The Onlyfans factor

[ulrich]

Once a debate devolves to discussing definitions, there’s no way back.

Before the thread is closed, I just want to share my thoughts:
I don’t think we should condemn people using prostitution as a complementary part of their sexual lives… at the same time, people using any form of prostitution have no business considering the sex they pay with as a valid form of seduction.

The mental gymnastics on @ph40 here to convince himself his kind of prostitution is different and good is huge.
“Hey, at least it’s not violence”… come on, man.

One word of advice, as much as you want to believe it, you’re not dealing with the best women out there.
By sugar dating you’re dealing with a subset of highly materialistic women. That is highly likely to come bite you in the ass eventually.
Simply, your reputation is already compromised.

There's a shift in attitude and how we handle topics because we are literally having 3 generations,

- gen x
- millennials
- gen z
All 3 generations are completely out of wack.

I don’t think it’s much the difference in age as is that this space tends to attract a lot of misfits.

People living in the fringes of society looking for validation.
“Look, I’m getting sex… that means I am attractive”

Sometime these guys are pretty interesting out of the box thinkers… and sometimes they are maladjusted to reality.
We attract the extremes.

 

[Skills]

Once a debate devolves to discussing definitions, there’s no way back.

Before the thread is closed, I just want to share my thoughts:
I don’t think we should condemn people using prostitution as a complementary part of their sexual lives… at the same time, people using any form of prostitution have no business considering the sex they pay with as a valid form of seduction.

The mental gymnastics on @ph40 here to convince himself his kind of prostitution is different and good is huge.
“Hey, at least it’s not violence”… come on, man.

One word of advice, as much as you want to believe it, you’re not dealing with the best women out there.
By sugar dating you’re dealing with a subset of highly materialistic women. That is highly likely to come bite you in the ass eventually.
Simply, your reputation is already compromised.




I don’t think it’s much the difference in age as is that this space tends to attract a lot of misfits.

People living in the fringes of society looking for validation.
“Look, I’m getting sex… that means I am attractive”

Sometime these guys are pretty interesting out of the box thinkers… and sometimes they are maladjusted to reality.
We attract the extremes.

Yeah prostitution is fine multiple guys good with women get prostitutes as I said in my post is fine under some circumstances even him doing it is fine, we don't judge, but the problem is the backwards rationalizations etc... but in the long term for HIS GOAL may be a handicap to find a girlfriend vs a gold digger.

 

[Winston]

Sugar dating is not a form of seduction, but it doesn't make seduction impossible. This not because you are paying a girl that it is impossible to arouse desire and suscite emotions within her (especially when the said girl is not a professional hooker/see only a handful of guys).

They are humans and humans have emotions. Earlier in this thread the point was made that seducers can get freely the sex with the very same girl that sugar daddies have to pay for. Well, that's the demonstration that girls doing sugar dating can be seduced also. What prevents a guy to both pay and seduce at the same time?

I know well at least one rich guy that didn't meet his girlfriend by paying (the meeting happened organically), but the rich guy pays for a big part of the lifestyle of the girl (when you are rich this is difficult to do otherwise). I don't think him paying for her lifestyle implies that the girl cannot be in love with him/feel deep emotions.

 

[Will_V]

So if you buy a dinner for a woman is it prostitution? If you buy a house and move into it with your wife is it prostitution?

There's a whole spectrum of these things. On one end you might have the hardcore dogmatic seducer who says "I will never give a dime to any woman" and that will turn off a lot of women, so he might have a string of casual relationships with women who don't ever expect more than just "dick and conversation". Or you might have a strong provider who provides a house, food, cars, etc. to a wife and children, and has a long term relationship with her. Or you might have someone who has as more casual relationship with a younger woman and provides her with gifts and experiences. Or you might have a man paying a flat fee for a sexual encounter (prostitute) and nothing more. All of these men are in relationships with women. Some of them are providing resources to varying degrees, and the hardcore "won't pay a dime" man is providing his time and energy and nothing more, to a woman who is OK with that.

You're throwing my question back instead of answering. I didn't say it wasn't a spectrum I asked where you drew the line. Do you draw a hard line anywhere for a value exchange that is not a seduction?

 

[Zoro]

If you buy a house and move into it with your wife is it prostitution?

It is if your "wife" only cares about your money, and you bought her sex and "affections".

In a real relationship, ideally there is mutual respect, attraction, and affection. You said you want a relationship earlier in this thread. Well since we're talking definitions, I define a real relationship as having those things, because those things will result in a fulfilling relationship that is enjoyable. What is your definition of a relationship?

You don't even have to weigh a relationship like that against prostitution, I've had sex with women where the vibe was just off and there was no connection. The sex was not enjoyable even though she was hot. Can't imagine paying for crappy sex with hot women. Mind as well jerk off to porn.

As for buying a house for you wife... Well at that point, that woman has earned her place in my life. She has value to me beyond her great body, and I have value to her beyond my big d... I mean money. The house is just to facilitate the life we are desiring to build together.

And besides, what's the point. Game is possible. Game is fun. Game is rewarding.

 

[Rain]

Would the OP benefit by changing how he spends his money?
Instead of paying prostitutes/sugar etc and sleeping with them, negotiate a far far lower rate, DON'T sleep with them, and then pay two of them to hangout with him for 4hrs while he does daygame in a shopping mall? They wouldn't even have to be prostitutes, just pay two women off craigslist or whatever.

Then he would have preselection for 4hrs with two women. He could goto a cafe for an hr, then wander around kmart. Even go into a womans clothing store with these two women.

I don't know if he would want to cold approach:
A) with the two women by his side or
B) tell the two women to stay 10ft away and points them out and then they wave to both him and the new woman he just started talking to

The reason I suggested two women, and not one, was because one woman might come accross as more boyfriend/girlfriend to the onlooker. But for the sake of preselection, I do not know if two would be better or worse than one.

I don't know if this idea would work.

 

[Starboy]

Tbh if I was the op it would be easier to castrate myself. 1k to castrate a month is much cheaper than seducing girls with a 10k monthly allowance. Or having to seduce women by conquering villages and empires like Genghis Khan.

 

[Zoro]

Then he would have preselection for 4hrs with two women.

He should try and target girls who look like sugarbabies, so then he can then pick up those sugarbabies with game, using sugarbabies for preselection. It's sugarbabe inception.

Then once the original paid sugarbabes see him hitting it off with girls who genuinely like him, they will get jealous so he can start sleeping with the original paid sugarbabes for free.

Genius

I don't know if this idea would work.

Sorry I couldn't resist. But to answer your question seriously, I don't think it'd be worth it or very effective, and I think you'd have to know some game already to create a useful facade of this artificial preselection.

 

[ulrich]

Sorry I couldn't resist. But to answer your question seriously, I don't think it'd be worth it or very effective, and I think you'd have to know some game already to create a useful facade of this artificial preselection.

Not to mention that you are opening yourself to a couple of hours of sugar babies trying to upsell themselves.

“Oh buy this for me, baby”
“If you pay extra, I will give you a prize”

When you want to quit drugs, you don’t hang out with the dealer.

 

[Rain]

You guys lol. I can see the funny side but its not what I meant lol.

When I said cold approach, just normal cold approach, no "sugar" no paying to the woman you're trying to cold approach. In case someone doesn't get the joke(s) above from the other poster(s)

Maybe I should have asked my question in its own thread lol.

 

[Chase]

Careful, @ph40. You'll twist yourself into a pretzel with this kind of logic:

So anything that is used to persuade or induce someone to have sexual intercourse is seduction. That can be smooth talking, that can be gift-giving, that can be violence.

Ghenghis Khan and his band of mauraders sack a village and round up the most beautiful women in town. Essentially, he will tell them that he wants this female and that female in his camp that night. Are they going to refuse? No. Is there an implied threat of violence? Yes. But it doesn't matter because women RESPOND to this display of power and authority instinctually. They won't even think TWICE about betraying the men they grew up with to sleep with this invader.

All they have to see is the men of their village impaled on swords all around them to know, that these men who invaded their village are the superior, dominant men. This is a display of value, or power, of the ultimate kind, that a PUA living in the 21st century cannnot possibly ever show.

If everything's seduction, then nothing is.

If me pointing a shotgun at a girl who finds me repulsive and terrifying, telling her "Strip down and spread your legs, baby!" and her doing it out of fear for her life is 'seduction', the word 'seduction' becomes so hopelessly garbled in meaning as to be worthless.

Confucius defines the redefinition and mis-definition of words as one of the core evils plaguing society's ability to function correctly.

When the definitions of words have become too garbled/misused, "the people become unable to tell hand from foot", Confucius says.

So let's be abundantly clear about how we define the word 'seduction' on THIS forum, before I close this thread:

• Seduction is NOT paying a woman with gifts or cash to have sex with her
• Seduction is NOT implying physical violence if a woman does not have sex with you to threaten her into compliance
• Seduction is NOT plying a woman with drugs or alcohol until she's so wasted she agrees to have sex with whoever asks her for it

None of these are 'seduction' as we use it here (or, I think, as anyone uses it anywhere).

Here's how we define seduction:

Taking skillful actions (thus the forum name, Skilled Seducer) that cause a woman to become romantically and sexually attracted to you, to the point of falling into bed with you.

Seduction wins the MIND of the woman, which you do not do by paying her, threatening her, or drugging her.

Pay a woman to sleep with her and you have not won her mind. Threaten her to bed with you and you have not won her mind. Drug her into bed with you and you have not won her mind. She is not seduced.

Seduction is a mental process whereby the seducer engenders feelings of desire and lust in the seduced that lead to the seduced taking a desired action. You cannot skip the engendering of feelings of desire and lust and claim that simply because someone took the desired action "there, that means she's seduced!"

Genghis Khan was a conqueror. That is an attractive characteristic. Many of the women he bedded may have been seduced by his power. But I guarantee he bedded plenty who were not seduced but simply complied to not be executed.

This is a critical distinction to make:

A woman may go to bed with a man because he seduced her (i.e., won her mind with feelings of carnal desire and lust).

If she goes to bed with him for some other reason (e.g., payment, threats, incapacitation, etc.), well, yes, they still had sex... but it was not a seduction. It was something else.

Chase