival con game, enticing the poor bastard to keep throwing good money after bad in a futile effort to get something for nothing.
Biderman has himself a sweet little racket going, but he couldn’t have anticipated that a certain website which exposes the swindle would end up as the second result from the top whenever someone Googles “Ashley Madison testimonials” (in fact, mine is the only site on the first page which isn’t owned by Biderman). I’m also the first result on page two for the search “Ashley Madison scam”, and I’m sure you’ll get similar results by combining the agency’s name with words like “fraud”, “flim-flam”, “hustle”, “rip-off”, “shakedown” or “sucker game” (at least, you will now).
There are lots of hucksters out there pulling the wool over people’s eyes, so you may wonder why Biderman’s con in particular annoys me so. There are two important reasons: First, as I’ve stated many times, I think it’s reprehensible for a married man to cheat on his wife with an amateur, because she could jeopardize his whole marriage and even put his wife in danger, yet here is Biderman trying to convince people that the immoral course of action is moral and vice-versa. Second, as I stated above, his fake “testimonial” websites all either imply or directly state the outrageous lie that escorts carry venereal disease while cheating housewives are somehow magically protected from viruses, spirochetes and even pthiridae via the prophylactic power of most holy matrimony. As if that weren’t enough, he’s added other prohibitionist myths to his smear campaign in the past year; Aspasia recently sent me this photo of an Ashley Madison ad
which Mariko Passion posted on her Facebook page. Seven men a day, my high-priced fanny; that’s not “average” by any stretch of the imagination, except in the dirty minds of prohibitionists. I only did that many in a day twice in my entire career, once in 2000 and again in 2005. And though it may be true that the average woman has sex with seven men in her lifetime, the average woman doesn’t cheat on her husband either (and even the average cheating woman doesn’t hook up with random strangers on the internet). As for that last line…92% of statistics are made up on the spot, eh Noel?
Now, sleazy Ashley Madison ads are nothing new; they’re practically a trademark. But one has to wonder if Biderman hasn’t “lost his Ouija board” (as Grace would put it) on this one, reported in Huffington Post on December 20th:
…Ashley Madison, a “pro-adultery” website whose slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair,” put up a billboard in Bucks County, PA, that “endorses” Newt Gingrich for president. Gingrich has famously admitted to extramarital affairs in the past. The billboard boasts a large picture of Gingrich, with the text, “Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the AshleyMadison.com Era”…site founder Noel Biderman explained further in a statement:
Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people. Gingrich proves that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone’s ability to do a job. Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come. He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage.
Of course, most smart politicians do their cheating with whores; those foolish enough to try it with amateurs risk losing everything, which makes them pretty much the same as other men…though Biderman would rather you forget that.
Yeah uhm, aside from the danger of STD’s, “amateur” women require, actually DEMAND, more of your attention than an escort would. It almost happened between myself and a coworker once and we did everything else except the sex and that was a close call in itself. If you find a “nice” lady (and this one was) … she’s usually someone in a dead-ended marriage and she’s actually looking for an “escape hatch” – someone else to come along, sweep her off her feet – and live longingly with her for the rest of her life.
That’s not a bad thing but – if you’re a man who has no intention of leaving his wife, then it’s kind of wrong to take advantage of a woman in this manner when you really have no intention of giving her what she’s really seeking.
You have to spend time with “amateurs” … time outside the bedroom and usually somewhere in public where you can be spotted. You have to CALL and TEXT these women so they know you’re thinking of them every minute of the day. With all you have to do to keep the plates spinning in an extra-marital affair – you’re eventually going to be discovered.
Charlie Sheen and Elliot Spitzer aside (they made serious mistakes in “discretion”) … but escorts work out great for most married men. They’re low maintenance. It’s like the difference between “nation building”, which is what I would compare an affair to … and a “surgical strike” where you’re quickly in and out of the target zone and free and clear once the chopper lifts off.
You know?
That’s an astute observation, particularly where sexual variation is concerned.
It’s fun to explore someone new, sexually speaking, and evidence suggests a very natural impulse given the prevalence of infidelity for both sexes. Yet socially still viewed as taboo.
It’s possible to have a very stable relationship in marriage yet still seek the variation without the emotional issues associated as long as both partners communicate their needs and can agreen on the circumstances. Clearly Maggie and her husband have that advanced perspective.
Maybe someday we’ll have civil unions sponsored by the state, and optional ‘marriages’ sponsored by the appropriate religious entities; both would have different intent and implicit expectations, and a whole lot less conflict.
Pretty sure my wife has a “Dolly Parton” attitude on this. If I do something – it’s fine with her as long as she doesn’t hear or find out about it – and as long as I don’t infect her with something, or spend too much money doing it. If it doesn’t impact the relationship she and I have, then I believe she’s “cool” with it. I have to assume this since she’s known me for over a quarter century and she knows everything about how I think.
She actually did catch me almost red handed in my little affair. But her reaction was interesting. She didn’t get mad, she didn’t question me about it … but she did suddenly go into “girlfriend mode” and became the sweetest person in the world – complete with an open sexual buffet …
Once she knew I was back on track she looked at me after an especially good session in the sack and said … “You know I’m sooo much better for you than she could ever be.”
To which I just replied … “Yeah, but you know how idiots are.”
Which is one of the reasons I tend to believe that women are superior to men. It really pisses me off she had to do that and she clearly showed me that, between she and I – she is the better person. It is really a frustrating “duality” for me. The same thing inside me that is the cause of my “wandering eyes” is also the same thing that makes me the affable, active, alpha, sane, upwardly mobile and aggressive person that I like about myself. But to have the good side – I seem to have to deal with the bad one.
You “game” your wife well thus far even though you have an erroneous view that women are superior to men rather than the truth which is we are different, we complement eachother and we’re equal. She stays with you because you are alpha. If you were maybe beta or certainly omega, she would likely file for divorce first. You can see the differences between world leaders Gingrich, Prince Charles of the U.K. and Clinton in their adultries. Gingrich was the most despicable because his previous 2 wives were trying to be loving, dutiful and loyal. Both Gingrich and Prince Charles had emotional affairs. Gingrich acted more like a woman and engaged in hypergamy(trying to trade one partner for a higher status partner), and Clinton acted more like a man with his promiscuity. At least with Prince Charles, his wife Diana wasn’t trying to be loving, dutiful and loyal. Prince Charles was no better to be fair. In other words your adultry was more like Clinton and less like Prince Charles and much less like Gingrich. Please read my commentary response to astrolube for a more thorough explanation below.
Gingrich isn’t the only one; he hasn’t completely outright black lied to the entire american public on national tv about his extramarital affairs (yet); but our former dual term president Slick Willy is a paramount contender of the “I’m a married successful leader even though I can’t keep it in my pants” award.
Gingrich is an extremely ironic and hypocritical personality in that regard, with narcissism at the root.
While I haven’t studied this critically (and don’t believe the executive branch even has much power over modifying the economy during their term – it’s a much longer wave than that), superficially it seems the economy actually does better when the american public gets to gawk at the high profile cases of infidelity while leaders are required to defend themselves from the associated attacks instead of meddle in policy.
I vote Republican, former Speaker of the House of Representitives of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich’s political party affiliation, rather than Deomocrat, former U.S. President Bill”Slick Willy” Clinton’s political party affiliation. However, Gingrich’s adultry disgusts me more than Clinton’s adultry. Clinton’s adultry like most men is because of sheer promiscuity. Clinton was this way because he wanted variety, wanted younger and better looking or wasn’t getting enough sex with his wife. Clinton never wanted to get caught in his adultry. Clinton in no conscious way wanted to destroy the emotional and business bonds with his wife. Contrast this with Gingrich. His adultry was due to emotional reasons and hypergamy much more than promiscuity. Gingrich fell out of love with his 2 previous wives. He wanted to trade up(hypergamy) by getting younger and more physically beautiful women. Like 30% of American men and 70% of American women, he filed for divorce first. His former 2 wives did not want the divorce even though each had more than ample grounds to divorce him even under the much more difficult to get fault divorce system prior to 1965(there was not a no fault divorce system in the USA until 1965) than the post 1965 fault and no fault divorce system. Gingrich’s first wife was served divorce papers while deathly ill of cancer in the hospital. Gingrich’s second wife has made as of yet unproven allegations of his wanting an open marriage for him to commit adultry. The second wife might be lying, and I think she is, but only God knows the truth. Simply stated, Clinton’s infidelities were more masculine and Gingrich’s infidelities more feminine in my opinion.
I’ll add to my commentary above to astrolube and Krulac. Adultry based on hypergamy and emotions are worse than adultry based on promiscuity because they are more destructive in my opinion. Men are much more likely to commit adultry for promiscuous reasons than women. Women are much more likely to commit adultry for emotional and hypergamous reasons. I have read that the majority of men who commit adultry do so for promiscuous reasons and women do it for emotional reasons many times. For as much as neofeminism tries to portray promiscuous reasons for adultry as bad to make men look bad, adultry based on emotional and hypergamous reasons are worse because it is more likely to destroy the marriage. It is one reason why when the man commits adultry and is caught, the marriage is more likely to survive. The other is because men hate adultry more than women for good reasons. Some but not all reasons are these. It is easier generally speaking from a logistics standpoint for women to commit adultry than men because a woman can get sex easier than a man on average. Men also hate the idea of supporting another man’s child too.
I agree with that for the most part … although I didn’t technically “fill” the bill of adultery with my little affair (since there was no actual sex) … I felt guilty as hell about it.
“Promiscuous” adultery just makes me feel stupid – like a guy who can’t control his animal self. But … it’s still there and doesn’t go away.
Now – concerning the politicians that get wrapped up into affairs. Let me tell you that the strangest and “randiest” duty station I ever had in the military was in Washington DC working at the White House. It’s almost like politics and money are like sexual “narcotics” to the civilians that work in that environment. There’s an incredible number of attractive, young people working there – and for little pay in most cases as they are “interns” or “volunteers” who are sons and daughters of influential and wealthy people who are campaign donors or party supporters. These kids, having grown up in wealth – don’t even know what a “consequence” is. Whatever their behavior – the consequences will be covered by money, or an influential Dad, or politician. So they “cut loose”.
If you are a male politician in this environment – YOU ARE GOING TO GET HIT ON by an attractive young woman, and more than once or twice. It’s the “power thing”.
I got hit on twice by very young secretaries and, I think it’s only because I was a “curio” to them because I was military and they came from backgrounds completely foreign to that. I never did “bite” though – because the consequences for ME would have been severe. Adultery in any form was grounds to be “shipped” (fired) … sent back to the parent service without fanfare because adultery was considered to be “blackmailable” – and you couldn’t be trusted with information. Ironic that, at the very same time I was “shipping” a lot of pretty good people who worked for me for adultery – the Commander In Chief was playing with cigars in the Oval Office with an intern.
But that’s why these people fight tooth and nail to stay inside the beltway. Because, while they are there – they feel like virtual GODS on Mount Olympus … able to indulge in whatever they wish. If you’re a fat liberal arts major from an ivy league college – finding yourself in an environment where young women will PURSUE YOU does things for your ego that nothing else will. However – it’s all an illusion – those women are going for the power, not the man himself. This is what those who “fall”, like Gingrich and Clinton – never could realize.
This is also one of the reasons why they changed the laws regarding marrriage for men from men getting the house and children in a divorce unless he was heinously bad prior to 1865 to the woman getting the house and children after 1865 to no fault divorce which had never existed before after 1965. Women now file for divorce 70% of the time in the USA. These ruling elite either don’t know, don’t understand or at worst don’t care about men who are lower than them. Wht should they? They have a virtual rotating harem which if they don’t get caught is low maintainance and relatively cheap. If their wives divorce them, it is unlikely their wives will find a higher status man because women’s “sexual market value,SMV,” declines after age 25 while men’s typically rise for at least a decade or more before declining. Women’s SMV is by far more based on her physical beauty than a man’s is. Power, wealth, charm etc. figure into a man’s SMV much more than a woman’s does. As far as you being a military man like I was once myself, on average women are attracted to well adjusted,disciplined, self controled, self motivated, with good self bearing bearing, and socially acceptable dominant men with the potential to commit extraordinary levels of violence or men who have actually commited extraordinary levels of violence. Being a U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars myself, I have never had a man ask me if I shot or killed anyone. I’ve had at least a dozen women do so. Maybe 3 men asked me if I saw any action and many more women have. This is why these women were attracted to you. It’s primal in their brains to breed with the most Alpha man they can find. Virtually all women are like this, but most learn to control it, and look for other good traits especially if they have been taught to do so which American women decreasingly are.
“I vote Republican”
Republican as in the people who have sold out to right wing religious fascists? Republican as in the party whose major candidates (most of them any way) have signed a pledge for a radical religious group to all but eliminate porn? Republican as in the party that would really put the law in your bedroom?
And yet you’re posting here? How do you contain the contradiction?
C’mon, Comixchik, surely you don’t still believe there’s a difference between the two parties after what Obama has done? The ONLY difference between them since the ’80s is that the country does better when the presidency and Congress are controlled by different parties (Reagan and Clinton eras) and tends to pitch more quickly toward the cliff when controlled by the same party (this entire century so far). Other than that they’re both the parties of waste, tyranny and destruction of civil rights using slightly different excuses. Or hadn’t you noticed that both SOPA and the new law that lets the military throw anybody permanently into a dungeon without charge or trial were bipartisan?
Thankyou. Those are my sentiments exactly. There’s not as much a difference between the 2 parties as people would like you to believe. There are few Republicans worth anything. Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is as good as they come these days, and I disagree with him on immigration for example. I can’t think of any Democrats I like. Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine said that both parties were dyfunctional. The best you could hope for was the Presidency and Congress being controlled by the 2 parties. The Republicans give you the warfare welfare state and the Democrats give you the welfare warfare state. It’s only a matter of emphasis. I dislike Democrats because thier judge nominations are overall truly more apalling than the Republicans. Except for Judge nominations, the best we can hope for domestically and foreign policy wise is a moderate to conservative Democrat and a Republican Congress. It’s difficult enough to decide who to vote for. As someone who is a White Gentile Male, I suppose I hold my nose to not smell the stench and vote Republican while a Black Gentile Female does the same when she votes Democrat. We both vote our racial and/or gender tribe. Everyone else falls in the middle depending on their race gender and religious cultural heritage.
Correction: My friend said that the best you could hope for is that the Presidency and Congress(both House of Representitves and Senate) were controlled by 2 different parties.
The only reason Reagan was a good President was because except for deployment of Soldiers and Marines to Grenada and Lebanon plus Air Force and Navy bombing of Lybia, he had no interest to deploy the troops if he didn’t have to do so. Reagan despite his flaws was the best President of my lifetime and I was born in 1968. We need better than Reagan now, but we’re not going to get him. I liked Reagan the most. The other Republicans seem to waant to invade Iran before exhausting neogotiation except for Ron Paul. The Democrats for the most part are like Obama, say one thing about give peace a chance then attack. e.g. Lybia bombing campaign. I truly believe in the Constitution which when I was in the military was sworn to uphold. I believe in liberty too, and Ron Paul is the best chance we have despite his flaws. My family supports Republicans, but I’m the only one supporting Ron Paul. There are a higher percentage(a plurality) of actively serving military and Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans who are out of the military like myself who support Ron Paul than any other Presidential candidate. I know the Republicans are usually harsh on prostitution, but the Democrats are almost the same. Go figure.
I believe that both major parties are totally beholden to the boss- However, the democrats have not signed pledges issued by groups of superstitious fascists. That’s perhaps a small difference, but a difference none the less.
If the Democrats had any sense, they’d start latching on to some of that Ron Paul personal liberty stuff. Liberals used to do exactly that. What happened? They decided that they didn’t want to be seen as liberals, that’s what happened.* They wanted to prove they could be as “moral” as Republicans, so they started trying to be “Republican Lite.” So they started saying, well, maybe we want more defense spending too; well, maybe we’re worried about rock music too; well, maybe we don’t want to take care of the poor any more than we have to; well, maybe lowering taxes does create jobs.
This has been a failure. Why? Because those who don’t like Republicans don’t want to vote for Republican Lite; they don’t want Republicans at all. Those who do like Republicans don’t want Republican Lite; they want their Republicans as heavy as they can get them. So libs like me don’t vote for Democrats because they’re Great Liberal Champions, but because we’re afraid that Republicans will be Even Worse.
And sometimes, even that isn’t true.
* Which has also been a failure, because they’re going to be labeled lefty-socialist-liberal-commie-ect. no matter what they do. So just own it, guys.
The only (former) Republican I could support was Gary Johnson. Here was a guy who started his own company, does extreme sports, governed New Mexico with the opposition party in control of the legislature and still managed to erase a horrendous deficit. The people returned him to the governor’s mansion even though he was a Republican and they consistently gave the legislature to the Democrats.
The Republican leadership did their best – and succeeded – in marginalizing him. Because, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the last thing the Republican leadership wants is a reduction in the size and scope of government. One day they hope to wield that power. That will not be a good day in America.
In the last 35 years of the 20th century Democrats did an increasingly poor job of protecting personal rights from their zenith with Miranda, Civil Rights (in which the Republicans voting yes in a larger percentage than the majority Democrats voting yes), Griswold and Roe; and, from Wilson onward, were statists in the economic realm.
Republicans gave the nod to economic freedom which generally translated into special favors for their business buddies despite their rhetoric; Remember that is was Carter that deregulated air and truck transportation. And, with few exceptions like Goldwater and the GOP support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Republicans were statists in regard to personal freedoms.
Early Libertarians thought that if they could appeal to the freedom side of each of the parties, we might see a restoration of personal and economic liberties. What they missed was that the raison d’etre for both parties was not what they were willing to leave alone – for the time being – but what they wanted to control.
Back when the conservative anti-sex agenda (or at least, attempts to outlaw abortion and homosexuality) had any chance of ever being enacted, those political positions were good reasons to rule out voting for a candidate or a party.
But that time has ended — except for narrow cases such as prostitution. Instead, to the extent there’s a real difference between the parties, it boils down to: (1) All Democrats spend our money too recklessly, but only some Republicans do; and (2) All Democrats would continue to destroy America’s industries and its energy supply in the name of the environmental movement, and only some Republicans would.
It’s not an optimistic picture whatever happens. But the big spenders are destroying everything our country is supposed to stand for, and I do not believe for one minute that it’s an accident. Either the Republicans nominate someone who will actually cut spending (Ron Paul) or I’m voting for the Libertarian candidate.
That’s fine with me… as long as there are enough Democrats in the House and Senate to keep Dr. No from dumping the poor, elderly, and children off a cliff. Paul isn’t heartless, but his religion tells him that once you “get government out of the way” all those people will be fine. They just will.
Kind of like Marx and his certainty that, once you got that greedy capitalist profit motive out of the way, people would work harder and productivity would shoot through the roof.
Everything is set up like a casino or a carnival con game, enticing the poor bastard to keep throwing good money after bad in a futile effort to get something for nothing.
I have seen men waste an inordinate amount of time trying to pick up a 6, when they could so easily just hire an 8 or 9. It’s incredible, almost like a religion – “thou shalt *not* fairly compensate a woman for sex”. Not only is this ungenerous, but it also betrays a certain meanness of spirit.
Of course, most smart politicians do their cheating with whores; those foolish enough to try it with amateurs risk losing everything, which makes them pretty much the same as other men…though Biderman would rather you forget that.
Not only politicians… sports stars also illustrate the point. The former MVP of the NFL, Steve McNair, decided to cheat on his wife with an amateur and lost his life as a consequence when that amateur lady shot him to death in a fit of jealousy.
On the other hand, the most famous soccer star in England, Wayne Rooney, cheated on his wife with a prostitute, and as a result, he is still alive, still married, and still very popular.
Americans are bigger fools on average in 2012 than they were in 1912 and even much more than 1812 when it comes to their thinking about sex, prostitution plus male and female relationships. Well maybe American thinking in 1912 was better for sex plus female and male relationshps than 1812, but it certainly was worse for prostitution on average. You are right of course that it’s a much better idea to have sex with 8 or 9 prostitute than to have sex with a 6 amatuer. You’re less likely to get a disease, and if you are married or have a girlfriend, then you are less likely to cause trouble within your relationship. If you doubt that, watch as many episodes of the American television show “Cheaters” as you need to get it through your thick skull.
Prostitutes offer something men want in exchange for monetary compensation. Ashley Madison is deceiving and scamming men out of their money, promising something they want but not delivering. So of course, prostitution is illegal while Ashley Madison remains legal as of now.
Every feminist in the North American hemisphere should be protesting outside of this guy’s office right now. Ashley Madison’s ads are exactly the kind of misogynistic crap that they fight against. The dehumanization of prostitutes who are not only women, but real people with lives and loved ones. Plus, the use of women as a lure to scam people.
(Neo)feminiists hate prostitutes because they are strikebreakers on the power of the “union” of women. Most women feel this way too. Whores benefit from getting money and more personal freedom while the men with heterosexual tendencies are able to say no to stupid female demands more easily once they are getting sex. Men don’t need to be beggars which is what your typical present day American man is. It’s exactly how the women and (neo)feminists plus our ruling elite want it. Any kind of feminism even sensible compassionate (archeo)feminism Maggie McNeill supports is likely to collapse once enough men non-violently stop supporting it. Once enough men turn violently against any kind of feminism, then feminism is finished. It only requires a commited minority of men to make it happen. I’m all for the (archeo) feminism Maggie McNeill supports because I truly try to be sensible and comapssionate and want equality under the law and socially speaking. However nothing I said above is false, and even though I, a man, would like eqaulity the most, I want my superiority next, and inferiority least of all regarding feminism or any other issue you can think of.
St. Augustine of Hippo stated that without prostitution capricious lusts would overthrow society. St. Thomas Aquinas concurred, and stated in reference to prostitution among other things, that government and even individuals must allow certain evils to persist lest a greater good be prevented or a greatewr evil is allowed to occur. Both agreed that prostitution was immoral and evil, but necessarry in human society for the the increase of the greater good and the decrease of evil. Both understood the concept of harm reduction, and neither was a simple minded moralist fool unlike what we too often have today. They understood the complexity of morality better than virtually anyone in human history. Look at us now. Capricious lusts are overthrowing our society. Too many foolishly try to deny this. St..Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas would be appalled with us today and would be more appalled with fellow Catholic,U.S. Republican party Presidential candidate Rick Santorum for example. I’m Catholic, and I will say Rick Santorum as a public official is failing in his thinking regarding prostitution because he either hasn’t or worse won’t listen to what the great Christian and Catholic theologians St.Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas and others have said about it.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo226.html
I know Maggie McNeill has stated to Peter Andrew Nolan that “GAME” is laughable and doesn’t work on her or whom she regards as high quality women. She may not even believe in it or at best thinks it only works on low quality women. I think it works on all women, but there are many different kinds of “GAME”. There is no one size fits all. That said many if not most people who try to teach game either don’t know what they are talking about to one degree or another or are snake oil salesmen. I think GAME does much better at expalining the psychology of how women think and act consciously and subconsciously in a general sense than it does concerning how to have sex with them without paying them like professional prostitutes, and how to know understand individual women’s psychological motivations. I’m not here to argue it one way or the other whether GAME is true or another as I’ll respect someone’s right to think about if GAME is true or not or how it works as long as they respect my right to do so in this regard too. The important thing to consider is that never before in Human history has there been a “GAME” industry turning out so many books, internet blogspots, seminars etc. as there is now. Look up Erik Von Markovic(Mystery) and Neil Straus(Style) on http://google.com and their books, “The Mystery Method: How to get Beautiful Women in Bed” and “The Game” respectively. Other’s sites on how to GAME women, how women can be prevented from being pump and dump GAMED and Men’s Rights ideas are below.
http://www.heartiste.wordpress.com/
http://www.rooshv.com
http://www.inmalafide.com/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/
http://www.realmademen.com/
http://www.obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/
Well, Maggie, I did the google search you recommended, and, by gum, you are the second on the first page.
To any men who are reading this right now: Life is Short, Go to a Professional.
Hear, hear! 🙂
I would like to add a side note to this neofeminism stuff. Most, if not all neofeminists claim to be lesbians, but actually they are not. Their so-called “lesbianism” is, as doclove says above, nothing more than being “on strike” to get what they want.
Real lesbians, those merely attracted to other women, don’t really care much about what men do sexually, as long as it doesn’t put demands on them personally. In other words, “you better go to a hooker, because you sure as hell are not going to get it from me” attitude.
So I’d just like to say to the “men’s rights” guys on here, don’t hate on lesbians, because the psychos who claim to be that are actually not really that.
I’m fine with lesbians. A “lesbian” is simply a girl who hasn’t met me yet. 😛
Dworkin’s a perfect example; though she claimed to be a lesbian, no woman who had sex with her or knew of her having lesbian sex has ever come forward. On top of that, she was secretly married to a gay man!
@Krulac
Don’t be too crushed when the lesbian who meets you ends up rejecting you. Which is most likely what’s going to happen. That’s why they’re called “lesbians”.
My point is that most neofeminists are not the “lesbians” they claim to be.
I think Krulac’s just being silly. 😉
“The RFs [radical feminists] told me that, to them, lesbianism was a choice that women could make, and not a ‘condition’ we are born with. ‘All women can be lesbians’ was the mantra. I loved the sense that I had chosen my sexuality and rather than being ashamed or apologetic about it, as many women were, I could be proud, and see it as a privilege.” Julie Bindel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights
For those who don’t understand what Susan is getting at.
Please read
That’s why Bindel and other neofeminists hate transsexuals and oppose medical research on homosexuality; they hate any evidence that a person’s gender characteristics or sexual orientation are not “socially constructed”. And because science clearly disproves their core tenet, neofeminists will soon be headed the way of creationists and flat-earthers, thank Athena.
As for lesbians, well, I’ve been with men and women. Each experience is different, and satisfying in it’s own way. Labels like that can be too restrictive.
I can tell you this- So much of the homo hate being pushed these days (Mostly by the Republicans to win the vote of religious nuts) isn’t about homosexuality, but heterosexuality. It’s just like the hysteria over trafficking, it’s all a handy code for lots of frustrated and bored “straight” people working out their issues. in their deepest fantasies, they believe there’s this big dark world out there where so much wild sex is going on. They want it, oh they want it badly. And when they’re not getting it, they want the people they think are getting it punished. This also drives the public’s love/hate attitude towards prostitution. They want and need whores, but also want to make life difficult for the whores.
Ashley Madison is just another symptom. Since a huge portion of American is too superstitious to just be honest about their sexual desires, we play all these stupid, crooked games.
I’ve been lucky enough to do pretty much every sexual thing I’ve wanted to do in my life. Quite a few things I’d do more than once. I don’t have the frustration that would drive me to resent whatever consenting adults get up to on their own.
If you’re really that hung up over the sexual actives of others, look within.
I think this is what drives a lot of the crazy rumors about young people. Each generation seems to be convinced that the one after is having to damned much fun, and it has to stop! So you get nonsense like rainbow parties and iDosing.
BTW, I looked into iDosing. The germ of truth at its core makes it clear that this is no way to satisfy a hedonistic desire to “get wasted and party, duuuuudes!”
I *like* sexual superstitions, hang-ups, frustrations and darknesses. Keeps things sexy.–
Everybody hates me when I solemnly inform them that sex is darkness, and below is all the fiend’s. 🙂
Maggie great site I am happy to have found it, I have a question and there seemed no other way to contact you…in your introduction yo say that it is because of our mental taboos that we cannot handle the idea of a profesional chef who works all day doing meals for somebody else then doing a special meal for his wife…it all sounds nice and good but here is my case. My girlfriend is a profesional escort; I met her as a client and our relatioship evolved from there; she started as a college girl who came to mexico to pay for her appartment, but I guess she liked the lifestyle the money and the attention. She was no saint before doing this, and she has admited to me having quite a bit of sexual partners so in a weird sense her familiy even acepted her new profesion on the basis that she was “giving it away for free” before…those are their words not mine btw
I have offered to take her off the life, paying her bills and all, but she enjoys the freedom and the money, but still having me to take care of her…but now the question is this; I know what she does and she tells me over and over it just work, but I would be a fool not to beleieve that she does not get enjoyment out of it too, and lately she has started to stop me from doing things we did before, like me giving her oral sex, because she feels she has to take it from a paying costumer but not from me, and she feels she can have sex just as she wants it from me but not from them…so what do you think? am I just an insecure bastard and shes cool or am I some sort of safe house for her?
And remeber that a chef might make a thousand dinners a night but he does not have to waiter in the dinner himself and act all pleased when the paying costumer throws some ketchup into his salmon pasta…
If you mean sexual enjoyment, I beg to differ; she might not get any sexual pleasure out of escorting at all, or she might enjoy it most times, or she might be somewhere in between. There’s no way to tell. I’ve written on this subject before; take a look at “May Q & A” , last question.
Thank you for the link Maggie, while reading the post I noticed that you and your husband would be open to giving advice to someone in a similar situation like me. I have sent you an email with some of my thought about it and hope you can reply to it…
You go girl. Way to stand up to the Big Bad Wolf, we support you in your crucade and hope you never give in like so many others were intimidated into doing.
[…] readers know that I have no love for Ashley Madison; its marketing is repulsive, its business ethics are nonexistent and its fake “press releases” are infuriating. But […]