Hugh Hefner dead at 91

911

Peacock
Gold Member
isthreesoy3sanine said:
911 said:
Space Cowboy said:
911 said:
Do you also admire people like Soros, who've build bigger empires, banged nice-looking women? I mean look at the guy, a winner we should all admire:

I think it's telling that you immediately bring up Soros. I think a common complaint a lot of members I've talked with in real life have brought up is that there are members who dominate the narrative but are stuck in a bubble with one eye on Breitbart and another on Zero Hedge. If that's what turns your crank, I've got no real problem with that. Hopefully, however, you can see where some of us are coming from. Anyway, we'll be out lifting, swooping, and making money. You can save Western civilization, although pounding out condescending diatribes on the keyboard and refusing to get out into the real word among your fellow men isn't the most likely way we'll take this country back.

I'm off to go read.

Cheers!

Hey 911


So you registered this handle two months ago, and all you did with it was dish out 14 likes to posters on this one thread. Not fishy at all, noooo...

So then after that you decide to break in your sock puppet handle for a hit and run post, and all you could come up after several edits with was that sorry little picture that says "ONQUER" :laugh:


85d22cd96b3d46db6a89cf52.jpg
 

N°6

Hummingbird
captain_shane said:
I think Hugh Hefner is an amazing story. A story about a regular schmuck that gets divorced and decides to live a lifestyle only others can dream about.

You may or may not like what he did for a living, but it can't be denied that the guy is an inspiration. Imagine if a guy from this forum got divorce raped and went on to live a life of banging 10/10 models and throwing parties for the world's biggest celebrities, he would be a legend.

RIP Hef, you showed what's possible.

Yes, "Imagine" what's possible.

For 99% of men, this is highly improbable.

It is not sex that sells, it is the "possibility" of sex. Its pedlars are diverse in nature: the pornographer, the PUA guru and his expensive DVD sets and boot camps, the nightclub owner, the Instagram thot etc.

It is the selling of the possibility that makes the attention whore dress up half naked to stimulate demand when she has no intention of supplying. In most cases, young men are being gamed.

Playboy was the vanguard of all this. I would say however that it is not as socially toxic as the message that Cosmopolitan sells to young women.

For 99% of men, their Playboy role is more akin to those in Vietnam who were rewarded with a glimpse of the "possibility" as one granule of sand in a dessert of thirst before going back into the foxhole.

The early bunnies were the "girl next door" types whom White Beta men tended to marry young before the "sexual revolution" when the barriers to stop the bottom 80% of women seeking out the top 20% of men were lifted. Now these men's sons are struggling to date women better than a 5 or 6 and the reality of the sexual revolution for these men is involuntary celibacy while women their age ride the carousel.
 

polar

Pelican
Gold Member
Sherman said:
It's probably too late for this, but there are really two threads here. It would be useful to discuss Hefner to tease out what men could learn from his style, which would go into the Game Forum. The other issue is that there are men who believer Hefner has had a negative influence on culture. This would go in the Politics Forum. They are both legitimate issues, but discussing them together is creating miscommunication and conflict.

While I agree, there's too much nuance in your post, so we'll go back to arguing instead.
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
Comte De St. Germain said:
Samseau said:
If you ask the average men if they think Hef is cool, they will say he's the man.
Ask the same man if he thinks banging whores is cool, he will say no.

The average man is confused about this, but no one ever said men were purely rational animals.

I know on this forum, whores are held in fairly high esteem, but not as high as you might think. The NoFap thread is pretty big, which is really an objection to porn more so than fapping as far as I can tell.

Regardless, one of my favorite things to do is tear down false prophets and idols, by simply telling things as they are. Hugh was a whoremonger who glorified whores. I think whores are disgusting, why don't you?

Cobra laid out in detail why we disagree(and it's not because we like whores or pay for whores as you seem to assume). If you disagree past that then it boils down to a difference of values and opinions on the topic. I've long seen that difference. I'm not out here prolestyzing to a crowd that's mostly deaf to the values I espouse unlike you.

Again it's better to agree to disagree; you're not convincing anyone with your personal morality.

You just said you don't like whores in the bolded above. My morals have nothing to do with this, you're the one living in contradiction. How you can not like whores yet idolize a top whoremonger like Hugh Hefner?

justforfun19713 said:
Samseau said:
If you ask the average men if they think Hef is cool, they will say he's the man.
Ask the same man if he thinks banging whores is cool, he will say no.

The average man is confused about this, but no one ever said men were purely rational animals.

I know on this forum, whores are held in fairly high esteem, but not as high as you might think. The NoFap thread is pretty big, which is really an objection to porn more so than fapping as far as I can tell.

Regardless, one of my favorite things to do is tear down false prophets and idols, by simply telling things as they are. Hugh was a whoremonger who glorified whores. I think whores are disgusting, why don't you?


Hmm… It has been my experience that loud moral outrage usually means something hide. But, as long as we are in agreement that we can call things for what they are, here is a brief list of whores who were mentioned in quite glowing terms in The Holy Bible.

Rahab – a whore who took in the Israelite spies before Jericho was destroyed. Turns out she ended up being Jesus’ ancestor.

Jael, the chick who quite literally pegged a dude in her tent, in some traditions is thought to have been of loose morals.

Mary Magdalene, widely believed in some traditions to have been a whore

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems time for the purity dudes who are running around the forum calling the rest of us sinners and whoremongers, to find some of that magic Mormon underwear, then go outside and look for the girls in the long flowing dresses carrying Singer sowing machines... Find a nice girl they respect and pump out a little baby Jesus.

As for me? I'm going out to a bar in real life now to see if I can pick up a chick to f*ck tonight. I can almost guarantee I won't be the first guy she's done ever that with, but I'd never judge her to be a whore. As our Lord and Savior (may have) said, 'Let He who is sinless cast the first stone.'

But then that's just how I roll.

I have not expressed any outrage in this thread - but you are in the post above, given the vitriolic nature of your comments. Classic projection.

I've been calm as a monk in every single post in this thread. Calmly pointing out that there's no reason to idolize a whoremonger like Hugh. Not my fault a bunch of "men" get their panties in a bunch when you start attacking whores.

As for the Bible - the Bible has many great examples of God's great mercy extended to the worst of sinners. But my point isn't that sinners cannot be forgiven, but that whoring is a sin in the first place and is nothing to be proud of.

Your hypocrisy of defending whoremonger Hugh Hefner is noted; rather than go out to a nearby brothel and pick up a ho for $200, or schedule an appointment at the Asian rub n'tug for $60, you are instead are going to the bar to try and seduce a girl with actual game.

Thanks for proving my point.

Cobra said:
This thread hasn't reached a climax yet and hasn't completely derailed yet. I appreciate this.

Sadly, I can't comment much more tonight but will try to tomorrow.

I'll leave this thought in the interim: when did leveraging lifestyle and using money to get access to talent become "non game?" When ever did that become paying for whores? When did these women become whores? There seems to be a lot of conjecture here and it's getting to the point of laughable.

Let's take a simple example: if a schmoe bangs Marilyn Monroe, he's a player and she's a hot girl, but Hef bangs her and she's a whore; and Hef is scum? :laugh:

I answered this a few pages back:

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-65013-post-1661193.html#pid1661193

"While certainly, Hef got a ton of free pussy from whores wanting to become a playmate of some kind, it does not change the fact that without that carrot to dangle he would have not gotten the pussy. Compare that famous men who get girls with no promise of any reward, or men without any fame but at least some money who do the same thing.

I see Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein as basically on the same page, but Hugh actually had a pimping business going that glorified whores, so I guess he gets more evil points."

Notice the part in bold - the part about game.

Also, Harvey used his position to find girls willing to whore themselves out for a chance at a movie role as well. Harvey was a whoremonger as well.
 

Comte De St. Germain

Crow
Gold Member
If you don't get our opinion on this topic then I have no business arguing with someone with who has a lack of basic reading comprehension and intent.

He's not a whoremonger in my opinion and the majority of us don't think so either.

Again you're not going to convince us otherwise. Continue talking to a brick wall if you must but I no longer have a dog in this fight as I've clearly and consicely laid out my point which you seem unable to refute.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Cobra said:
This thread hasn't reached a climax yet and hasn't completely derailed yet. I appreciate this.

Sadly, I can't comment much more tonight but will try to tomorrow.

I'll leave this thought in the interim: when did leveraging lifestyle and using money to get access to talent become "non game?" When ever did that become paying for whores? When did these women become whores? There seems to be a lot of conjecture here and it's getting to the point of laughable.

Let's take a simple example: if a schmoe bangs Marilyn Monroe, he's a player and she's a hot girl, but Hef bangs her and she's a whore; and Hef is scum? :laugh:

Being a whore, in this instance, would depend on intent, imo.

Did they bang Hef because of his charisma as a rich, exciting, fun loving guy or did they bang him because they knew they could become famous from being in his magazine? Based on all that I have read, I would side with the latter.

Just curious, but did Hef ever have a girlfriend that didn't end up in Playboy?
 

Icarus

Ostrich
This thread has devolved into a civil war, but the silver lining is that a civil war is still much better than an echo chamber where everyone thinks alike and everyone validates each other's most inane thoughts. Conflict is good.
 

Matsufubu

Pelican
Icarus said:
This thread has devolved into a civil war, but the silver lining is that a civil war is still much better than an echo chamber where everyone thinks alike and everyone validates each other's most inane thoughts. Conflict is good.

Oh no it isn't!
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
Icarus said:
This thread has devolved into a civil war, but the silver lining is that a civil war is still much better than an echo chamber where everyone thinks alike and everyone validates each other's most inane thoughts. Conflict is good.

I think people who are afraid of arguments are engaging in womanly behavior. What's the big deal about disagreement? Only women need consensus.

Women always say, "Let's agree to disagree," and now I reply, "No, let's disagree to agree." I hate that gay shit.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
Samseau said:
I hate that gay shit.

Well Hugh Hefner was in favor of that gay shit. He fucked dudes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...ner-sex-men-gay-rights-sexual-revolution/amp/

Now, in my opinion, there's no such thing as "just experimenting" there fag or not fag.

It seems we've developed two factions here. I will champion the third. We are the Hefner truthers. I say some marketing types found some queer and made him look like a sex god to sell some magazines. I even watched some Netflix crap where he says things like "I couldn't help it, I was in love." Then these other guys are all saying "well hefs in love" and I'm thinking it's all bullshit.

Aloha!
 

Icarus

Ostrich
Though Hefner had 4 children, it looks as though he had no grandchildren at the time of his death. Legitimate ones, I mean.

His daughter had no children. I could not find any information on his elder son's offspring (or lack thereof). Hefner's two other sons were born in 1990 and 1991, and those still have time to procreate.
 

Cobra

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Samseau said:
Comte De St. Germain said:
Samseau said:
If you ask the average men if they think Hef is cool, they will say he's the man.
Ask the same man if he thinks banging whores is cool, he will say no.

The average man is confused about this, but no one ever said men were purely rational animals.

I know on this forum, whores are held in fairly high esteem, but not as high as you might think. The NoFap thread is pretty big, which is really an objection to porn more so than fapping as far as I can tell.

Regardless, one of my favorite things to do is tear down false prophets and idols, by simply telling things as they are. Hugh was a whoremonger who glorified whores. I think whores are disgusting, why don't you?

Cobra laid out in detail why we disagree(and it's not because we like whores or pay for whores as you seem to assume). If you disagree past that then it boils down to a difference of values and opinions on the topic. I've long seen that difference. I'm not out here prolestyzing to a crowd that's mostly deaf to the values I espouse unlike you.

Again it's better to agree to disagree; you're not convincing anyone with your personal morality.

You just said you don't like whores in the bolded above. My morals have nothing to do with this, you're the one living in contradiction. How you can not like whores yet idolize a top whoremonger like Hugh Hefner?

I love you Samseau but do disagree with pretty much everything you've laid out here. As many times as you have referred to these women as whores, I think you have made some major assumptions to get yourself there. Remember, not everyone here shares the thought of those assumptions being true or factual in any way. Like I said before, a lot of it is assumption based on conjecture. You say that they were fucking for cash and we say they were fucking for resources (like any girl does by the way)

Samseau said:
justforfun19713 said:
Samseau said:
If you ask the average men if they think Hef is cool, they will say he's the man.
Ask the same man if he thinks banging whores is cool, he will say no.

The average man is confused about this, but no one ever said men were purely rational animals.

I know on this forum, whores are held in fairly high esteem, but not as high as you might think. The NoFap thread is pretty big, which is really an objection to porn more so than fapping as far as I can tell.

Regardless, one of my favorite things to do is tear down false prophets and idols, by simply telling things as they are. Hugh was a whoremonger who glorified whores. I think whores are disgusting, why don't you?


Hmm… It has been my experience that loud moral outrage usually means something hide. But, as long as we are in agreement that we can call things for what they are, here is a brief list of whores who were mentioned in quite glowing terms in The Holy Bible.

Rahab – a whore who took in the Israelite spies before Jericho was destroyed. Turns out she ended up being Jesus’ ancestor.

Jael, the chick who quite literally pegged a dude in her tent, in some traditions is thought to have been of loose morals.

Mary Magdalene, widely believed in some traditions to have been a whore

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems time for the purity dudes who are running around the forum calling the rest of us sinners and whoremongers, to find some of that magic Mormon underwear, then go outside and look for the girls in the long flowing dresses carrying Singer sowing machines... Find a nice girl they respect and pump out a little baby Jesus.

As for me? I'm going out to a bar in real life now to see if I can pick up a chick to f*ck tonight. I can almost guarantee I won't be the first guy she's done ever that with, but I'd never judge her to be a whore. As our Lord and Savior (may have) said, 'Let He who is sinless cast the first stone.'

But then that's just how I roll.
I have not expressed any outrage in this thread - but you are in the post above, given the vitriolic nature of your comments. Classic projection.

I've been calm as a monk in every single post in this thread. Calmly pointing out that there's no reason to idolize a whoremonger like Hugh. Not my fault a bunch of "men" get their panties in a bunch when you start attacking whores.

As for the Bible - the Bible has many great examples of God's great mercy extended to the worst of sinners. But my point isn't that sinners cannot be forgiven, but that whoring is a sin in the first place and is nothing to be proud of.

Your hypocrisy of defending whoremonger Hugh Hefner is noted; rather than go out to a nearby brothel and pick up a ho for $200, or schedule an appointment at the Asian rub n'tug for $60, you are instead are going to the bar to try and seduce a girl with actual game.

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, the term whoring is all over the place as if it's true. I don't believe it is. That makes pretty much every woman that fucks out of wedlock a whore. Women fuck men for basic things like protection and resources. Neither of these in any part of our history were exclusive reasons. There's usually a combination of the two and as society has shifted, women have shifted more to resources as they already receive protection from the government. This shouldn't be hard to decipher.


Samseau said:
Cobra said:
This thread hasn't reached a climax yet and hasn't completely derailed yet. I appreciate this.

Sadly, I can't comment much more tonight but will try to tomorrow.

I'll leave this thought in the interim: when did leveraging lifestyle and using money to get access to talent become "non game?" When ever did that become paying for whores? When did these women become whores? There seems to be a lot of conjecture here and it's getting to the point of laughable.

Let's take a simple example: if a schmoe bangs Marilyn Monroe, he's a player and she's a hot girl, but Hef bangs her and she's a whore; and Hef is scum? :laugh:

I answered this a few pages back:

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-65013-post-1661193.html#pid1661193

"While certainly, Hef got a ton of free pussy from whores wanting to become a playmate of some kind, it does not change the fact that without that carrot to dangle he would have not gotten the pussy. Compare that famous men who get girls with no promise of any reward, or men without any fame but at least some money who do the same thing.

I see Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein as basically on the same page, but Hugh actually had a pimping business going that glorified whores, so I guess he gets more evil points."

Notice the part in bold - the part about game.

Also, Harvey used his position to find girls willing to whore themselves out for a chance at a movie role as well. Harvey was a whoremonger as well.

Before I provide my thoughts, let's lay down the facts. Women have wanted 2 things for all of history from men: protection and resources. The level of how much each man can give has changed over time. Even the promise of those things or indicators of them have been leveraged over time and eventually became known as game.

Let's break this down piece by piece based on my italicized and underlined points from your post:

Free pussy: Bro pussy isn't free and it never will be. The opportunity cost of Hef trying to find this talent and attract it cost him in the same vein as doing 100 approaches and getting a few numbers. Except at the end of the day Hef banged better talent.

Whores: Again, I'm not sure how we got here and why some women are whores when they sleep with a high value man with resources and other women are not. In biblical times, the standard was that women are whores if they bang out of wedlock. Today many women bang out of wedlock but Leo bangs them with his fame and it's all good, yet Hef bangs them and puts them in his magazine and makes money off of them, whores and out you go. A lot of this is assumption based on cultural norms and mores, not fact. Come on man.

Without that carrot to dangle... no free pussy: Game is about dangling the carrot. You are trying to convey your high value a lot of times without having it. So... if you have it why the fuck is it not game all of a sudden? See my point? Just like that Hef dangled the carrot aka his cock and women came for it. Even if he didn't make money off of them, he did bang them. As far as the free pussy thing, I digress at this point.

Famous men who get girls with no promise of reward: There is always a dangling carrot and there is always the promise of a potential for fame. Whether she bangs Leo or Hef, there is game involved. Now, Leo's game may be better BUT he is still leveraging his resources. Hef may be dangling the carrot but I'm pretty sure he didn't bang these women only after signing a contract with them that they will be playmates. If you can prove that somehow, you are the man. There was always a potential reward, NOT a guarantee. That's called persuasion aka game. If they were hot, he put them in the magazine and made money off of them.

I'll use a real life example. I sell consulting services to clients by persuading them that their project will be successful 3 or 6 months down the line. Most times it is and some times it's not. However, I got them to agree that it is. That said, it's much easier for me to do because I can draw on my experience. A schmoe off the street that just got into my business that doesn't have that experience or resources is just not going to be that good unless he works on it. Same concept. Again, persuasion.

Men without fame .. and some money..doing the same thing: It's not the same thing. Men without fame are not pulling as much quality talent as the ones with fame. Also men without money are also not pulling as much quality talent as men with money. It's that simple. Let's illustrate with reality.

I have met many forum members. I'm not sure how many you have met. The ones with resources always stand out as the men that pull better quality than the ones that don't. The players that have been more consistently able to pull tail are: Doctors, lawyers and successful business men. Yes, these are forum members. Unless you are in their circle and they respect you as someone with game, it's hard to be in their company. Now, the same men would probably pull tail if they didn't have these resources, by sheer approaching and getting numbers, but they would also end up in a cardboard box approaching for food instead. That's an extreme case scenario but a top level man in his field is pulling better talent than some 9 - 5 guy in a cube, because they chose to work on their lifestyle before women. Trust me an 8 that bangs a guy with little or no resources is leaving that guy to bang a higher quality man with game in a loft or rooftop while sipping on some good wine to loosen her up.

I recently received a PM from a good forum member with the question: Hey Cobra, I'm busting my ass to become very successful and not gaming like I should. I'm getting dissuaded by certain forum members that don't see this as a path to better game. My answer: It ABSOLUTELY IS THE PATH TO BETTER GAME. Be PROUD of your value as a man and be proud of what you earn from achievements. Become a HIGH VALUE MAN. Women respect high value men with game. The fact that there are high value men with no game is a fact of life BUT we tend to forget about those that do on the forum. If you can leverage your resources to pull talent you are essentially "Almost Famous." I would rather spend my good years acquiring resources than approaching at the cost of not having as many resources. I hope I'm able to help this forum member see this in some little way.

Approaching is cool if you have settled with life and don't want to move forward in your career and lifestyle but you will also be stuck with subpar talent. Losers can only play winners for so long. Do something with life and learn game at your pace without worrying too much about it. You will be delighted at the results.

TL;DR: Men that game with resources > Men that game without resources
 

YoungBlade

Hummingbird
^

"I have swooped beautiful girls as a millionaire.
I have swooped beautiful girls broke.
Millionaire is better.
Few are honest enough to admit this."

- G-man
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
I love you Samseau but do disagree with pretty much everything you've laid out here. As many times as you have referred to these women as whores, I think you have made some major assumptions to get yourself there. Remember, not everyone here shares the thought of those assumptions being true or factual in any way. Like I said before, a lot of it is assumption based on conjecture. You say that they were fucking for cash and we say they were fucking for resources (like any girl does by the way)

1. There is no difference between a girl who fucks for money or resources. But, there is a difference between a whore who trades her vagina for something else besides the love of a man. That's why I call whores those who fuck for cash and prizes.

2. Your implication that all women fuck only for resources is false. Not only have I banged plenty of girls for zero resources on my part, but so have tens of millions of other men. Additionally, a woman who marries a man for ordinary provisioning is not whoring herself out since ordinary provisioning can be provided by the majority of ordinary men. Therefore the common housewife is not whoring because she did not merely marry the richest man she could find.

Your argument is reductionism, a common philosophical error. The idea that all women are whores is absurd compared with our everyday experience and relies on heavy slanting of definitions.

Again, the term whoring is all over the place as if it's true. I don't believe it is. That makes pretty much every woman that fucks out of wedlock a whore. Women fuck men for basic things like protection and resources. Neither of these in any part of our history were exclusive reasons. There's usually a combination of the two and as society has shifted, women have shifted more to resources as they already receive protection from the government. This shouldn't be hard to decipher.

Again, we see the absurd reductionism on display in bold. If resources are all that women are after, why do they choose one man over any other million men with similar access to resources? Why do some women have sex with just a few men while other women have sex with thousands? The answer: because some are normal women and the others are broken whores.

The idea that since women only have sex with men who have a minimum level of resources they are all therefore whores is, quite frankly, ridiculous reasoning. You are reducing all of the world's phenomena down to a single focal point (sexual exchange) with absolutely no justification. Completely ignored are the myriad of reasons women have sex, such as attraction to the man and his personality or the desire to have children with them.

No one can call themselves a player if they do not understand this, because it means they have never seduced a woman with game before.

Before I provide my thoughts, let's lay down the facts. Women have wanted 2 things for all of history from men: protection and resources. The level of how much each man can give has changed over time. Even the promise of those things or indicators of them have been leveraged over time and eventually became known as game.

False premise with false conclusions. You shift from women wanting 2 things, to women only wanting 2 things. Logical error detected.

Game is not merely the leveraging of these attributes either.

Free pussy: Bro pussy isn't free and it never will be. The opportunity cost of Hef trying to find this talent and attract it cost him in the same vein as doing 100 approaches and getting a few numbers. Except at the end of the day Hef banged better talent.

More illogical reductionism: that because both normal women and whores have a "cost", therefore all women are whores.

The flaw is in how the word "cost" is used. There is a massive difference between paying a whore with cash and gaming a normal woman with game. Just because they both "cost" the man something does not change the fundamentals. A whore fucks ANYONE if the price is right. Normal women do not. Normal women care about other things in their men besides money!

The whores Hugh banged have been with hundreds, if not thousands, of men. The 23 year I had on my bed a few weeks ago had been with fewer than fifty men, perhaps even less than twenty. The reason is because the whore only sees sex as a means for more money, whereas the normal woman is 100x more selective and wants a man she can actually love.

Whores: Again, I'm not sure how we got here and why some women are whores when they sleep with a high value man with resources and other women are not.

Who is talking about "high value men"? You or me? I've only been talking about women, and their intentions: if she merely wants access to cash and prizes, she's a whore.

If she's only with a man because she just wants his stuff, she's a whore or a gold digger (the gold digger is far more selective and looks for LTRs over the whore's fuck for cash scheme - both similar but there is a difference). But if she's with a man because she loves him, even though there may be thousands of other men out there with the exact same level of wealth, she's a normal woman.

In biblical times, the standard was that women are whores if they bang out of wedlock.

Not true. For example, in the OT a man who takes a girl's virginity but decides not to marry her could still pay the father a large fine. The girl was not regarded as a whore afterwards. Whores were still seen as those who used their sex selfishly for cash and prizes.

Moreover, in the olden days there was barely any consideration of casual sex. Sex was 100x more risky and far fewer people had sex outside of marriage or without some kind of whoring.

Today many women bang out of wedlock but Leo bangs them with his fame and it's all good, yet Hef bangs them and puts them in his magazine and makes money off of them, whores and out you go. A lot of this is assumption based on cultural norms and mores, not fact. Come on man.

Nonsense, cultural norms have nothing to do with this, it's all based on intentions. If a woman fucks a man with the sole intent of getting some kind of resource in exchange, she's a whore. If she fucks because she's turned on and horny, then she's a normal woman with normal intentions.

Now, whether or not whoring is bad or good is a matter of "cultural norms," but I don't know any man who'd ever want their daughter to grow up to be a whore.

Without that carrot to dangle... no free pussy: Game is about dangling the carrot. You are trying to convey your high value a lot of times without having it. So... if you have it why the fuck is it not game all of a sudden? See my point? Just like that Hef dangled the carrot aka his cock and women came for it. Even if he didn't make money off of them, he did bang them. As far as the free pussy thing, I digress at this point.

More illogical reductionism. You are claiming that if a man offers anything at all to a woman, then you are no different than any other whoremonger. Laughably ridiculous.

Normal men can dangle themselves as the carrot, whoremongers dangle something else besides themselves - cash and prizes.

Famous men who get girls with no promise of reward: There is always a dangling carrot and there is always the promise of a potential for fame. Whether she bangs Leo or Hef, there is game involved. Now, Leo's game may be better BUT he is still leveraging his resources. Hef may be dangling the carrot but I'm pretty sure he didn't bang these women only after signing a contract with them that they will be playmates. If you can prove that somehow, you are the man. There was always a potential reward, NOT a guarantee. That's called persuasion aka game. If they were hot, he put them in the magazine and made money off of them.

I'll use a real life example. I sell consulting services to clients by persuading them that their project will be successful 3 or 6 months down the line. Most times it is and some times it's not. However, I got them to agree that it is. That said, it's much easier for me to do because I can draw on my experience. A schmoe off the street that just got into my business that doesn't have that experience or resources is just not going to be that good unless he works on it. Same concept. Again, persuasion.

You illogically reduced the definition of the word "potential" down to "anything that is rewarding."

You claimed that a woman who sleeps with Leo, who offers her nothing except a chance to be his girlfriend, is the same as a woman sleeping with Hugh, who probably couldn't give a shit about Hugh except for the chance to get into Playboy and make a name for herself. Self-evidently absurd to claim the two situations are equivalent, since the intentions involved are opposite: in one situation we see a woman who wants the man, in the other situation we see a woman who is using the man for something else.

I have met many forum members. I'm not sure how many you have met. The ones with resources always stand out as the men that pull better quality than the ones that don't. The players that have been more consistently able to pull tail are: Doctors, lawyers and successful business men. Yes, these are forum members. Unless you are in their circle and they respect you as someone with game, it's hard to be in their company. Now, the same men would probably pull tail if they didn't have these resources, by sheer approaching and getting numbers, but they would also end up in a cardboard box approaching for food instead. That's an extreme case scenario but a top level man in his field is pulling better talent than some 9 - 5 guy in a cube, because they chose to work on their lifestyle before women. Trust me an 8 that bangs a guy with little or no resources is leaving that guy to bang a higher quality man with game in a loft or rooftop while sipping on some good wine to loosen her up.

I recently received a PM from a good forum member with the question: Hey Cobra, I'm busting my ass to become very successful and not gaming like I should. I'm getting dissuaded by certain forum members that don't see this as a path to better game. My answer: It ABSOLUTELY IS THE PATH TO BETTER GAME. Be PROUD of your value as a man and be proud of what you earn from achievements. Become a HIGH VALUE MAN. Women respect high value men with game. The fact that there are high value men with no game is a fact of life BUT we tend to forget about those that do on the forum. If you can leverage your resources to pull talent you are essentially "Almost Famous." I would rather spend my good years acquiring resources than approaching at the cost of not having as many resources. I hope I'm able to help this forum member see this in some little way.

Approaching is cool if you have settled with life and don't want to move forward in your career and lifestyle but you will also be stuck with subpar talent. Losers can only play winners for so long. Do something with life and learn game at your pace without worrying too much about it. You will be delighted at the results.

TL;DR: Men that game with resources > Men that game without resources

This has nothing to do with anything in the thread. Regardless I've been teaching the difference between Passive and Active Game for years:

http://www.returnofkings.com/999/passive-game-vs-active-game

You're one of those guys who think passive game is king, yet conveniently ignore the poor odds and long time invested to acquire a high passive value. Truth is, it's best to focus on both at the same time. Never neglect either because they take a looooong time to perfect.
 

justforfun19713

Pigeon
Gold Member
Samseau said:
I love you Samseau but do disagree with pretty much everything you've laid out here. As many times as you have referred to these women as whores, I think you have made some major assumptions to get yourself there. Remember, not everyone here shares the thought of those assumptions being true or factual in any way. Like I said before, a lot of it is assumption based on conjecture. You say that they were fucking for cash and we say they were fucking for resources (like any girl does by the way)

1. There is no difference between a girl who fucks for money or resources. But, there is a difference between a whore who trades her vagina for something else besides the love of a man. That's why I call whores those who fuck for cash and prizes.

2. Your implication that all women fuck only for resources is false. Not only have I banged plenty of girls for zero resources on my part, but so have tens of millions of other men. Additionally, a woman who marries a man for ordinary provisioning is not whoring herself out since ordinary provisioning can be provided by the majority of ordinary men. Therefore the common housewife is not whoring because she did not merely marry the richest man she could find.

Your argument is reductionism, a common philosophical error. The idea that all women are whores is absurd compared with our everyday experience and relies on heavy slanting of definitions.

Again, the term whoring is all over the place as if it's true. I don't believe it is. That makes pretty much every woman that fucks out of wedlock a whore. Women fuck men for basic things like protection and resources. Neither of these in any part of our history were exclusive reasons. There's usually a combination of the two and as society has shifted, women have shifted more to resources as they already receive protection from the government. This shouldn't be hard to decipher.

Again, we see the absurd reductionism on display in bold. If resources are all that women are after, why do they choose one man over any other million men with similar access to resources? Why do some women have sex with just a few men while other women have sex with thousands? The answer: because some are normal women and the others are broken whores.

The idea that since women only have sex with men who have a minimum level of resources they are all therefore whores is, quite frankly, ridiculous reasoning. You are reducing all of the world's phenomena down to a single focal point (sexual exchange) with absolutely no justification. Completely ignored are the myriad of reasons women have sex, such as attraction to the man and his personality or the desire to have children with them.

No one can call themselves a player if they do not understand this, because it means they have never seduced a woman with game before.

Before I provide my thoughts, let's lay down the facts. Women have wanted 2 things for all of history from men: protection and resources. The level of how much each man can give has changed over time. Even the promise of those things or indicators of them have been leveraged over time and eventually became known as game.

False premise with false conclusions. You shift from women wanting 2 things, to women only wanting 2 things. Logical error detected.

Game is not merely the leveraging of these attributes either.

Free pussy: Bro pussy isn't free and it never will be. The opportunity cost of Hef trying to find this talent and attract it cost him in the same vein as doing 100 approaches and getting a few numbers. Except at the end of the day Hef banged better talent.

More illogical reductionism: that because both normal women and whores have a "cost", therefore all women are whores.

The flaw is in how the word "cost" is used. There is a massive difference between paying a whore with cash and gaming a normal woman with game. Just because they both "cost" the man something does not change the fundamentals. A whore fucks ANYONE if the price is right. Normal women do not. Normal women care about other things in their men besides money!

The whores Hugh banged have been with hundreds, if not thousands, of men. The 23 year I had on my bed a few weeks ago had been with fewer than fifty men, perhaps even less than twenty. The reason is because the whore only sees sex as a means for more money, whereas the normal woman is 100x more selective and wants a man she can actually love.

Whores: Again, I'm not sure how we got here and why some women are whores when they sleep with a high value man with resources and other women are not.

Who is talking about "high value men"? You or me? I've only been talking about women, and their intentions: if she merely wants access to cash and prizes, she's a whore.

If she's only with a man because she just wants his stuff, she's a whore or a gold digger (the gold digger is far more selective and looks for LTRs over the whore's fuck for cash scheme - both similar but there is a difference). But if she's with a man because she loves him, even though there may be thousands of other men out there with the exact same level of wealth, she's a normal woman.

In biblical times, the standard was that women are whores if they bang out of wedlock.

Not true. For example, in the OT a man who takes a girl's virginity but decides not to marry her could still pay the father a large fine. The girl was not regarded as a whore afterwards. Whores were still seen as those who used their sex selfishly for cash and prizes.

Moreover, in the olden days there was barely any consideration of casual sex. Sex was 100x more risky and far fewer people had sex outside of marriage or without some kind of whoring.

Today many women bang out of wedlock but Leo bangs them with his fame and it's all good, yet Hef bangs them and puts them in his magazine and makes money off of them, whores and out you go. A lot of this is assumption based on cultural norms and mores, not fact. Come on man.

Nonsense, cultural norms have nothing to do with this, it's all based on intentions. If a woman fucks a man with the sole intent of getting some kind of resource in exchange, she's a whore. If she fucks because she's turned on and horny, then she's a normal woman with normal intentions.

Now, whether or not whoring is bad or good is a matter of "cultural norms," but I don't know any man who'd ever want their daughter to grow up to be a whore.

Without that carrot to dangle... no free pussy: Game is about dangling the carrot. You are trying to convey your high value a lot of times without having it. So... if you have it why the fuck is it not game all of a sudden? See my point? Just like that Hef dangled the carrot aka his cock and women came for it. Even if he didn't make money off of them, he did bang them. As far as the free pussy thing, I digress at this point.

More illogical reductionism. You are claiming that if a man offers anything at all to a woman, then you are no different than any other whoremonger. Laughably ridiculous.

Normal men can dangle themselves as the carrot, whoremongers dangle something else besides themselves - cash and prizes.

Famous men who get girls with no promise of reward: There is always a dangling carrot and there is always the promise of a potential for fame. Whether she bangs Leo or Hef, there is game involved. Now, Leo's game may be better BUT he is still leveraging his resources. Hef may be dangling the carrot but I'm pretty sure he didn't bang these women only after signing a contract with them that they will be playmates. If you can prove that somehow, you are the man. There was always a potential reward, NOT a guarantee. That's called persuasion aka game. If they were hot, he put them in the magazine and made money off of them.

I'll use a real life example. I sell consulting services to clients by persuading them that their project will be successful 3 or 6 months down the line. Most times it is and some times it's not. However, I got them to agree that it is. That said, it's much easier for me to do because I can draw on my experience. A schmoe off the street that just got into my business that doesn't have that experience or resources is just not going to be that good unless he works on it. Same concept. Again, persuasion.

You illogically reduced the definition of the word "potential" down to "anything that is rewarding."

You claimed that a woman who sleeps with Leo, who offers her nothing except a chance to be his girlfriend, is the same as a woman sleeping with Hugh, who probably couldn't give a shit about Hugh except for the chance to get into Playboy and make a name for herself. Self-evidently absurd to claim the two situations are equivalent, since the intentions involved are opposite: in one situation we see a woman who wants the man, in the other situation we see a woman who is using the man for something else.

I have met many forum members. I'm not sure how many you have met. The ones with resources always stand out as the men that pull better quality than the ones that don't. The players that have been more consistently able to pull tail are: Doctors, lawyers and successful business men. Yes, these are forum members. Unless you are in their circle and they respect you as someone with game, it's hard to be in their company. Now, the same men would probably pull tail if they didn't have these resources, by sheer approaching and getting numbers, but they would also end up in a cardboard box approaching for food instead. That's an extreme case scenario but a top level man in his field is pulling better talent than some 9 - 5 guy in a cube, because they chose to work on their lifestyle before women. Trust me an 8 that bangs a guy with little or no resources is leaving that guy to bang a higher quality man with game in a loft or rooftop while sipping on some good wine to loosen her up.

I recently received a PM from a good forum member with the question: Hey Cobra, I'm busting my ass to become very successful and not gaming like I should. I'm getting dissuaded by certain forum members that don't see this as a path to better game. My answer: It ABSOLUTELY IS THE PATH TO BETTER GAME. Be PROUD of your value as a man and be proud of what you earn from achievements. Become a HIGH VALUE MAN. Women respect high value men with game. The fact that there are high value men with no game is a fact of life BUT we tend to forget about those that do on the forum. If you can leverage your resources to pull talent you are essentially "Almost Famous." I would rather spend my good years acquiring resources than approaching at the cost of not having as many resources. I hope I'm able to help this forum member see this in some little way.

Approaching is cool if you have settled with life and don't want to move forward in your career and lifestyle but you will also be stuck with subpar talent. Losers can only play winners for so long. Do something with life and learn game at your pace without worrying too much about it. You will be delighted at the results.

TL;DR: Men that game with resources > Men that game without resources

This has nothing to do with anything in the thread. Regardless I've been teaching the difference between Passive and Active Game for years:

http://www.returnofkings.com/999/passive-game-vs-active-game

You're one of those guys who think passive game is king, yet conveniently ignore the poor odds and long time invested to acquire a high passive value. Truth is, it's best to focus on both at the same time. Never neglect either because they take a looooong time to perfect.


Unnecessary.
 
Top