Reader “Veterans Abroad” emailed:
The last bastion of feminist influence on the PUA community is the shaming conducted on men who would, now and then, pay an 18 year old freshman to lift her shirt.
For the love of all things unholy, you’ve got to start heavily slamming the metrosexuals who have a problem with that on your blog.
Its completely troll behavior and you know its mostly anonymous feminist lurkers with the addition of “males” not actually practicing game (or bitter about not having any money).
Evil Alpha recently said it right that its about keeping the price way down. Getting a 10 to strip for $5 is more alphathan getting her to strip for $20 and getting her to strip for free is most alpha of all, but not getting her to strip at all and never seeing her again is Gamma.
Here is an oldie but goodie Chateau post about paying for sex. It documents the lives of two very different men who ponied up hard cash for special services rendered.
To the reader, the long and short of it is:
If you pay for sex or sexual enticement (i.e., strippers and lap dances) because you can’t get any loving from women free of charge, you are a beta (or, more precisely, an omega).
If you pay for sex or sexual enticement even though you don’t have to, and because it’s a fun thing to do, you are *not necessarily* a beta or omega. In this case, your solicitation is value neutral.
The man who has a cute girlfriend but lives it up at his buddy’s bachelor party by throwing $20s at a hot stripper is not a sexual loser.
The man who has never had a girlfriend or dates only fatties and washed-up cougars, but pays strippers or whores to deliver him from his dreary, pleasureless existence, is a sexual loser.
There’s nothing more to be said on this matter.
[crypto-donation-box]
