American Women

[Rock Dog]

There've been lots of posts on this exact topic.

I remember one that was really good, where a member did some financial calculations based on a typical 10 year marriage ending in divorce. What with lawyers bills, losing half a house and support payments, it was calculated that you'd actually SAVE money if you paid $250 a pop for twice weekly visits by the sex-provider of your choice.

I've written plenty of posts myself as to how men and women's actions can be explained in simple economic terms such as supply + demand + competition. Edlund and Korn's analysis is interesting for sure, but they are simply expounding in technical terms (and greater detail) what most of us already knew a long time ago.

Women are not the emotional romantic creatures that they try to portray themselves as. They are very practical, calculating and pragmatic. The only reason they even bother to put this romantic spin on things is because.....
A. It serves their purposes.
B. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside while going after what they want.

I USED to think that it was us guys that were calculating. But that was back when I was young and naive.

Rock

[Yogin]

...american male .. more submissive and accepting of playing female gender roles. .. and pegging is growing in popularity. ..not uncommon to overhear groups of women discussing how they pegged their husbands or boyfriends. so, the next time you see some guy with his wife or girlfriend and a pained expression on his face, there's a good chance that he is being pegged not only in the bedroom but in his wallet too!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peg
this is a term coined by sex advice columnist dan savage and his readers, referring to when a woman straps one on and buttfucks a guy.

savage also coined "santorum", the frothy mix of [CodeWord113] and lube that is sometimes the product of anal sex. named for senator rick santorum, a religious conservative wacko, charter member of the american taliban anti-sex league.

[Chocha Monger]

I think that the American male in general has become more submissive and accepting of playing female gender roles. The stay at home dad is resented but increasingly common; and pegging is growing in popularity. Indeed it is not uncommon to overhear groups of women discussing how they pegged their husbands or boyfriends. So, the next time you see some guy with his wife or girlfriend and a pained expression on his face, there's a good chance that he is being pegged not only in the bedroom but in his wallet too!

[Sinanju Master]

Man, this shit is like the fable "the Emperor's New Clothes". Someone decided to call the shit for what it is and those in power go apeshit because of said fact. Heh heh heh! It's like someone pressed a hot branding iron against he flesh of the Feminazis and ENJOYED IT! Yes, my bretheren, while enjoying this spectacle of revelation, I'm kicking my feet up on the desk while downing a large Coke and a bucket of popocorn!

[Ezinho]

Have you guys seen the response to this article from Forbes? The feminists are going ape-shit over it! I don't know who this Michael Noer guy is, but I gotta give credit where credit's due; this is one AM who hasn't yet surrendered his testicles to the Femi-nazis. Here's another article he wrote earlier this year:

The Economics Of Prostitution
Michael Noer, 02.14.06, 12:00 PM ET

Wife or *****?

The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.

The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and *****s as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.

Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974--also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.

Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.

Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.

But back to *****s: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to *****s in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and *****s are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.

As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, *****s can not.

To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low-skill but high-pay profession with few upfront costs, micro-miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.

Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid-15th-century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money--in some cases, a lot more money--than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.

Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a ***** in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a *****. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.

Ouch.

Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low-cost provider."

Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so-called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.

In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and ***** is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."

Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.

Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer *****s as they get richer, but they have fewer children.

Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age-old phenomenon: gold digging.

"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."

In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...stitution.html

[Khunk]

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

I just have to say, being born and raised in America, that anyone who wants to or has an inkling to date/marry an American woman needs to be beat about the head with a heavy object. American woman are the most self centered, selfish, arrogant, conditional, pompous women anywhere and it's because of the media and the whole femme movement. Women in the USA forgot what is all about being a woman. None of them give 100% in a relationship because they are afraid to get hurt, be used, or taken advantage of. I will never date another american woman in my life. Asian women, by far, are the best. There is no substitute. Culturally they are much better at knowing what men want and need. Thank God for SE Asia.

[Rock Dog]

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

[Natik27]

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.

[Bart9000]

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

[Rock Dog]

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

[Natik27]

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

[Rock Dog]

Sinj,

That EXACTLY the reason why I would email her! It's like teasing monkeys at the Zoo.... hahaha I like that.

Rock

[Sinanju Master]

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.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/Perspecti...06_pers001.php

[Rock Dog]

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

[CBGBConnisur]

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

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.