Escorts and the Ideas of Advocatus Diaboli

[TheHumanist]

When that Rational Male website still existed, there was discussion of the blogger Advocatus Diaboli and his extoll on escorts and and its benefits. On his blog and on the blog In Mala Fide, he makes some well-reasoned, though at times still flawed advocacy towards escorts versus traditional LTRs.

One area in particular I want to nick pick is his assumption that a person cannot enjoy the company of a woman outside sex and only going through the stuff outside to get sex. He reasoned this based on two main points that the character of women since the 1950's meaning they only offer their bodies now as a selling point with no other qualities and people do not enjoy just having women as a person to have around either.

That said, I wonder since the other site is gone, what's the opinion of his ideas? I know the general consensus is most of us are not against escorts though few of us have actually tried it. However, what is the thought of his arguments of his reduction of LTRs-picking-up-women to just sex that leads to the ability to compare the value between the two. This is a site to build game to get the company of people and women via building our lives up. How much of that energy of self-improvement can be reduced to just making ourselves presentable to get a girl and make that reducible to just sex. How tiresome or enjoyable is it for many of us to spend company with women? How much of time and energy spends leads to sex?

 

[Strelok]

First of all there is nothing wrong to visit an escort once you get rid of those mainstream social costruction that try to convince you that you are a loser if you pay a woman to give you an orgasm or whatever fantasy you have.

I think that as men we can have so much from women apart sex,I'm talking about feelings,support and even help in our tasks and by giving them back what they gave us we can all be happy.
The problem is that the modern women completely miss the ability of doing whatI just said,most are like 10yrs old girls who beat their feet on the ground whenever they don't get what they think they are entitled of.

Feminism and mainstream media are poison to their mind and successfully convinced them to turn into what they are now in many cases.
Just like the afcs they suffer from brainwashing and wrong messages received through their lifes.


So about the escorts as I said there is nothing morally wrong in going straight to the point with no bvllsh1t in the middle as much as you're sure that your money are not going wasted.
To pay a goodlooking woman to svck your c0ck is no different than paying a a woman to massage your back.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/05/16/why-i-started-using-escorts/

I think what a lot of guy's fail to grasp is AD's reasoning behind his decision to use escorts. There's this ingrained idea that he's a core misogynist, he has psychological issues or he was so burned in the past by women that this is his misguided retribution for all of that. I've read his blog for over a year now and my opinion is that he's really being more pragmatic than he is lashing out. The guy impresses me as someone who's done a lot of critical thinking and came to the conclusion that the solution to his need for sex is just deductive reasoning.

What I think hits so close to the mark for most guy's calling him some hapless loser for paying for sex is that they can see his logic, but still choose to play by a set of rules they think is morally or socially correct. It's scary for them to see the cold facts in light of investing themselves in the hope that women will love and understand them in ways they think they can or should. They retreat into call him maladjusted, but it's due more to his exposing incongruent ideas with experiences.

Needless to say, the feminine imperative will always default to demonizing prostitution. It has a vested interest in maintaining a supreme valuation of gender both amongst women and for the purposes of shaming men. The sad fact remains though; you will always pay for sex in some form. As I've stated in other threads, you can finance it in the long term, or you can pay for it by more direct means, but rest assured, you will pay for it. All AD is really doing is distilling this idea down to core elements and looking for the best service for his money.

Once you've crossed that line, Game becomes irrelevant (for purposes of becoming sexual with women at least). I've got to admit, I have far more respect for AD than I ever would for guys subscribing to the "true forced loneliness" idea. He has at least, if not more, sexual experience with a larger variety of women than most betas or even some practicing DJs do. A guy can flex a lot of confidence around 'unpaid' women when he's safe in the knowledge that he could have (and has had) sex with women who'd otherwise be higher than her own sexual market value. It's much easier to display the devil may care attitude women find so attractive when you really have nothing to lose. From a certain perspective, using escorts can be a form of plate spinning. Granted, you're paying for the experiences, but it may be worth the trade off when you consider the time and cost invested in maintaining an 'unpaid' plate.

 

[TheHumanist]

RT, you make a good point, though uncomfortable, AD is pretty well reasoned. There's some flaws, overall, the reasoning is valid.

At the same time, it doesn't help that if you skim through his blog, you'll find that he really does hate many groups: STEM people, scientists, academia, MBAs, Asian women, Indians, people who make 500k, and others they commenter have pointed out but I haven't confirmed. Each is backed with with his reasons, but you'll find that he hates many groups of people based on reasons that have some truths, but any of us can look to enough experiences to find there are usually enough positive experiences that would push against swearing off entire groups. Example: I met Indians who talk about money, but I have met some that I had enough good times with them that I wouldn't dismiss them all as a group.

Things like that, as well he admitted that he's an misanthrope in that post itself, doesn't help his cause.

Though I do admit a small surprise of your reception to AD. I'm not surprised that you found his thoughts to be of critical thinking, or you agree with the benefits of escorts, or found his reduction to be logically correct (I do question if his reduction is a valid reduction), but it sounds that you agree to his reduction as valid and thus his ultimate conclusion that escorts is preferable to relationships. Which is what I think is what the commentators have a larger problem with rather than just his advocacy of escorts. My understanding that most here and on In Mala Fide are open enough to say they won't attack a guy who uses them and see its attack as part of the feminist imperative, but many are not liking his conclusion that escorts are preferable to relationships. I am not one of those who believes that a guy only goes into a LTR just for a constant supply of pvssy. While AD likes to dismiss it as such women with qualities that make their company enjoyable and the enjoyment of LTRs itself are myths, I cannot agree with that dismissal.

In terms if one make a pure reduction to getting sex, it is far easier to play the price rather then invest the energy to talk to 12 girls to get 1 number, then out of them a date with flaking and all, then out of them a lay. However, I do believe that most getting into a LTR are looking more than just a lay and not just a rationalization (though many evolve into suckitude and others pick poorly for various reasons).

 

[HariPoter13]

The sad fact remains though; you will always pay for sex in some form.

In what ways do you pay for sex?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Whenever anyone makes a cost to benefits comparison in regard to sex with women it's inevitably going to draw up some very uncomfortable truths. On a very base, psychological level, guys want desperately to believe that there exists some woman with the capacity to love and relate to them unconditionally, inspite of an inherent, predictable and provable hypergamy.

Even for the MRA guys who are well versed in the nuts and bolts of gender dynamics from a social and biological standpoint, it's too terrible a thought to think that all the results of their efforts really just hinge upon how well he's able to satisfy her base hypergamic list of prerequisites instead of some more esoteric value they both share together as a couple. It devalues that humanity, in a way similar to confronting nihilism, or having a deeply held ego-invested belief empirically dispelled.

Naturally, women will reinforce the opposite perception. It's in the feminine's interest to shame and deride any man pointing out the Achilles heel in their equation. It's equally important to shame and deride her sisters who'd make a living from practicing the same truth they need to repress. Gold Diggers, Attention Whøres, they're both threats of overtly exposing the mechanics behind the feminine imperative, so they must be marginalized and shamed to keep the social convention operating.

To answer your question POTER13, every man is paying for sex by order of degree. You may finance it (marriage), you may buy it retail or wholesale (dating), you might rent it (prostitution) and you might just beat off to the advertising (porn), but rest assured, you WILL pay.

Sexuality defines our relations with women. Sex is the deal breaker. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship - best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs - who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

Sex is the deal breaker, without it a woman becomes your mother or sister. How you choose to address that need for sex, what price you're willing to tolerate is at the heart of what AD is getting at in his posts. Why would anyone pay for a substandard experience at an exorbitantly overblown price? Either they don't know any better or they've been convinced that the experience is priceless.

 

[HariPoter13]

Rollo, that's a whole lot of text for a simple question. So, you are saying that you finance it by means of marriage? Translated, your wife isn't employed and stays at home? You know, not all wives are like that.

 

[Rogue]

^

Michael Noer's classic polemic Forbes magazine piece, "Don't Marry Career Women."

 

[squirrels]

Sexuality defines our relations with women. Sex is the deal breaker. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship - best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs - who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

Actually, probably yeah.

Sex gets in the way. I'd rather have a wife I was completely platonic with, someone who's more like a "best friend forever", than have a wife who I can't stand but who f**ks like a champ.

Now the part of your question I DON'T see is where you specify whether or not sex-on-the-side is legitimate. As a man, I DO have some urges, whether I'd like to admit it or not. But if I could have a platonic wife and just hire escorts on the side, that seems almost IDEAL.

That is, assuming I could find a woman who was good for more than sex. In that regard, I tend to agree with this guy AD, that the juice is not worth the squeeze in most cases.

I find it amusing when guys talk about how much they "need" sex and how "awesome" it is. Like I said, I get the itch, I try to scratch it. When I'm done scratching it, I try to put it out-of-mind. Sex has become equivalent to taking a sh!t for me in most cases. Occasionally I just feel like I have to do it as a matter of nature, it actually feels pleasant when you do it, but afterward, you just want to wipe up and get back to real life. I can only stand like 5-10 minutes of "cuddle time", and I TOLERATE that because women get all emotional if you don't give them that.

My ideal woman, the kind I'd want to be with in a traditional relationship, is the one that, when we get done f**king, we look at each other, share a laugh about how ridiculous it is that we "just did that", and get on with life until the next time we get horny.

I think that's why I prefer f**king in the morning or mid-afternoon...because when you f**k a girl at night, she wants to just lay there and fall asleep in your arms. And I'm laying there thinking, "Seriously?? How do you expect me to hold the X-box controller with you laying there on top of me?? Don't you have to go home soon??"

I don't have a "glow" after sex. I don't feel tremendous about it the next morning...it doesn't do anything for my ego. I don't walk around with my head held high like, "Hey, I just had sex!"

If I could find REASONABLY-priced escorts who I knew were STD-free, even if I could only afford it once or twice a month, I honestly think I WOULD go that way. As I've said before, the going rate for "Vegas Girls" is about $300/hr. Twice a month ($600) and these girls are NOT bad-looking like your typical street hooker. If I knew they were clean and legit (not Vice), that sounds like a GREAT deal.

F**k all this "game" crap. Eventually you get tired of psyching girls out and taking advantage of their emotions just to get a little sub-par "action". I feel SORRY for them, because I know even the "casual" girls feel sleighted when I don't respond romantically to them after f**king them. I got tired of seeing girls cry.

 

[sstype]

Lots of good responses here.

Rollo and Squirrels really nails the point. I'm surprised many guys here deride escorts, but then spend hours upon hours studying, analyzing, and running game, dealing with all the rejections, flakes, and bs in the process even when you're doing everything right.

Take this Paul Janka guy....slept with 138 women in ten years. Do the math... 138 x $300 (typical attractive escort price)= $41400. He could have instead spent around $4000 a year to achieve the same outcome without having invested an entire decade of time and energy focused soley on getting laid. If he were getting paid $25 dollars an hour (roughly 50000 a year) he could swing this with one-two months of work instead of spending every day all year trolling for women. Now I know the media spotlight on his lifestyle has made him wealthy, but had that not happened he would still be unemployed, broke, and living in his dump NY apartment.

For the rest of us who probably won't end up famous (or infamous), is this really the most effective use of time if we truly want to sleep with a ton of women? In 10 years time, I could start a successful business/career, learn a new skill, get a college degree, learn new languages, travel the world, start a charity. I see way more worthwhile things to do than trying to be some grandmaster plate spinner.

Too many guys (especially AFCs, DJs, and PUAs) in the West mythologize sex as some mark of grand achievement, playing right into the female power structure. At the end of the day, sex is just sex. How much of it you get and how you obtain it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. For me, getting it in the most efficient manner possible with the least possible headache matters more to me than my ego. If that means paying for it, then so be it.

 

[Tortendieb]

Wow! Some of you sound like old men, ranting at life. If you feel you're wasting your time chasing women, and you'd much rather do something else with that time, where's the fun?