Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

What if hot whores were cheap, legal, and clean?

Posted by xsplat on December 30, 2012

soup said: If prostitution were legal..
and whores could only charge a maximum of $35, would you give up on the game and drop money p4p instead of using your time and resources to learn “The Venusian Arts” ?

I get many thrills out of dealing with women, a minor component of which are friction related. Even if the girl is just a fuck buddy, she will usually bring me into a flow-moment where I’m captivated by paying attention to her, and I’m just present and enjoying. A heightened sense of being embodied and having fun and communicating.

I’ve paid for sex a few times at low rates with cute girls. Maybe they just sucked at their job, but they didn’t really do it for me. A hooker who gave it away for free a few times was a lot fun – I had sore stomach muscles for days from the belly slappin marathons.

But my answer is no. I earn enough money and live in places where I could easily afford a new hot girl every night, but I don’t. It’s not about disease to me. It’s not about money. It’s not about being a better man. It’s not about the thrill of the chase – I couldn’t give a half of a damn about the chase.

I just want to have a MUTUAL appreciation going on. Two people really into each other. For me, that’s the foundation of the fun. There is no fucking way in hell I’m going to compromise on that.

If paying for sex didn’t lessen the chances of the girl being attracted to me and turned on by me, then in theory I’d be striving for a retirement filled with private hookers. But I honestly don’t think it can work that way. Paying her directly for a service fucks up the whole dynamic, and greatly lessens the chances of mutual appreciation, let alone emotional bonding. And I like bonding – I really get off on it. It’s a deep and fulfilling and even a thrilling pleasure to me, that greatly adds to quality of life. Even if I have two or three or more girls I’m dating, I still bond with them.

But even for one night stands, no, I don’t fuck hookers, even when they are cheap and accessible. To do so would fuck up my sex karma. Sexual habits are real, and mine are carefully cultivated and an important tool of seduction. I have emotional sex, and that is seductive. It’s part of my mojo to be able to embody a sex that appreciates mutual appreciation – that is really into passion. It’s easy to deaden that, and to learn to feel alienated and separate and incapable of letting go into an ecstatic union with the girl and to become forever cold inside no matter how much friction you frantically create trying to rub up a little warmth.

When I’m walking about town with my girl, any of my girls from over the years, and I compare us as a couple with any other couple, the difference is always striking. Passionate couples are as rare as topless teenagers on a public beach. Most people are walking zombies. People who are really into each other, and exude it, are winning at the game of life.

It’s possible to create your self through your actions, and it’s possible to create your self to be incapable of winning at life.

9 Responses to “What if hot whores were cheap, legal, and clean?”

  1. Dom said

    I have a friend who is all about banging hookers. But I share the same belief that mutual desire and attraction creates at least half the fun, if not the majority of it.

  2. taterearl said

    To me having sex with hookers is just masturbating with a vagina.

    I’d rather have sex be an extension of the leadership role I play in her life.

  3. OhioStater said

    Sex is about conquest, which is only bad since it affirms the feminist view “rape is about power”. Rape is about pleasure to a celibate man, but consensual sex is about power to a fulfilled man.

    • xsplat said

      Ya, conquest. I like to conquest as much of the girl as possible, at least for LTRs. And even for one night stands I want to make some sort of connection – or some real conquest. I just don’t see much chance of much conquest going on when it’s a paid transaction.

      I like the way you put it. I sometimes use the word intimacy, but that puts off some of the audience. Conquest means basically the same thing and can fit even better.

      There is no conquest without submission, and conquest plus submission=intimacy.

      I’d love it if we could pay for submission, but women don’t seem to be built to do that. They want indirect rather than direct payments as sex lubricant. Expensive dinners rather than cash. If you pay them outright they tend to look upon you as a client and somehow that fucks up their whole emotional relationship, as if it puts you below her in rank.

      Women will submit without much struggle sometimes to a famous or high status man, but you can’t replicate that dynamic with payment. You won’t get the same emotional response or the same type of submission. And for lower status guys we have to seduce, or “jump through hoops”, or charm the pants off of her, and escalate escalate escalate to push past her resistance and get her to submit. The emotional response to a good seduction can’t be replicated through payment either. Submission isn’t just a physical act – it’s an act of being charmed. I don’t see that money really gets around that – not through direct payment anyway. It can be used well as an aid to a good seduction though.

  4. avd said

    “People who are really into each other, and exude it, are winning at the game of life.”

    Agreed. Beyond a certain threshold of mastery, the exploration of the physical becomes complete and there is little left to learn there. Then, exploration of fucking them emotionally and psychologically becomes more interesting. Beyond that comes spiritual fucking and bonding. Progression along this spectrum is one of life’s great gifts.

    Appreciate your sharing, xsplat.

  5. Followed this link to Dalrock’s article from Rollo. I thought of your approach to things and wondered what your opinion might be.


    • xsplat said

      My first impression is that I prefer and advocate a middle approach.

      First, the facts:
      Love is illusory, yes. It is a type of madness, and can even be categorized as an addiction. The madness of love is temporary.

      Now, the available interpretations:
      1) Therefore we should find meaning not in what is temporary, but have a broader view and carve out some stability. But Dalrock also says that you should first also have a fiery passion for your wife to be. He advocates first harnessing the madness of love, and then fixing stability through a force of will and contractual obligation.
      2) Avoid the madness of love altogether
      3) Have a moment to moment appreciation for feelings where the only thing that matters is what is in front of your face
      4) Embrace the madness and have a bigger vision, but be flexible, adaptable, and embrace change. Serial and parallel monogamy. Understand the long term patterns, and use them to advantage.

      I choose number four. Just because love is an illusion doesn’t mean that it isn’t real enough. It is subjectively real, and inter-subjectively real. Are the emotions a crowd feels at a music concert “real”? They are felt to be real, and that’s real enough. Yes, they are temporary. In a few years you might not even like that genre of music anymore. So what? It feels good to go with friends and lovers to music concerts.

      I know that some people crave meaning in the form of long term stability. Long term stability and family is deeply important to some people, and perhaps for them it’s a bedrock upon which to build a happy life. I’ve seen that approach work, in the families of my parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins. Sometimes that solution is interrupted by divorce, but still, that approach can be solid.

      But others of us find meaning within change. We don’t need a long future time orientation in order for our feelings to be meaningful.

      • t said

        You always mention that you like monogamy and ltr type relationships. And although this is true to some extent, in that it involves getting real deep with a girl for a long period of time, it’s still that, a period of time. I think for some people wanting monogamy may misunderstand your definition of it. You mentioned before that you prefer a few years, and then move on, but that’s not quite monogamy. This isn’t semantics, it’s more of a miscommunication, which may add to the difficulty of explaining and teaching these skills.

      • It’s serial monogamy, sure.

        I for one couldn’t imagine one woman my entire life. What gets me a little and I find hard to “let go” is when a woman after numerous shit tests and a completely separated view of what I’m actually doing behind the scenes for her continues to attempt putting me in a subordinate frame. As though an empty headed needy slut could “feel like no one’s there for me!” extracting more commitment and stability then suppose she’s in a position to tell me “change is good”. The roots of some mercurial brats run shallow indeed.

        Your door number 3 of embracing change does appear distinct from tradgedian/comedic “LUUUUUURRRVE!!!!!! I lub yo nubs tho mush I could Kiwll Myseff!” variety of romance. A depth and breadth to it–that ineffable deep conversion again. I’d say it may be separate from indefinitely extended puppy love, honey moon phase, or limerence. Or perhaps that’s precisely what it is. But with the man fully conscious and in control of its mechanics yet in touch with an unquantifiable source. His grasp of it and the high he gets is of greater depth than what she experiences. He, ideally, gets high from… the act of supplying… exploration I suppose.

        Thanks for the response. Got a couple ideas rolling again.


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 158 other followers

%d bloggers like this: