For 80,000 US Dollars I could live about 2-3 years in Thailand or the Phils or Brazil I am sure of it.
Printable View
For 80,000 US Dollars I could live about 2-3 years in Thailand or the Phils or Brazil I am sure of it.
Hardbag, no argument for sure. I just thought you might not have noticed the last part of her ad (or should it be called a wish list?) THAT was where things got truly outrageous.
I got the feeling that the last part was just thrown in there for effect.... trying to make herself seem more exotic, or just trying to set her ad apart from all the other ads. NOBODY is going to take her up on that one.
If someone offered her free airfare and lodgings for a week anywhere overseas, plus let's say $1,000 in spending money, that would be a hell of a good deal. Of course from her end of things, it's a high risk. She could go off somewhere, find out too late that the guy is some kind of psycho, and then never be heard from again.
I was giving some thought to that thing about the exchange rate. It's true that $250 here is around $220 US. However, the cost of living is a lot less here. Where I live, $200 - $250k will buy you a pretty nice house. Eg. there's a new, built in 2004 house, 1900 sq. ft in a nice neighbourhood that was listed at $275,000. The point is that for 1,000 hrs of work at her rates, she could buy a nice house. Think about the cost of a comparable house where you live. It's probably a lot more.... let's just say it was $400k for a house like that in many large US cities. That means proportionately, a girl would have to charge $400 an hour to be equal.
That's a lot!
Rock
[QUOTE=Streetlooker]For 80,000 US Dollars I could live about 2-3 years in Thailand or the Phils or Brazil I am sure of it.[/QUOTE]
Actually that would go pretty far as I understand it in just about any South American country, take your pick.
I work with 2 people from the Phils and they always mention how cheap it is as one mentioned to me today that most workers get $60US a week in their paycheck which works out to be like 5,000 pesos I think.
Mexico is also dirt cheap.
80K will get alot done....
I'd choose to invest about half of it and burn up the rest running around the world...
5,000 pesos is just under $100 US and that is salary for a month if they can get a job and many cannot. And an American heifer wants that and a Hermes bag. Ha ha ha. Best thing to do with these slappers is a pat on the arse and tel lthem to get their fat hides out to fuck.
With the same money, you could have a 24/7 orgy with prettier, nicer, sexy women. Leave the heifers for the bulls to fuck. Vote with your feet guys.
These Asain places are only good if you shop local. The old adage about the fool and his money holds true in Asia too. You should see all the peniless, Euro wankers stranded in places like Pattaya. Remember why God invented slappers guys. They exist for our amusement. So enjoy them but don't spoil them with too much dick or too much $$$.
Richard Gere is doing a movie that is going to be called....The Expat!
It's being shot in Argentina, but I don't know if it's supposed to be set there. Still, that's one movie I want to see!
Rock
[QUOTE=Rock Dog]---IN WINNIPEG---
**ADDITIONAL $50.00 FOR GREEK**
**ADDITIONAL $100.00 FOR BBBJ MUST BE VERY CLEAN AND NO INTENSE ODOUR (NO CIM & FACIALS)**
**ADDITIONAL $150.00 FOR BONDAGE & DOMINATION**
10-30MIN QUICKES ONLY---$200.00CAD/USD
1.0 HOUR-----$250.00CAD/USD
1.5 HOURS----$350.00CAD/USD
2.0 HOURS----$450.00CAD/USD
2.5 HOURS----$600.00CAD/USD
3.0 HOURS----$750.00CAD/USD (GREEK/BBBJ/BON&DOM FREE ONLY FOR 3.0+ HOUR APPOINTMENTS)
3.5 HOURS----$900.00CAD/USD
4.0 HOURS----$1,050.00CAD/USD
4.5 HOURS----$1,200.00CAD/USD
5.0 HOURS----$1,350.00CAD/USD
5.5 HOURS----$1,500.00CAD/USD
6.0 HOURS----$1,650.00CAD/USD ($150.00CAD/USD FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 30MINUTES & $250.00CAD/USD FOR EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR)
12.0 HOURS OR OVERNIGHT----$3,000.00CAD/USD
1 DAY----$6,000.00CAD/USD
---FLY ME TO YOU IN OTHER USA/TROPICAL LOCATIONS---
1 DAY-----------------$12,000.00USD
2 DAYS/WEEKEND--------$18,000.00USD
3 DAYS/LONG WEEKEND---$24,000.00USD
4 DAYS----------------$30,000.00USD
5 DAYS----------------$36,000.00USD
7 DAYS----------------$42,000.00USD
---FLY ME TO YOU IN EUROPE---
1 DAY------------------$6,000.00GBP
2 DAYS/WEEKEND---------$12,000.00GBP
3 DAYS/LONG WEEKEND----$18,000.00GBP
4 DAYS-----------------$24,000.00GBP
5 DAYS-----------------$30,000.00GBP
7 DAYS-----------------$42,000.00GBP
---FLY ME TO YOU IN ASIA---
1 DAY------------------$6,000.00GBP
2 DAYS/WEEKEND---------$12,000.00GBP
3 DAYS/LONG WEEKEND----$18,000.00GBP
4 DAYS-----------------$24,000.00GBP
5 DAYS-----------------$30,000.00GBP
7 DAYS-----------------$42,000.00GBP
---FLY ME TO YOU IN AUSTRALIA---
1 DAY------------------$20,000.00AUD
2 DAYS/WEEKEND---------$30,000.00AUD
3 DAYS/LONG WEEKEND----$40,000.00AUD
4 DAYS-----------------$50,000.00AUD
5 DAYS-----------------$60,000.00AUD
7 DAYS-----------------$70,000.00AUD
Comments?
Rock[/QUOTE]
There are some extremely high class agencies available for CEO's etc, where as well customers and the girls get an extreme screening by an agency (outside US), and probably the girls get even trained.
In this high end circle the newcomers start with about 1500-2500 $ and the top end can reach for about 5000 $ on daily rates and only certain exceptions might get more. In this top class there are only daily rates and there is always a discount the longer the stay is.
All financial transfer is going discretely and anonymous by swift transfer outside US (the best is from outside to outside). So no risk for getting involved with anti prostitution laws. If you are a newcommer, cash transfer is even in advance.
But the girls will be reliable and will deliver extraordinery sex services as well as they are top educated women, beeing able to manage every public or social event and nobody would ever assume a prostitute behind.
You would get your money back in case of trouble. But agency will avoid any of that trouble by girl selection. But you have to qualify as a customer as well as the girl.
The girl here is just fishing for some idiot, probably with no intension to deliver appropriate services and no High class customer (hey the guys with that much money are no idiots and know and expect value for money in this class as well) would ever consider a longer stay, having much better opprtunities as described above..
- No serious top provider from a top agency would ever offer a quicky rate 10-30 minutes for whatever price.
- No serious top provider would ever write a menu card for optional sex services on a webpage. This is a deal with the customer and if the girl e.g. doesn't provide anal, then it's simply mentioned by the agency during the booking process.
- completely bullshit that a more then 1 day sessions is still counted in 30 min slots. She will watch only the time instead of delivering services.
So with this add she will only get customers in the 30 min to 2h quickie's sessions.
High class is a different environment and will not work without a professional discretional agency.
Somebudy out there who risks the 200 $ to prove her?
regards
Brain666
[QUOTE=Brain666]There are some extremely high class agencies available for CEO's etc, where as well customers and the girls get an extreme screening by an agency (outside US), and probably the girls get even trained.
In this high end circle the newcomers start with about 1500-2500 $ and the top end can reach for about 5000 $ on daily rates and only certain exceptions might get more. In this top class there are only daily rates and there is always a discount the longer the stay is.
All financial transfer is going discretely and anonymous by swift transfer outside US (the best is from outside to outside). So no risk for getting involved with anti prostitution laws. If you are a newcommer, cash transfer is even in advance.
But the girls will be reliable and will deliver extraordinery sex services as well as they are top educated women, beeing able to manage every public or social event and nobody would ever assume a prostitute behind.
You would get your money back in case of trouble. But agency will avoid any of that trouble by girl selection. But you have to qualify as a customer as well as the girl.
The girl here is just fishing for some idiot, probably with no intension to deliver appropriate services and no High class customer (hey the guys with that much money are no idiots and know and expect value for money in this class as well) would ever consider a longer stay, having much better opprtunities as described above..
- No serious top provider from a top agency would ever offer a quicky rate 10-30 minutes for whatever price.
- No serious top provider would ever write a menu card for optional sex services on a webpage. This is a deal with the customer and if the girl e.g. doesn't provide anal, then it's simply mentioned by the agency during the booking process.
- completely bullshit that a more then 1 day sessions is still counted in 30 min slots. She will watch only the time instead of delivering services.
So with this add she will only get customers in the 30 min to 2h quickie's sessions.
High class is a different environment and will not work without a professional discretional agency.
Somebudy out there who risks the 200 $ to prove her?
regards
Brain666[/QUOTE]
Escorts always market themselves as upscale *****s, personally speaking in countries with legal brothels and prostitution plenty of inexpensive and high quality services are available and easy to find. I have used escorts and incalls in Montreal, and found it to be an exception to the rule of being a rip off. In fact, for those who cannot afford international travel this city is a great place to find amazing sexual services that you cannot find anywhere else in North America.
Brain666,
You made some good points there. A little more about this particular girl.... in her ad, it says she's originally from Jamaica but the picture of her looks like a white girl or VERY light-skinned.
My guess is that she put the last section in her ad in an effort to make her look special. Or like you said, it's a " Hail-Mary " shot at scoring big with one lone idiot out there who might actually be inclined to take her up on that kind of offer.
Personally, I think it might be fun to send her an email asking if she really thinks that anyone would ever pay that much $$$ for a few days with one woman.
Rock
RD, sending this broad an e-mail telling her she isn't worth such a king's ransom is only gonna result in her indignation and it's a waste of time. However, it COULD be fun, like teasing the monkeys at the zoo. Her over-inflated sense of self won't easily be overcome. I did the same thing to a broad in Atlanta after one of the posters to this board gave details. I told her that she must be on crack and that her shit ain't worth NEARLY that much. Her very eloquent response was: "Fuck you". These skank specimens are ALWAYS gonna find suckers.
On another note, I hope I'm only paranoid, but I sense impending doom regarding the following article. "Guilt by association" will be the mantra of AW's.
[url]http://www.bangkokpost.com/Perspective/27Aug2006_pers001.php[/url]
Sinj,
That EXACTLY the reason why I would email her! It's like teasing monkeys at the Zoo.... hahaha I like that.
Rock
Hey, guys,
I have been reading this section for some time now, going through almost all of the backdated reports, and of course having my own opinion, agreed with some points and disagreed with some. Thought I might introduce myself rather than just lurk around.
Just a bit of background: I am an Indian guy (from India, not American Indian :) ) have lived across Europe as a child thanks to my Dad's job and have spent 5 years in the US, came back 4 years back, have travelled a bit more on my own, a little bit of EE and South-East Asia thrown in, so I guess for my age, I count myself more travelled than most people (at least Indian).
I feel I have to agree with most of the people here in general, about the attitude of American women being pretty disgusting towards men as compared to most other countries' women, but i would add, and this has been discussed before, that with a lot of westernisation of not just developing nations but of most countries outside of the US, the women of the cosmopolitan cities are becoming more and more like what is being termed here as American women's attitudes. Especially with Oprah and stuff being shown at least here, in Delhi, I find a lot of women discussing topics on that behaving like that even though the culture, circumstances and atmosphere is nothing like that in the States. It's sad to see this.
Anyway, I was actually going to write a lot more and bring up a couple of discussion points, but I got to run so i guess I will have to do that later.
But do keep this discussion up guys, and hey, remember, don’t forget to keep the mongering up too, lets all just not get near these women with them attitudes, I know I catch my fair share of non-pros too despite the advent of “Oprahism” in urban India, where I am right now.
Catch you all later
Hey, guys, I have been reading this section for some time now, going through almost all of the backdated reports, and of course having my own opinion, agreed with some points and disagreed with some. Thought I might introduce myself rather than just lurk around.
Just a bit of background: I am an Indian guy (from India, not American Indian :) ) have lived across Europe as a child thanks to my Dad's job and have spent 5 years in the US, came back 4 years back, have travelled a bit more on my own, a little bit of EE and South-East Asia thrown in, so I guess for my age, I count myself more travelled than most people (at least Indian).
I feel I have to agree with most of the people here in general, about the attitude of American women being pretty disgusting towards men as compared to most other countries' women, but i would add, and this has been discussed before, that with a lot of westernisation of not just developing nations but of most countries outside of the US, the women of the cosmopolitan cities are becoming more and more like what is being termed here as American women's attitudes. Especially with Oprah and stuff being shown at least here, in Delhi, I find a lot of women discussing topics on that behaving like that even though the culture, circumstances and atmosphere is nothing like that in the States. It's sad to see this.
Anyway, I was actually going to write a lot more and bring up a couple of discussion points, but I got to run so i guess I will have to do that later.
But do keep this discussion up guys, and hey, remember, don’t forget to keep the mongering up too, lets all just not get near these women with them attitudes, I know I catch my fair share of non-pros too despite the advent of “Oprahism” in urban India, where I am right now.
Catch you all later
This is the article from Forbes that has all the feminazis so pissed off!
Don't Marry Career Women
by Michael Noer
Forbes.com
August 21, 2006
Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?
In Pictures: Nine Reasons To Steer Clear Of Career Women
Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.
To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).
Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.
In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."
The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."
There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.
And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.
So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.
A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.
Interesting...... any comments?
Rock
This article to some degree supports one of my primary assertions:
Women as a whole, don't really WANT to be a "co-provider". Feminism got them equal (in practice "superior") rights, and they (particularly the middle and upper middle class) went out, hit the workforce, and found out that IT SUCKS OUT HERE, AND THEY HAD THE BETTER END OF THE DEAL ALL ALONG.
One of my pet theories is as follows. Sociology dictates that traditionally, the holder of economic power (the provider-either male or female) has the power to make decisions in a relationship. Now, women in most cases demand or believe that they are entitled to equal or superior power in the relationship, but are usually not holding up their end of the "breadwinning".....or if they are at least coming close to it, they fucking resent it. This obviously is a big, nasty obnoxious imbalance in the yin/yang of relationships......no fucking wonder that the divorce rate is 50-60% (I actually maintain that the figure is being held down by heavily Catholic hispanic immigrants...I'm guessing that among the middle and upper middle class it is or will soon be 70%)
B9K
I really agree with the point Forbes makes about that most women, even professional women. are happier when the primary breadwinner is the male and by extension bart9000's assertion that the women then realise they have the better end of the deal.
For example, my ex-fiance, not really ex, since we are on and off, an American citizen, has been running a small business setup by her Dad who ran it with her, but as soon as our talks about marriage started, she was like, i dont want to work after marriage, other than maybe a hobby or two which may or may not make money. Guess she realises that that would be the sweet end of the deal.
This also reminds me of a friend of mine and one of his favourite stories. He was working hard to afford a vacation his new wife really wanted to go to, and one day came home really late, hungry and tired after working overtime; however, his wife made dinner late since she was watching some movie on television and she said she didnt feel like it at the time, and hence, becasue he slept late, he wanted to wake up late, reaching one hour later to work. So his wife woke him up and started complaining that he doesnt get to the office on time and he should because they want the money etc., he kept his mouth shut and in the end just told her, well if you would do your job and give me food on time, maybe then I can get enough rest to get to my job on time. That shut her up real good. Needless to say, he wisened up real quick and left her, though he is still paying alimony.
This is very true in urban India too, (its the same almost everywhere now) where the male is still supposed to be the primary breadwinner, and can't take a break because he doesn't feel like it or doesn't like his job. But the female, she can take a break when she wants quoting "I don't feel like cooking tonight, lets eat out". I just think about that and wonder - is it really a man's world, what all the feminists are still keep claiming it to be?
Makes me laugh at their Idiocy, its like having their cake and eating it too. They want to be professionals, want to work and "become something" but they want their husbands to be the primary breadwinner still and if they aren't, and since most husbands won't take the deal of being house-husbands, which leaves their homes in a mess, these professional women just leave them! I have nothing against professional women, its just their arrogance that they want to have their professions, have a guy who is more sucessful than they are, but dont want to take care of the home or give up their professions to help out in raising kids.
Of course the Forbes article is getting a big reaction. All the Femmies have gotten so used to playing victim and hiding behind their gender as they take endless potshots at men.
Now someone comes along and points out what everyone pretty much knows is true..... self-centered, career-minded hemisexual b*tches don't make the best wives. The article didn't even say they made BAD wives, it just dared to suggest that men might be better off going for a regular, stay-at-home traditional kind of woman.
What happens? Endless discussion on blogs and feminist websites. I say "When someone starts squawking, you know you toughed a sore spot."
Rock