Steve sent me an excellent link called Bottle Service: America’s Nightlife Nightmare

In the 2000’s we have seen a corporatization of nightclubs. Now when you go to a nighclub everyone is some kind of corporate jerkoff. Interesting people are no longer found in Nightclubs. The artists, writers, intellectuals, underground DJ’s etc have been effectively priced out of the nightclub with bottle service. The only people that can afford it are the Investment bankers, real estate types, and Celebs (and of course, underworld figures). That is why when you walk into a club you see so many striped shirts that you think you are seeing some kind of 3-D optical illusion. The funny thing is that these are the type of guys who would have never gotten into a club in the old days (nights) when you were picked out because of how you looked, dressed, if you had connections, or by reputation. So today, clubs are full of people that normally would have been standing in line in nights gone by.

Go read the whole thing.

I was daydreaming the other week about what I would do if I pulled $20,000 a month. I fantasized about going to the hottest DC club of the moment and dropping a grand on two bottles of Grey Goose. I’d invite my friends and we’d drink and one of these glamorous DC girls would come by my table and flirt with me and I’d pour her a super strong one. Then maybe I’d get laid after taking her out to dinner and she may even return my calls for a second performance and a meaningful relationship. It would be all be so real and beautiful.

But you know what? I couldn’t look at my face in the mirror if I had a cost per notch in the four digits. Shit, even three digits. My cost per notch this year is… I swear to God… under twenty bucks. When you know the real value of pussy it makes absolutely no sense to overpay. It’s like taking your car to the dealership for repairs.

If I was rich the only different thing I’d do is step up from rail vodka to Absolut. Like anyone can tell the difference between expensive vodkas once they’re mixed with juice anyway.

• Grimiest Bar In DC
• Valparaiso, Chile
• Girls Don’t Care About Their Vagina
• Player Or Poseur?

I dont know whats worse, you talking about nightclubs being corporate and getting rid of the fun people or you whoring your site out to every single person with a checkbook. your site has changed a ton and I hope your rich because of it, if not go back to the old Roosh.

If I had that much money, I’d pay the “two girls, one cup” girls to perform live in front of me, then I’d get all my friends to watch it live and scream during the performance, “yeah son, I told you that shit was real!!!!!!!”

Yeah I’m a sick son of a bitch.

My friends and I get tables relatively frequently. It’s not really for the hoes (trust me, the bottles don’t get you those); it’s usually out of convenience. I’m sort of ashamed to admit that I enjoy the atmosphere/music at places like Josephines and Fly, but when I go I don’t want the hassle of trying to convince an asshole bouncer to let me in and trying to get a drink from an inattentive bartender. It’s less stressful to just drop a credit card at the door.

Angelo De La Vega’s last blog post: The Little Prince of Game.

“If I was rich the only different thing I’d do is step up from rail vodka to Absolut. Like anyone can tell the difference between expensive vodkas once they’re mixed with juice anyway.”

Haha, you know some people buy the expensive vodkas to drink straight because they taste good. Anyone mixing Goose with OJ is a little pathetic.

I think you’ve missed the mark on both sides. If you’re truly interested in finding the sweet, feminine, nurturing, “good-wife-material” woman you so often describe, you’re not likely to attract her with either $500 bottles of liquor or bargain-basement pump and dump strategies.

In addition to simply letting a couple get to know each other, old school dating (in which each person made efforts to please and charm the other) was a way for both people to make a good faith demonstration of what a good partner they’d be. Why should a girl put much effort into being beautiful, sweet, attentive and nurturing if you’re just aiming to sleep with her once or twice while expending the least possible effort yourself?

And I won’t buy the “It’ll be worth it to her because I’m a sex god” line. I have no info on whether you are or you’re not, but a few memories of great sex with no respect, affection, or attachment is not of much value to most of those sweet, traditional girls.

You’ve got to bring quality to attract and keep quality.

This post gave me a flashback to hanging out at K-Street and watching the assholes around me…ugh, disgusting.

Nice work on the CPN, as you’ve mentioned, there is a huge market for the poor eclectic hobo type to get laid. I love it.

Jack Goes Forth’s last blog post: Gamblin’ Man.

Classic Roosh.

I am an avid reader of your site and also The G Manifesto.

Its kind of funny, he seems a little like you except maybe older and with a little more money.

either way. I hate bottle Service.

Shouldn’t you count the value of your time as well? That notch wasn’t free if you spent 10 hours getting in her pants. I value my time at ~$20/hr for work that is fun.

I value my time at $500 an hour (about a third of what a hot exotic dancer makes….and more than a top flight lawyer).

One technique I use is to spend some dough on a girl the first time, lets say $200.

Then the next time I bang her, take her for a walk in the park or something and spend zero cash.

Already, I have lowered my cost per bang to $100!

“was a way for both people to make a good faith demonstration of what a good partner they’d be. Why should a girl put much effort into being beautiful, sweet, attentive and nurturing if you’re just aiming to sleep with her once or twice while expending the least possible effort yourself?”

I’ve never met a girl who tried to be any of those things. Where do they live?

“If I was rich the only different thing I’d do is step up from rail vodka to Absolut. Like anyone can tell the difference between expensive vodkas once they’re mixed with juice anyway.”

Some people order expensive vodka to drink straight because it tastes good. Anyone who is mixing Ciroc with OJ is pathetic.

Whoa tigers… the amount you spend on a girl to get her in bed has nothing to do with her “quality”. Beta male limiting belief.

In fact, you can argue its’ cheaper to get her in bed the more successful and intelligent she is (as if those are desirable traits.. not saying that). she has money so she doesn’t need you to spend it on her.

I don’t care about guys who gets tables. In their money and they can do what they want.. BUT an atmosphere of table service in a club doesn’t bring the best out of people and doesn’t produce a friendly environment of approachable women if you aren’t willing to drop that sort of cash. it’s pointless to go to a table service place unless you’re buying a table. you’re a second class citizen

Yeah to reiterate Rigoberto’s sentiment on “Why should a girl put much effort into being beautiful, sweet, attentive and nurturing if you’re just aiming to sleep with her once or twice while expending the least possible effort yourself?” — have any of us men even seen a woman who did these things? I sure haven’t, and I’m been around for a long time…

The whole reason the game exists is because women do NOT put in any nurturing effort whatsoever - so we must use them for the lowest common denominator (sex).

I want to puke my guts out every time I walk by that K Street club. Nothing but d-bags galore outside of that place, I can only imagine the inside. Plus, who wants to party on K street? YEAH LIVIN IT UP WITH MY LOBBYIST HOMIES WOOOO

Ok a lesson for the naive comments on this post….anyone who says its pointless to mix Chirok, Belvedere with OJ or Grey Goose (In reality GG is not the best Vodka, while they claim its French, you will never find it in France, it was made strictly for US market) …..dont know shit about vodka…….the difference is how you feel in the morning and most importantly 10 years from now….the cheap, plastic bottle vodka is not distilled well enough or enough times (its all about level of purity) so your fucken liver has to work overtime to filter it……you might or might not have a crazy hangover in the morning…….but in about 10 years when you don’t understand why you need a liver transplant you will remember the cheap shit you drank every weekend with that fake me out OJ/piss juice.

-real talk

Um, Eugenius you are lit kid.

You don’t mix top-shelf vodka with orange juice. You only use mixers like OJ and Cran to mask poor quality vodka. You drink top shelf straight or with soda water…Just sayin’

Screwdrivers are for brunch.

Wow you know that GG is well marketed…kudos.

Thank you Mr. Kent. I have not laughed that hard in a long time.

Dont go clubbing if you dont like what you see there…its that simple. Keep hitting up shitty bars in Amo and Dupont filled with boring white people instead of going to clubs that play international house music and attract an international crowd.

K street is a bad bad example, even among clubs heads that place is a joke

Hmm I don’t really find clubs to be full of DC lawyer-lobbyist types, trust fund babies or people who actually have money; you are more likely to find those types at bars in Georgetown, on U Street or in Arlington than in any shady poser wannabe club.

That picture is hillarious. I think those two clowns sell rugs at the Eastern Market flea market on saturdays…..

filled with boring white people instead of going to clubs that play international house music and attract an international crowd.

You’re an international fag.

agnostic’s last blog post: Facebook game.

#16 is another example of a naive idiot my comment applies to……”a lit kid”….wow you really told me there…

You’ve never mixed top shelf with anything except for soda water? …your life must be really exciting….

Here is a tip - next time pay an extra dollar and tell the bartender to pour your sorry ass some premium shit, maybe you’ll live longer…… no wait I take that back instead tell her you want fake OJ with the cheapest shit they got (one less fuckface in the world).

-real talk

Eugenius are you retarded or something? Where is anyone saying don’t buy premium? They’re saying if you buy premium don’t mix it.

jeez so much bickering over such a silly topic! Just to throw my view into the ring, I have to say I am a die hard Ketel One drinker. Its a quality vodka that minimizes the hang over but isn’t as pretentious as Grey Goose. Ketel one and soda with a splash of grapefruit or pineapple– fantastic!

Eugenius - you seriously think that drinking top shelf liquor will make you live longer? That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. By the way, I’m a doctor - I know what I’m talking about when it comes to liver toxicity.

To back up Eugenius up there…here’s the story of how Grey Goose was “invented” by a branding professional: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/biz/features/10816/

It’s an old story, but for those who haven’t seen it, it’s pretty eye-opening to see how a not-particularly special vodka became viewed as an elite brand.

I love ya Roosh, but I’m going to have to call you out here. I used to think the same as you, but I’ve seen the light. I’ll give you my perspective as a guy living in L.A. (D.C. might be different, but I suspect it’s more similar than not).

Myth #1: Places where people are dressed nicely, with long lines, and that have expensive bottle service suck.

Truth: On average, these places are FAR better than your “average” club. Why? Because they allow the most attractive women in first, and they limit the number of guys who get in.

Let me repeat: LOTS of attractive women and far fewer guys than women. There are very few other scenarios in which this is true.

And let’s keep it real - most women at your “typical” club are not particularly attractive (in comparison to a top table service club) and there are almost always tons more guys than girls, including more than a few wanna-be gangsters.

Myth #2: You have to spend a ton of money to sleep with these girls. 4 figures to sleep with someone? I agree, that is beyond insane. But LOW 3 figures (I’m talking starts with a one and middle digit less than five) is borderline acceptable for a VERY great girl.

Anyway, when you buy bottle service with your buddies at a place like this, I truly believe that FUN is priority 1a. and women is priority 1b (let’s keep it real - you’re there for chicks too).

But let’s end this lie that expensive clubs suck - - they don’t. It’s like saying a Porche 911 sucks because you can’t afford one.

Oh and btw, usually rather than order bottle service at these places, I tip large (read: bribe the guy/gal with The List) and pay at the bar. Often cheaper.

27 - InterestedParty

Low three figures for a “VERY great girl”!!!!! That’s absurd!!!!!

I do agree with Roosh on this one. The women lusting after guys with bottle service are nothing but money grubbing whores. Yes, they might put out for money, but that’s all they’re out for. They are the worst kind of users.

At least women found in dive bars will put out with some sort of enthusiasm and lust for the cock (and not the money behind the cock). Such girls are more prize-worthy because they aren’t nearly as mentally ill.

Spending big bucks is fun but that’s the scary part you can almost spend any amount of money and it doesn’t take long. To save a lot of money is hard to get rid of it easy. Spent 25k in 14 days on vacation unreal.

I always can tell rail vodka the day after, from my pounding headache. Also if your in VIP, only the most shallow girls will accept an invitation there, all the normal ones, realize it’s an invitation to screw! Not the best venus flytrap in the world.

Rigoberto (10) & Pancake Boy (13)

I’m sorry to hear that you haven’t come across any pretty, sweet, nurturing girls. I grew up not far from here & have lived close-in to DC for the last 7 years, and expressing those qualities has basically always been my dating MO. It’s worked well for me - except for a brief, painful learning experience with a “player” type, I’ve consistently had happy relationships with wonderful men.

I know women like me are out there - I have lots of friends who are nurturing, devoted girlfriends and wives, and my younger brother and his buddies have brought home some amazingly lovely girlfriends.

So it begs and interesting chicken-or-egg question. Are you not finding these women because they’re really not there, or are you not finding them because you’re looking in the wrong places or giving off a vibe that repels rather than attracts them?

Once figured out how to tell when a guy was only looking for quick sex with any available cute girl, I immediately stopped showing interest and simply made polite conversation. And those guys never got to the part where I would give them an awesome massage or perfect my version of their favorite hangover food. Why waste my time on someone who wasn’t interested in me personally or in putting any effort into a partnership?

Maybe you’re turning these women off before you can discover their potential.

@29 WTF

“The women lusting after guys with bottle service are nothing but money grubbing whores. Yes, they might put out for money, but that’s all they’re out for. They are the worst kind of users.”

To a large extent, ALL women are money grubbing whores. Marry a “nice” girl, then quit your job and see what happens. Exactly.

BTW, I don’t label women who want to be with guys with money as “money grubbing whores”. We’re all whores, folks…

Real men drink whiskey.

Jewcano’s last blog post: You Are What You Do When It Counts.

i think it’s time to play the mermaid game again.

33 - Interested Party:

I see what you mean about all women being money grubbing whores to some extent. Though, I think some non-financial attraction will work on plenty of women (who will ignore a lack of finances). If we look at Roosh for example - he’s able to pull cute girls into bed, and he’s not a rich guy. I’d wager that he has much better luck at dive bars or mid-range bars than he would at any place on K Street. In my observations, the K Street women are hard to bag unless lots of money is involved, whereas other women might have their eyes out for more than just money…

For the record, I wouldn’t call myself a whore either.

“the cheaper spirits make cocktails with dynamic and attention-getting textures—a little unpolished, but appealingly so.”
http://www.chow.com/stories/10968

27 - “D.C. might be different”

Bro you have no idea.

“LOTS of attractive women and far fewer guys than women”

not in this town, anywhere. maybe walking around daytime… maybe

@36 WTF

“Though, I think some non-financial attraction will work on plenty of women (who will ignore a lack of finances)”

“Non-financial attraction” is important, sure. I’m certainly not say it isn’t. I think roosh’s (and other’s) advice is good stuff regardless of income level.

That said, all things being equal, more money is better than less. You can be you. But “you” with a net worth of $10 is less appealing than “you” with a net worth of $10 million. You are a different you with more money. It sounds shallow, but that’s how it is.

“If we look at Roosh for example - he’s able to pull cute girls into bed, and he’s not a rich guy. I’d wager that he has much better luck at dive bars or mid-range bars than he would at any place on K Street.”

I don’t know anything about D.C. so I don’t know what “K Street” is, but I assume it’s the high rent district. Roosh’s game would absolutely work there, yes. But he’d be pulling in much higher quality, more easily, and with less concern about finances.

Guy who are up and coming can still pull in nice girls, no doubt about. But as I said, life is just easier (all parts of life) when you have money. It just is.

@37 Roosh

“not in this town, anywhere. maybe walking around daytime… maybe”

heh, maybe you’re right. West L.A. (this is what people mean when they say “LA”) can warp your vision, female-wise. All other parts of the country are letdowns when it comes to the superficial aspects of their women.

But my guess would be that while DC is a step down (or maybe 3 steps down) from L.A., there are still high-end places where the guy/girl ratio is carefully controlled to keep lots of girls available for relatively few guys. And in these places they let groups of attractive women in first, guys with money second, less attractive women third, and everyone else (i.e. guys unwilling/unable to cough up the money) waits in line for hours.

@36 WTF

“In my observations, the K Street women are hard to bag unless lots of money is involved, whereas other women might have their eyes out for more than just money…”

In your “observations”? Come on dude. You’re indirectly labeling them as money grubbing sluts because they don’t attend divier places you personally like.

“For the record, I wouldn’t call myself a whore either.”

If you’ve ever taken a higher paying job over a far lower paying job (all things being equal) or shopped for the best deal on a consumer item(all things being equal), you’re a whore pure and simple. Nothing wrong with being a whore.

“Maybe you’re turning these women off before you can discover their potential.”

There is no maybe about it.

Roosh,

I make more than $40,000 a month and I live in D.C. I don’t spend my money here. I travel and see other places and occasionally go out in other cities.

Speaking from experience, there is literally no point in going out in cities like D.C.

@32 ?

“Why waste my time on someone who wasn’t interested in me personally or in putting any effort into a partnership?”

Don’t act like he’s a scumbag because he’s in a place in his life where he’s not ready for a “committed” relationship or isn’t ready to invest resources for the possibility of sexual access…or rather I should say you assume he doesn’t want this because you automatically disqualify him because he wants sex now and not later

If you disqualify guys who are “looking for quick sex with any available cute girl”, you may as well just stop dating or turn your energy towards “turning” gay guys.

@42 “Don’t act like he’s a scumbag because he’s in a place in his life where he’s not ready for a “committed” relationship or isn’t ready to invest resources for the possibility of sexual access ”

I never judged anyone to be a “scumbag.” I simply knew what I was looking for and recognized that a guy trying to take me home the same night he met me probably wasn’t looking for the same thing. So I let those guys move on to other women with more compatible desires. Perhaps I let go of a few who would have made good partners, but with so many guys who made it clear that they’d be interested in more of a relationship, I don’t feel it was much of a loss for me.

We all get to go out there wanting and seeking whatever we choose, no judgment on anyone. I’m simply suggesting that a lot of women who are the sweet and nurturing type are interested in men who want more than quick and casual sex with minimal effort. Being attentive, nurturing, loyal and kind to one man in particular definitely represents an investment of time, energy and resources. If a guy “isn’t ready to invest resources for the possibility of sexual access,” then why should a woman put in more effort than he is willing to, especially when he indicates that there’s little chance for the type of relationship she’s looking for? (And I’m talking a similar show of loyalty, kindness, and attention, not necessarily monetary resources).

@38 InterestedParty

“I don’t know anything about D.C. so I don’t know what “K Street” is, but I assume it’s the high rent district.”

K Street is a major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C. known for the numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups that exercise influence from its location. K Street is the home of the Associated Press Washington bureau and the AP Broadcast News Center, as well as al-Jazeera’s Washington bureau. The street inspired a television series on the HBO network by the same name, K Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_(Washington,_D.C.)

@41 Anonymous

“I make more than $40,000 a month and I live in D.C. I don’t spend my money here. I travel and see other places and occasionally go out in other cities.

Speaking from experience, there is literally no point in going out in cities like D.C.”

- Where do you like to go?

Being attentive, nurturing, loyal and kind to one man in particular definitely represents an investment of time, energy and resources. If a guy “isn’t ready to invest resources for the possibility of sexual access,” then why should a woman put in more effort than he is willing to, especially when he indicates that there’s little chance for the type of relationship she’s looking for? (And I’m talking a similar show of loyalty, kindness, and attention, not necessarily monetary resources).

Most women are looking for love first and sex later, and most men are looking for sex first and love later. The few women who are looking for sex first get a ton of men sexually, and the few men who are looking for love first still only get a few women sexually. This is why men prefer to look for sex among the relatively fewer women who are looking for sex, because the sex they get is about the same amount regardless of their relationship status.

A lot of men say they want a sweet, nurturing, kind and loyal woman just like a lot of women say they want a nice, loyal, wonderful and gentlemanly man. However, in reality, people act differently from their stated “ideals” because most people are too short-sighted and want instant gratification (sex now) as opposed to planning for the future. Also, it’s just a fact of life that a beautiful woman can get away with having a crappy personality when young and attractive and still command a lot of male attention. That is why men sometimes bemoan that it is rare to find a beautiful and kind girl.

You seem like a very mature, intelligent and great girl. I walked the same path as you and found men who wanted love first, and I never gave any time of my day to men who wanted sex first. Unfortunately, unconditional love is difficult to find and even more difficult to keep. But I think you are giving advice to the wrong crowd. A lot of men are fed up with the marriage laws in America and opting out of long-term relationships in general. I am sympathetic to this and try my hardest to not be what men complain about in women. But that only benefits my husband, which won’t change much of anything.

When will relations between men and women improve and genuine love and understanding happen? When people want it. Until then, you can’t force it on them. They have to seek it out themselves — and by seeking out a place like this, they are already walking a different path. You and I are on another road that may lead to a different ending, or may not. Time will tell.

Eugenius you are one strange bird. What you wrote makes no sense…

You are one seriously lit douche…heh.

@43

“I never judged anyone to be a “scumbag.””

To be fair, you never used that word and you in fact did say you politely listened until the conversation ended.

I’ve no doubt you think less of this man, but you never actually called him any names.

“If a guy “isn’t ready to invest resources for the possibility of sexual access,” then why should a woman put in more effort than he is willing to, especially when he indicates that there’s little chance for the type of relationship she’s looking for?”

You’re saying your trump card is sex and that’s the best thing you have to offer to a man. And you’re not taking out your trump card for anything. A man should be willing to invest significant resources (i.e. time + money) in order to get that from you.

Some questions.

What do you have to offer that separates you from other women (who may be prettier, more successful, etc)? Why should a “catch” invest so much chasing the possibility of sex with you? What do you do to convince a “catch” that you’re worth all that?

Is sex the best you’ve got?

@48 Interested Party

“I’ve no doubt you think less of this man, but you never actually called him any names.”

I never went out to judge men on their merit as human beings, just to meet men and figure out which ones had personalities and interests that would match up with mine. I was looking for a committed, loving relationship, so I only spent time trying to attract men who seemed to be interested in the same. I think it was best for eveyone concerned when I let men looking for a one night stand move on to other women. They weren’t going to meet their goal with me, so why should I waste their time?

“You’re saying your trump card is sex and that’s the best thing you have to offer to a man. And you’re not taking out your trump card for anything.”

Actually, you’re the one saying that. The words “possibility of sexual access” are a direct quote from you. My entire point at the beginning of this conversation was that women who are pretty, sweet, and nurturing tend to seek deeper relationships and are going to be less receptive to men who are only interested in quick, casual sex. These are women who have lots to offer and actually desire the opportunity to be generous, giving partners, so they look for men who have analagous qualities. It can take time to discover what a man is really about, so having sex immediately is not usually to the advantage of such women.

“A man should be willing to invest significant resources (i.e. time + money) in order to get that [sex] from you.”

If a guy’s main goal was sex, and he was happy enough to meet that goal with any cute girl, I never encouraged him to spend any time or money on me. That would only end in disappointment for both of us. Hence politely letting him move on to other women.

If a guy let me know that he was interested in a more serious partnership and he wanted to show off his potential, and if I was attracted to him, then that’s where I’d allow investment of time and energy to begin. And I never expected it to be one-sided. If I was attracted to him, I wanted to do an equally great job of letting him know how much I had to offer.

“What do you have to offer that separates you from other women (who may be prettier, more successful, etc)? Why should a “catch” invest so much chasing the possibility of sex with you? What do you do to convince a “catch” that you’re worth all that?

Is sex the best you’ve got?”

Again, the whole point of this conversation was that men on this site often complain that women aren’t nurturing, sweet, and feminine enough. Well, I’ve got all that in spades. It’s one of my great joys in life to get to know a person and then do special things for them based on what I’ve learned about their interests and passions. So I’m always listening to my man - his favorite books & performers, things that would make his life more convenient etc. and showering him with relevant gifts, gestures, and surprises.

I’m proud of who my man is in the world and his personal and professional goals. I constantly offer encouragement and support, thank him for the work he does to benefit both of us, and ask what more I can do to help. I love my own job and come home happy and with income that benefits us both.

I’m a great cook and have professional massage training. I’m responsible and organized and do my best to keep our home comfortable, lovely, and running smoothly. I’m willing to compromise for our mutual happiness. I’m not flakey - I answer calls, show up on time, and do what I’ve said I will.

I take good care of my appearance - workouts, clothes, hair & face care, etc. I may not be the most gorgeous woman on the planet, but my man always comments on how many other men check me out when we go out together. He tells me he loves how I make it clear that I am there with him, 100% loyal. He also insists that I have a perfect ass. And, yes, I am enthusiastic and creative in bed.

Many women actually seek the opportunity to offer these things in return for a loving relationship with a man of integrity and purpose who is willing to be a great partner. This kind of relationship is available to anyone who’s willing to step up to the plate and use some discernment in seeking a partner. But, as Hope points out, a lot of people aren’t yet ready. I just get frustrated when they complain about how the world doesn’t meet their unrealistic expectations of receiving exactly what they want with mininal effort.

@49

“My entire point at the beginning of this conversation was that women who are pretty, sweet, and nurturing tend to seek deeper relationships and are going to be less receptive to men who are only interested in quick, casual sex.”

So women who enjoy casual sex cannot be “pretty, sweet, and nurturing”?

That’s an insane false dichotomy.

“If a guy’s main goal was sex, and he was happy enough to meet that goal with any cute girl, I never encouraged him to spend any time or money on me”

That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re specifically trying to find a guy who’s “on the prowl” ( for either casual sex OR a so-called “deep” relationship) and convince him that you’re worth pursuing over other women. Pursuit involves the investment of resources (time + money).

I was just asking what you have to offer over these other women that would attract a “catch” to you.

“If a guy’s main goal was sex, and he was happy enough to meet that goal with any cute girl, I never encouraged him to spend any time or money on me.”

I hate to get roissy on you, but every guy’s main goal is sex. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Sexual attraction is the spark for a deeper relationship. We only care about your cooking after we’re sexually attracted. We only care about what books you like until after we’re sexually attracted. We consider a longer, “deeper” relationship after we’re sexually attracted.

Later in your post you note “I take good care of my appearance “. Good! Even you understand that if you let your appearance go to hell, all that other stuff you have to “offer” won’t matter.

Sex is always the bait.

And note, just because a guy is looking for quick sex with “any cute girl”, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t gladly commit to a long term relationship if he had quick sex with the right cute girl. This happens all the time actually…

This happens all the time actually…

In Hollywood and TV shows, that happens all the time I’m sure. None of the married couples I know or know of met through a quickie sex adventure.

It’s kind of funny when “players” try to tell girls who are already in long-term relationships that they don’t have what it takes to get a man.

@51

“None of the married couples I know or know of met through a quickie sex adventure.”

Well if they get married, it wasn’t a “quickie sex adventure”. Its hard to tell after the fact.

@50 Interested Party
“So women who enjoy casual sex cannot be ‘pretty, sweet, and nurturing’?
That’s an insane false dichotomy.”

Oh for heaven’s sake! I absolutely did not say that anywhere above, nor would I be so foolish as to make an absolute statement about a large group of individuals.

My point was simple and clear and I’ve made it twice. You can re-read my previous posts if you like. I’m officially putting my side of this discussion to rest. If you’d like to continue arguing against whatever words you’d like to put in my mouth, go ahead.

@53 ?

“Oh for heaven’s sake! I absolutely did not say that anywhere above, nor would I be so foolish as to make an absolute statement about a large group of individuals.”

You disagree with my restatement (doesn’t sound as nice when I re-word it), but that’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re not one of “those” women who has sex quickly. You’re “sweet and nurturing” (and “better”, though you didn’t explicitly say that).

@51 Hope

“None of the married couples I know or know of met through a quickie sex adventure.”

It’s not the majority, but don’t be surprised if you know at least one. It’s not the kind of information you volunteer though. “We had sex the first night we met, found out we really liked each other on a deeper level and just stayed together!”.

Ask your husband to do some snooping, or get some of your female acquaintances drunk and ask them.

@51 Hope

“It’s kind of funny when “players” try to tell girls who are already in long-term relationships that they don’t have what it takes to get a man.”

Being in a long-term relationship means shit. Really. If the divorce rate and general break-up rate is any indication, most people are miserable in their long term relationship. Why? Because the person they’re with isn’t really what they want.

So merely being in a long-term relationship is an indication of nothing. Only the person in the relationship knows if that’s truly the relationship they want and they may or may not admit their true feeling about the relationship publicly (or to themselves for that matter).

If the divorce rate and general break-up rate is any indication, most people are miserable in their long term relationship. Why? Because the person they’re with isn’t really what they want.

I don’t know about the whole misery thing since LTRs have lots of ups and downs, and if people can work through them they generally get back to the happy phase again. Studies show that married couples who work through their issues and stay together bounce back to their former levels of happiness.

Being in a long-term relationship means shit.

Primarily, I am talking about the way that some men seem to put down women who don’t “put out” on the first night. You said that such women don’t have “bait,” but I disagree with that. Personally, I don’t associate with too many women who have sex with a man within 24 hours of knowing him, but norms are different among different social circles. Among people I know LTR is the norm, and among people you know it could be ONS is the norm.

@56 Hope

“I don’t know about the whole misery thing since LTRs have lots of ups and downs, and if people can work through them they generally get back to the happy phase again.”

Again, just judging by the success of most long term relationships, most are ultimately failures. But I don’t see that as a negative, unless needlessly you dragged something along that you know in your heart is bad.

“Studies show that married couples who work through their issues and stay together bounce back to their former levels of happiness.”

I think people who really *are* compatible kind of know it (both, not just one which is often the case). It’s hard to explain. It’s one thing to fight and to *both* understand that your partner really is The One. It’s another thing to fight and to sort of believe you can do better. Two different kinds of “ups and downs”. I’d say the latter is more common. Divorce/break-up rates back me up.

“Primarily, I am talking about the way that some men seem to put down women who don’t “put out” on the first night. You said that such women don’t have “bait,” but I disagree with that.”

I said women who don’t put out don’t have “bait”? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

Anyway, what I said was that sex is *always* the bait whether you put out early or not. Sex is fundamentally what brings men and women together. That’s just nature, but society feels the need to cover this up. Your husband/boyfriend would not be with you if you did not have a vagina and you wouldn’t be with him if he didn’t have a penis.

“Personally, I don’t associate with too many women who have sex with a man within 24 hours of knowing him…”

You may be right, but all you *know* is what people tell you.

@56

“Personally, I don’t associate with too many women who have sex with a man within 24 hours of knowing him”

- That is only because they are lying to you or because I haven’t met your girlfriends yet!

You may be right, but all you *know* is what people tell you.

With Sex and the City being so popular, and people being so much more honest and frank in online conversations, most women don’t bother to lie about it these days. Then again I am not that close to my female friends, so they could conceivably be lying.

I said women who don’t put out don’t have “bait”? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

Maybe I misinterpreted. It seemed to me that you suggested (Why should a “catch” invest so much chasing the possibility of sex with you?) that a woman who doesn’t engage in casual sex is less likely to get a man than a woman who does, because she does not offer the sex bait that other women do.

Sex is fundamentally what brings men and women together. Your husband/boyfriend would not be with you if you did not have a vagina and you wouldn’t be with him if he didn’t have a penis.

Well we actually didn’t have sex in the first two years that we knew each other. Yes we’re weird, and we had a weird history. Love works in weird ways, too. I always loved him more than all the other men who had bodies I could touch (better bodies, more money, etc. than he did or does).

You and other PUAs tell me that relationships are all about physical and tangible things like sex, body, beauty, money…but my experiences just happen to be very different. My heart, mind and soul were wrapped up with his long before my body was. Laugh if you want, but it is how it happened.

@Hope 59

“Maybe I misinterpreted. It seemed to me that you suggested (Why should a “catch” invest so much chasing the possibility of sex with you?) that a woman who doesn’t engage in casual sex is less likely to get a man than a woman who does, because she does not offer the sex bait that other women do.”

More specifically, less likely to get a “catch”. As you mention below, there are some men who are willing to wait around 2 years for sex, but the vast majority would not be considered “catches”.

“Well we actually didn’t have sex in the first two years that we knew each other. Yes we’re weird, and we had a weird history. Love works in weird ways, too. I always loved him more than all the other men who had bodies I could touch (better bodies, more money, etc. than he did or does).”

That said, the thing that attracted you together first was that he was a man and you’re a woman. True, you waited two years before having sex and you “got to know each other better”, but the fact that you are a woman and he’s a man comes before everything else. That’s why I say “sex” is fundamental and always the bait. Your heart and soul cannot get wrapped up this way for another woman or an animal. Only for a man.

“You and other PUAs tell me that relationships are all about physical and tangible things like sex, body, beauty, money…”

I don’t consider myself a “PUA”, though many PUAs have a lot of good information to teach about one important aspect of life (though I think much of their advice would help men’s lives in general). Also, I’m not sure if anyone is saying that relationships are all about physical and tangible things. There’s a lot of kickback against the notion that the physical is *unimportant* which is complete B.S. for most men.