Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> This is the debut Seduction posting from my new OFFICIAL blog. It's about
> FINANCIAL SLUTS, those men who talk about "gaming" women but really just
> slip them money in order to get laid.
This, of course, is simply your interpretation of events. I've yet to
see any proof. I gamed a woman three days ago and you have absolutely
no way of knowing how I did it. You can suggest that I paid for her
attentions, but that would only be your opinion. I've noticed that you
continue to ignore the arguments that Style and Mystery had success
with women long before they had the type of money they have now.
> Just as sexually slutty behavior harms women sexually, by giving it up too
> easily to men, financially slutty behavior harms men for the same reason.
> If you are a financial slut, make no mistake, that is your game, and because
> it's an expensive game to play, that is why you think money is part of game
> and a necessary seduction tool.
Provided, of course, that you have accurately predicted what I, or
anyone else here, thinks.
> Because of financial sluts, it's also wise for men who aren't rich not to do
> anything for free for anyone, since that results in less money, leaving more
> in the hands of the financial sluts. It's one thing to be nice; quite
> another to sabotage one's own sex life and that of his fellow men.
I don't care one bit for my fellow man's sex life. If you aren't a
personal friend of mine,or a relative, you're on your own. And you'd
better be a close friend or a relative I like. I don't ask tall men to
slouch so they'll have no advantage over me. I don't ask men who are
more muscular to stop eating or working out. I certainly not going to
ask a man with money to stop spending it just because I'm not in his
income bracket. I take what I have into the "social marketplace" and
do my best with it. I'm happy with my outcome, so it must be working.
> Here's the post. Most of my new stuff will be appearing on my blog instead
> of here, due to the anonymous cockroaches who make having any type of
> meaningful discussion here almost impossible.
> Are You A FINANCIAL SLUT?
> Over the past ten years, as I've written and published several books on
> seduction, books like the ones discussed in "The Game" by Neil Strauss, I
> have contemplated the role of money in seduction. Generally, the focus on
> this has been restricted to men who equate getting rich with getting laid by
> hotties, and with good reason: rich men DO get laid. Whether or not you
> approve of sex-for-moeny exchanges (direct or indirect) is not the issue
> here, however. Instead, I'm focusing on a cancer that has infested the
> mating game since its inception, namely when men spend money in the hope of
> getting laid but do not get laid as a result. The men who do this are what
> I call FINANCIAL SLUTS, and they are essentially traitors to their gender
> who deserve to be ostracized and treated like the adversaries they are.
So, since you can't compete with them on that level, they are
adversaries? If you want money, make money. I'm not rich, but I
support myself at a comfortable level. Why? Because I work! And, as
I earn my money honestly, I'm free to spend it as I like. Hell, if I
made it dishonestly I'd still have the right to spend it as I liked.
I'm not saying I'd throw money at women, but, if I did, I wouldn't
listen to any noise about it from someone who just can't bother to try
to compete.
> Financially slutty men are everywhere, and they cause the mating game to be
> more expensive than it should be, because they give away the store to hot
> women who would otherwise have to provide a fair value to the market.
> Instead, we get rich men who spend large amounts of money on hot women, do
> not get laid,
Those men are called DUMBASSES. They harm no one but themselves.
raise the price for other men to get laid, and, by making the
> hot women more independent, totally eliminate any incentive for hot women to
> put out. The ripple effect created by financial sluts goes well beyond just
> getting sex, and trickles down into almost every aspect of entertainment and
> our social life.
>
> UGLY HOOKERS
>
> Ever wonder why hookers are generally not very pretty? That's because if
> they were hot, they wouldn't have to put out to make a good living as a
> stripper. This is not the case in poor countries, where the women lack
> money to an extent where not putting out costs them, and they make money by
> charging rates that are high enough to earn them a good living (in their
> country) while making it worthwhile for wealthy tourists to make the trek to
> see them. In Costa Rica, for example, a man can get himself a beauty queen
> for the night for as little as $100; in America, she might not even have to
> strip. The reason you have ugly hookers in America is that financially
> slutty men remove all incentive for hot women to turn to prostitution,
> resulting in ugly, overpriced prostitutes.
Are you actually making the argument that we should all work harder to
drive more pretty women into prostitution? Maybe the reason many
hookers are ugly is because attractive women don't have to become
hookers because they are attractive AND SMART AND AMBITIOUS and have
more confidence that there are other career paths open to them. Not, as
you suggest because of their physical assets, but because of their
intelligence and willingness to work hard. Prostitution is a
notoriously un-glamourous business. I can see why any woman might wish
to avoid it as a vocation. Many prostitutes come from broken homes and
suffered abuse at the hands of male caregivers. Others have drug
problems and have to hook to pay for their habits. To reduce it to a
matter of being feted by rich men is to ignore a societal reality.
> PLAIN JANE STRIPPERS
>
> The destruction wrought by financial sluts does not end with prostitution.
> Our strippers are also uglier than they are in poorer or even other
> countries because financially slutty men give money to women who don't even
> strip, either in "dating" (where men pay for everything), or in the
> employment market, where women can earn more money working as hired eye
> candy in a law office than they would stripping in a club, and they can do
> so "respectably."
>
> So what we have is that by paying hot women to strip and not have sex, we
> create ugly, overpriced prostitutes,
Most of us know that a tip to a dancer in a club does not guarantee
anything but a "thank you." Strip clubs aren't whorehouses. If you
want a guarantee of getting laid, spend your money at a whorehouse. Of
course, according to you, too many prostituteds are too ugly to have
sex with. What a conundrum.
>and by paying hot women to work regular
> jobs instead of stripping, we create ugly (or plain), overpriced strippers.
So then, no attractive woman in America is being paid for simply being
good at her job? Every attractive woman in the country is getting paid
for her looks, not her skills? And, I suppose any man who would tell
you that the women he works with, even though they are attractive, also
happen to be incredibly skilled, you'd say that man was simply being
led around by his penis and can't see how unskilled and unqualified
those women are.
This reminds me of the frenzy that surrounded the notion, quite some
years back, that there was a World-Wide Satanic Conspiracy going on.
After all, people were disappearing from cities across the globe and
there were many unsolved murders. Could this not be the work of a
WWSC? And, if a logical person offered an argument that the size of
this conspiracy would make it impossible for it to stay hidden, if he
pointed out that many of those supposedly "unsolved" murders had
actually been solved and that many of the deceased died in back-alley
crap games and bar brawls and many of those who "disappeared had been
found in rescue missions and drug hospices, if they pointed out that no
unassailable evidence of such a WWSC existed and that even cops and
other law enforcement officials dercried the existence of any such
WWSC, they were always met with the same pat answers:
*The consiracy stays hidden because forces in the government were
working with the satanists to help obscure their tracks.
* Most of those murdered in seemingly mundane ways were really victims
of the conspiracy. Their deaths were made to look normal.
*The cops had evidence, but were covering it up.
The point being, if you start off with a presupposed notion (no
attractive women deserve their jobs. They're all just hired to be "eye
candy"), you can always cobble up a preposterous way to rationalize
any argument against it. The only problem is that often the
rationalizations have no more foundation in fact than the original
assertion.
By the way, there was no WWSC.
> That $20 you paid for a lapdance may not seem significant to you, but it is
> one hair on the head of the creature that destroys the sexual marketplace
> for men who are not wealthy,
Plenty of men who aren't wealthy are still getting laid.
Plenty of men who aren't tall are still getting laid.
Plenty of men who aren't bodybuilders are still getting laid.
Accountants get laid.
Teachers get laid.
And on, and on...
just as the marriage market was destroyed for
> women who refused to have sex before marriage by those who chose to instead.
> Men will not buy the cow when they are getting the milk for free, and women
> will not milk the cow if they are getting the money without having to
> provide the milk.
You're right. There is absolutely no other cause for the decline in
the marriage rate than increased promiscuity. It has nothing to do
with the changing role of women in the workplace and the opportunities
they now have. That couldn't be the reason why more women are putting
off getting married. It couldn't be the changing attitude of the
general population as regards what defines marriage in this new age.
I'll be the first to agree that SOME of the decline might have been
caused by women being more willing to copulate prior to marriage, but I
know it's not the only, or quite likely, major cause.
> It would be one thing if all this money that were being given to women by
> men resulted in sex.
It would be one thing... prostitution... with ugly hookers.
>There's nothing wrong with a guy using his money to
> get a sure thing;
So then, you have no beef as long as it's a sure thing? How upstanding
of you.
>there IS something wrong, however, with him using his
> money to get teased, not get laid, and in the process, "fund the bitchiness"
> of the woman who teased him.
I was in Vegas, recently. You know what? They don't gurantee I'll get
a return on my money at the blackjack table. It's my money and I fully
realize that putting it down confers no extra luck upon me. Even
playng by the book has led to losses at the table. Why would
attempting to use money to secure sex with anyone but a prostitute be
any less risky?
>Hot women have become so incredibly stuck up
> in the past 20 years because being that way is not unprofitable. A hottie
> can be rude to every man but the one or two financial sluts who support her:
> her corporate sugar daddy (boss), who pays her because he wants eye candy in
> his office while he works,
Again, this is simply your interpretation of what her boss
thinks/wants. In reality, you have no way of knowing. And please,
don't start in with the whole "beauty premium" rag. One study does not
apply to every person in the business world. I won't even entertain
such an argument.
and any number of men in her personal and social
> life, all providing more and more resources to her, which allows her to
> offer nothing in return and not suffer for doing so.
Again, dumbasses. They have and they shall ever be. They do not
affect my game.
> The "seduction community" that Neil Strauss writes of has been overrun by
> financial sluts. When it began, the "community" methods were not so well
> known, and men who used them stood out to the point that money seemed almost
> not to matter. If this was ever the case, howevewr, it no longer is, as
> wealthy men are now getting "game" as easily as their more motivated
> competitors. Part of why the poor PUA could defeat the wealthy AFC was that
> the AFC wasn't aware of his competition; this is no longer the case.
> Because of this, several seduction gurus began adding new terminology, like
> "inner game" and "lifestyle," and tried to pass these concepts off as if
> they were part of "game." Finally, they just came out and said it: MONEY IS
> PART OF GAME.
I'll need to see a link to that admission. Not that it would change a
thing. Money is part of game. So is height. So is intelligence.
"Part of game" is not the whole game. Men compensate for what they
don't have with what they do. I don't have height. I do have a good
sense of humor. You'd be surprised how often that works for me.
And really, so what if a women is attracted to a guy primarily because
of his wealth? How is that any less shallow than being attracted to
him primarily because of his height? But you have height, don't you?
Seems to me you're just complaining about not having what the rich guys
have. Do you think they waste time complaining about what you've got
that they don't? Probably not. They're probably too busy getting
laid.
How convenient that they said this only *after* they had made
> tons of moeny teaching men that they didn't need money to have game. Now,
> you have many seduction gurus whose only "game" consists of the money they
> make as gurus, and they still try to claim money does not matter with women,
> when it is clear that it does.
Who says this? Link please.
>One guru has even gone from telling men not
> to spend on women to telling them to pay for dates and buy drinks. Every
> time he does this, however, he is making it more expensive for me, you, and
> everyone else to get laid.
Who is this again? Where's that cite?
> The financial slut is a man who is not a friend to other men;
For a guy who trumpets how he teaches women to spot pick ups, you would
seem to be an unlikely spokesperson for the "brotherhood" of men trying
to get laid. Think about that the next time you're hauling your sheaf
of computer printouts down to the strip club so you can show the girls
what other guys are pulling on them. Thank God you're around for them.
Surely no dancer could EVER spot a PUA.
he is a man
> who has a financial advantage over you in the dating game (unless you are a
> financial slut yourself), and won't hesitate to use that advantage to ensure
> that he gets laid by the women you want and you do not.
How can he "ensure" getting laid when earlier you said that rich men
were spending and NOT getting laid? Obviously, there is no way to be
sure, even with money... except with ugly hookers. At any rate, if
he could "ensure" getting laid, that would make it a "sure thing." I
point you to your ealier statement:
>There's nothing wrong with a guy using his money to
> get a sure thing;
My, my, we seem to have a contradiction here. You just crippled your
whole argument. Well, actually I did. You just provided the lead
pipe.
>If confronted on
> his behavior, he will deny it, and you can be sure the women on his
> "payroll" will also deny it, so there is very little you can do to stop this
> process.
If it were me I wouldn't deny it and would mock you for your
ineffective jealousy. Then I'd go home and have sex with my companion,
not giving a damn about whether she was into me for my money. Maybe
I'm only into her for the sex. Hey, that would make her a SEX SLUT!
And... I'm okay with that.
> WHAT YOU CAN DO
>
> You cannot change women, and women will always respond to wealthy men. You
> can, of course, challenge the women by showing what money can get you, and
> unless they want to match it, that is "proof" that women are golddiggers
Or, she could ignore your buzzing in her ear and go be with the rich
guy who isn't annoying her. You seem to think that women have no
choice but to respond to your "challenges." I assure you, they have a
myriad of choices. No woman has to prove anything to you, or me, or
any other man, for that matter.
> (otherwise, the sexual fantasy you could fill on demand with $500 would be
> just as easy to fill without it). Some "challenge fox" types (see my book)
> might go on a mission to prove you wrong, and you'll get laid in the
> process.
I'm certain this cunning stratagem works without fail.
> Those who can't will take offense at you indirectly calling them
> golddiggers, but that is to be expected, since they usually are.
Or, they've simply chosen not to play your game. If I was a women, I
wouldn't. I mean, really, who are you in the scheme of my life that I
should have to prove anything to you?
> The focus of the war against financial sluttery, however, starts with the
> men who are financial sluts, the men who give away the store and "fund the
> bitchiness" of these hotties. Here is how to put a stop to that. If enough
> men stop wasting money on hotties (money for actual sex is not wasted; money
> for false hope of sex is), then the prices of adult entertainment would be
> reduced, and the quality of the women would increase.
Yes, and I'm sure the quality of strippers would go up as the money
went down. That's ENTIRELY logical.
Before this will ever
> happen, however, men who are not financial sluts need to begin exerting
> social pressure on those who are. You owe nothing to a financial slut,
> because he surely doesn't care if his money hurts your game with women.
Nor should he. Learn to win with the cards you're dealt. Professional
poker players walk away with the pot on the strength of a lousy hand
well-played all the time (I'm using the card-playing references in
deference to your fondness for card-related examples).
>
> Here is how to combat a financial slut:
>
> 1. Don't tip strippers. Some "game" advice is to do this to make the
> stripper more attractive to you. That is not the goal here. The goal is to
> turn her into a prostitute,
How noble. How have you not won the Nobel Prize for all of your fine
work on behalf of humanity? What a worthwhile goal, turning someone
into a prostitute. Please tell me this is some Johnathan Swift-ian
satire in which you're indulging.
>which of course won't happen,
Oh drat! Curses, foiled again!
>but if enough men
> do this, the stripper will wonder if maybe her gravy train is crashing and
> start treating those who still spend on her with more respect. Just as men
> don't respect sexual sluts, strippers have absolutely no respect for the
> customers or "regulars" or "whales" who spend thousands on them. If you
> really want to confound a stripper, remind her that you can pay for sex in
> other countries, but you understand that the laws in this country are such
> that she cannot offer you that, so there's nothing you can do.
That should raise her respect level. What girl wouldn't dream of
making love to so charming a man?
> 2. Don't patronize businesses who use "hired guns." The term "hired gun"
> was created by Mystery, and was written about in "The Game." It refers to a
> woman who is hired, usually by a retail establishment, to attract male
> customers, who seem to think that by showering the hired gun with unearned
> money that they might get a better chance with her. All this does, of
> course, is further empower her not to have sex (since she doesn't need it to
> trade for resources), while depleting the resources of the financial slut,
> and by making every man's money less valuable to her. This harms all men.
So, Hooters would be out, as would cocktail lounges and most of the
Vegas Strip casinos. None of those places have promised me I'll get
laid by their employees. If I'm throwing away good money trying to get
a Hooters girl to fornicate with me, I'm a bit of an asshole. By the
way, I have been with a few Hooter's girls. Didn't cost me more than
the price of a plate of wings. I guess I could've spent that money
with the fat, pimply-faced counter guy at KFC, but he probably would
not have responded as well to my charms. Thank God.
>
> 3. Don't hire eye candy. You think that hot secretary you hired is going
> to put out? Your better bet would have been NOT to hire her, because then
> she had something to gain by doing so. Hire her as a temp, with a
> "possibility" of a long-term job, enough so that you can check her out
> without committing to a fulltime gig. Don't make a move on her, just don't
> pay her or reward her until you get what you want. Note that I am NOT
> endorsing sexual harassment here,
What you postulate is a covert "quid-pro-quo" situation, so you are
indeed endorsing sexual harrassment. She doesn't get the job, long
term, unless she puts out. That is the cornerstone of sexual
harrassment. You just think you'vefound a clever way to do it. You
haven't. Any employer who would take your advice deserves the lawsuits
to come.
> 4. Ridicule wealthy men for spending on women. The wealthy financial slut
> is an enemy to other men. Just as we spent Russia into bankruptcy with the
> arms buildup in the 1980s, thus winning the cold war, these men can spend
> you into bankruptcy by purchasing the attention of a hottie. If you don't
> call him out for this behavior, and call women out for letting herself be
> bought by it, then you are letting both parties off without penalty for
> harming your chances of getting laid. A man who does not fight back when
> his sex supply is plundered simply does not deserve to get laid. A man who
> is a financial slut should understand that since he's made money part of
> "game" he should not expect anything free from me, including my time or any
> favors, since those are worth money and giving money to a financial slut
> reduces my economic desirability to women.
And I'm sure so many rich men value the time and favors of someone
who's whining about how they spend their money.
> 5. NO COVER CHARGES!! Hotties don't pay to get into bars and clubs much,
> and neither should you. Every time you pay a $20 cover charge to walk into
> a building where the hotties are paying NOTHING to enter, you are behaving
> like a FINANCIAL SLUT.
Don't care about paying a cover charge. I work. I can afford twenty
dollars. Those who can't I wouldn't want to party with, most likely.
I don't do my thing in bars, anyway, so none of that matters. The
clubs don't charge cover charges in order to get women to come in. As
anyone who has ever worked in the club industry knows, where women
congregate, men will surely come. Yes, we pay to get into clubs.
Women pay more for haircuts and dry cleaning. The world isn't always
fair.
> 6. Get your money's worth! Be a financial slut in a poor country, not a
> rich one. Instead of dropping a load of cash in an American strip club, fly
> somewhere that your money goes much farther, and you'll recover the cost of
> the trip in no time flat. A VIP room with a stripper in New York City can
> run up to $1,000 an hour, and for that price, you could get round-trip
> airfare to Costa Rica, two nights in a hotel, and a hooker in your room both
> nights who is equally attractive to the NYC stripper. You can also use this
> rule as leverage with American women, who can either lower their financial
> requirements or prices, or learn to live without your money. Just because
> other men choose to be stupid, you don't have to, and since women like smart
> men, they are giving that up when they chase the money held by a dumb one.
> It never hurts to remind them of that.
If you really were oppossed to this on principal you would not advocate
practicing it anywhere. So, basically, you're just tired of competing
with men who are better off than you, in America. Sad, really. We've
finally come to the true crux of the matter.
>
> BOTTOM LINE: if you are a financial slut, I don't want to know you or talk
> to you. If you are a woman who rewards financial sluts, don't be surprised
> if men think you are a golddigging whore, because you are acting like one.
> If you are a woman who expects me to empty my wallet just because the other
> men in your life are financial sluts, go spend your time with them and go
> get your money from them, because I have absolutely no use for you at that
> price. If you are hired eye candy, you are owned by your boss, and any man
> dumb enough to patronize the restaurant you work at and empower you
> financially for the opportunity to hit on you is the one you should be
> talking to, since you seem to value his money more than you value me or my
> brain. No loss there.
>
> Women accumulate a staggering amount of money, almost six figures annually
> per hottie, from the assortment of financial sluts in their lives.
Can I see the raw data on that statement? Really, I'd like to know
where you got that figure. You put it down as if it is fact. if it
is, you should be able to point me towards the evidence. Can you?
>They force the rest of us men to deal with these pathetic creatures, who of
> course see us as a threat because we are getting her attention without
> having to pay for it. Date a hired gun from a law office, and watch her
> boss abuse her when he learns you are getting laid by her instead of him.
> Game a stripper and fuck her without having to tip her, and watch the men in
> her club hate you for beating the system (you are also paying to get these
> men laid every time you tip dancers). Patronize a retail business for a
> chance to talk to the counter babe and you've made her financially
> independent rather than someone who has to do "anything" for money.
Right, because they get a commission for each guy that buys a stick of
gum or a slurpee while he flirts with her. Oh wait, that's not right.
She gets the same pay whether it's a good day or a slow day. Isn't
that true? You know it is. I don't want someone to sleep with me
because she has to do "anything" for money. Do you?! Way to aim high.
> It's time men stopped destroying ourselves as a gender. Let's put an end to
> financial sluttery!!
Yeah, getting right on that!
I remain,
The Gentleman
