The modern definition of a hor

[GtarPlayr73]

So here's how i define a whore. A whore is a woman who simply engages in sex for manipulative purposes. She wants to get either money, fame, power, or attention and so she views and uses sex as a tool rather than as the end it is supposed to be. A woman who has sex for the sake of simply having sex is not a whore.

...and because men ALWAYS engage in sex for the sake of sex itself, they can't ever be whores!

 

[decades]

here is how I define "hurt" and "damaged"

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/member.php?u=33866

 

[GtarPlayr73]

eh, i guess you're right. But my recent experience has prompted me to seek deeper understanding and i'm enjoying the insights.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Here's a tip for you - as a man, you will be paying for sex your entire life. Whether you choose to finance it or you pay full retail is up to you. Whether she enjoys it or not she's still getting paid in some way, shape or form. Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.

 

[edger]

. A woman who has sex for the sake of simply having sex is not a whore.

...and because men ALWAYS engage in sex for the sake of sex itself, they can't ever be whores!

I'm glad you realize that..nothing wrong with both men and women having lots of sex, leading healthy sex lives. Just be responsible and cautious against diseases, that's all.

 

[edger]

Women need a reason to have sex

I'm assuming you're talking about having "game" being their reason.

 

[decades]

So here's how i define a whore. A whore is a woman who simply engages in sex for manipulative purposes. She wants to get either money, fame, power, or attention and so she views and uses sex as a tool rather than as the end it is supposed to be. A woman who has sex for the sake of simply having sex is not a whore.

...and because men ALWAYS engage in sex for the sake of sex itself, they can't ever be whores!

and men Never engage in any activity that "uses", manipulates or exploits women I guesss?

 

[GtarPlayr73]

rollo...if you are right then i'm in for deep, deep disappointment. I don't want women sexing me to achieve some ulterior aim. Why don't they just fuck my wallet then, if that's what they really ever want? No, that can't be true. Why do they have ****s and g-spots and errogonous zones if not to experience pleasure with no strings or ulterior motives attached? To suggest they always want to buy something with their bodies reduces them to craven crack addicts shamelessly using their bodies to get ahead in life or even just to earn a man's attention. What the fuck ever happened to simple biology? You don't see female otters whoring in the Great North to get some male otter attention or some of the male otter's private food stash. No, rabbits famously fuck like rabbits to produce more rabbits. Perhaps we humans need to bear in mind the biological purpose of sex more than we have. Fucking fundamentalist religion has seperated sex from its natural purpose and look at the result...

 

[edger]

rollo...if you are right then i'm in for deep, deep disappointment. I don't want women sexing me to achieve some ulterior aim. Why don't they just fuck my wallet then, if that's what they really ever want? No, that can't be true. Why do they have ****s and g-spots and errogonous zones if not to experience pleasure with no strings or ulterior motives attached? To suggest they always want to buy something with their bodies reduces them to craven crack addicts shamelessly using their bodies to get ahead in life or even just to earn a man's attention. What the fuck ever happened to simple biology? You don't see female otters whoring in the Great North to get some male otter attention or some of the male otter's private food stash. No, rabbits **** like rabbits to produce more rabbits. Perhaps we humans need to bear the biology of sex in mind more than we have. Fucking fundamentalist religion has seperated sex from its natural purpose and look at the result...

As long as your game is good, you will always have a string of p*ssy waiting for ya, regardless of money.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

You will always pay for sex and this has nothing to do with ulterior motives or a woman even being conscious of motive. It's just simple transactional economics. You might pay in time, effort, money, opportunity, emotion, etc., but rest assured you will pay. How you choose to do so and how much you do depends on your game, but it's supply and demand - men demand, women supply.

It's transactional because sex is always conditional. No woman has unconditional sex (barring rape). That's not to say they deliberately know they're doing so - some do, most don't and a lot of it is due to subconscious biological imperatives - but it is to say that in order for a woman to have desire or an IL for a guy he's got to meet a certain minmum level of her criteria to become intimate with him.

 

[Vulpine]

RT is pretty much right.

I've been waiting for my GF to give me that ONE freebie BJ so I know whether or not to make it a "serious" relationship.

You know the BJ...

The one riding in the car, or when you come home from work, or when you get out of the shower... the one that didn't "cost" anything. The BJ that you weren't expecting, weren't working towards, and aren't obligated to reciprocate... the freebie.

Then I remembered... the one I woke up to, the one on the couch watching a movie, the other one on the couch watching a movie, the lunch break one, the one at work after hours, the one where she got in the shower-did the thing-and got out...

*sigh*

And, then I remember she owes me at least 15 more before she has settled up her debt.

23 if you want to charge "interest" on her delinquent account.

 

[Fisherman]

You might pay in time, effort, money, opportunity, emotion, etc., but rest assured you will pay. How you choose to do so and how much you do depends on your game, but it's supply and demand - men demand, women supply.

I'd say that you pay equal in time, and if it's a bj I guess she's paying more in effort
Seriously, I honestly don't feel that I'm investing more than the women of any of the above, sometimes I do and other times she do. (time and effort used for self-improvment doesn't count, right? )

but it is to say that in order for a woman to have desire or an IL for a guy he's got to meet a certain minmum level of her criteria to become intimate with him.

And the same is for the women who wish to be intimate with myself.


But then, I'm from Sweden, maybe this works different in Florida.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I'd say that you pay equal in time, and if it's a bj I guess she's paying more in effort
Seriously, I honestly don't feel that I'm investing more than the women of any of the above, sometimes I do and other times she do. (time and effort used for self-improvment doesn't count, right?

Your feeling of investment are only a by-product of what is still a transaction.

Women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability for her intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status, have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

 

[GtarPlayr73]

in order for a woman to have desire or an IL for a guy he's got to meet a certain minmum level of her criteria to become intimate with him.

This makes more sense, just as we men have certain minimum physical criteria for sleeping with a woman and certain minimum emotional criteria for an LTR.

But what about when you hear a woman smirking and saying "i wouldn't kick that (famous actor, athlete, rock star) out of MY bed!" or similar statements of PURE LUST??? Ah, the "lust" is generated by and connected to the huge social proof and wealth such men possess...

So if men demand sex from women who supply it, what then do women demand from us which we supply?

It must be:

1. attention
2. physical protection
3. emotional support

Hmmm, seems like we men supply a lot more or have to "pay" a lot more to women to get them to "supply" the sex we "demand". Pretty lopsided deal...

But wait, don't women ever DEMAND sex from us? I mean we've seen women jumping guys, undressing them, etc all with heavy breathing involved, so are we men "supplying" them with sex to meet their demand at such moments???

 

[joekerr31]

Your feeling of investment are only a by-product of what is still a transaction.

Women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability for her intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status, have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

OR .... OR.... OR.... OR.... other women have got to want to f*ck him!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

other women will want to fukk him BECAUSE he meets their similar criteria.

still a transaction.

 

[GtarPlayr73]

Your feeling of investment are only a by-product of what is still a transaction.

Women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability for her intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status, have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

So if what you are saying is true, and it certainly seems to be, then it could be argued that, from a biological point of view, the female really is the one in control (of reproduction) after all! SHE determines what male is allowed to "seed" her. Male competition, revisited, all to "win" permission to impregnate the female. Kinda blows the whole DJ thing out of the water FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. You are only deemed the Prize because the REAL prize (the female) has made you so. Women are the judges of who is prizeworthy, not men - for they control access! Think of all those screaming, hysterical girls chasing the Beatles. They were chasing the Beatles because they deemed the Beatles to be mateworthy. Yeah, the Beatles were great, but in the end, the girls still determined if they wanted to screw the Fab Four or not. They derived their power only because they satisfied WOMEN'S criteria for sexual mates. It's like the gold standard. Without a shitload of gold stored somewhere, all that paper money is worthless. So all of your DJ lustre might be great on its own, but it is still biologically worthless if there are no women to "approve" of it to be worthy.

The whole message of the DJ is to live a life that happens to be worthy of gaining admission to the female. But the twist is that you can't actually make such a goal your reason for being a DJ in the first place - or you will be found counterfeit and judged unworthy. You craft your life irregardless of the judge (woman) who then chooses you and grants you access. She is still the final authority on prizeworthiness. So it's as if you must transcend your instinctive "need" to find a mate in order to be worthy of mating rights. On the social level, you are judged worthy precisely because you aren't concerned (obsessed) with being worthy! Thus the female desires a gene source that doesn't need her in the first place. What a mindfuck! The female chooses, but the male also must not care about being chosen, if that is ever really, really, really possible deep down inside the core of a man...

 

[joekerr31]

wh*re is just a word. everyone has their own defintion. same with sl*t, b*tch, etc.

its much simplier just to look at women as high quality and low quality. forget all the name calling.

 

[Vulpine]

other women will want to fukk him BECAUSE he meets their similar criteria.

still a transaction.

So, what you are saying is that Last Man Standing was correct when he proclaimed that all women are wh©res, er, hors?

I mean, if all women exchange sex for goods and/or services, that makes them prostitutes. Prostitute, if you look in the dictionary, is the definition of a who®e.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Your feeling of investment are only a by-product of what is still a transaction.

Women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability for her intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status, have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

Men should have their lists too, right? At least men should. If they did (and it was accurate) and it was followed, guy's would be able to qualify women effectively and sidestep a lot of heartache.