I'm talking about your reasoning and argumentation in general, not necessarily your arguments on escortceling.
I know, which is why I said:
The things you probably disagreed with were things based on morality. I can't even remember anything we specifically argued about.
Just take the fucking compliment. JFL
That's not a compliment lol, it's a backhanded insult.
Communication and understanding has some room for improvement, though.
All this did was invalidate your assessment of me. I understood completely what you said, it had nothing to do with communication. You're the one lacking understanding to see that what you're saying is not really a compliment lol. Who the fuck do you even think you are that you think some random fucker you met online would take a backhanded statement like that as a compliment? lol.
You must think very highly of yourself.
It is not a permanent solution.
One's "solution" depends on what they see as the "problem" and in the rest of your response you clearly showed that you are an egoist and obsessed with other peoples opinions of you, so your "problem" really is about how people percieve you not "I can't get sex". Don't project your problem onto the rest of us and then use that framework to find "flaws", the flaw is in your psyche (get over yourself).
It is just for gaining a bit of self confidence and to de-mystify pussy so it can be recommended especially for teencels here.
A lot of you guys are really copers. You honestly think you are going to "ascend one day" when you are an incel. You are either:
1. Delusional
2. A fakecel
Making it an addiction might be stupid financially.
It's cheaper than "dating" for most men today if you compare expenses to the amount of sex you got, but again, one's solution depends on what they see as a problem. Also the expense depends on where you live.
Bad sides: Society won't count it as scoring. Society respect you the more pussy you fuck when it is free, when is paid sex then they despise you. Pussy is never free unless you are chad so who cares.
This is the ego part I was talking about. What you are telling me here is that if you woke up with millions as an inheritance you'd still be worrying about what society thinks about you instead of going out and enjoying life. You see you guys contradict yourself all the time, on one hand you speak badly of society like it's "degenerate" and "beneath you" but you also speak of it as something "high enough" that you value it's judgements. That's a blatant contradiction.
You guys do the same thing with women too:
This is something that needs to be addressed, I'm seeing a lot of blue pilled posts against paying for sex, and the most frustrating part isn't their refusal, its the blatant contradiction in their arguments and their mindset, that female validation means more to them than sex, while at the same...
incels.is
Well, technically it might not be the "exact" same thing, but it's the same "sort of" thing. It's both: buying FEMALE ATTENTION.
Lol dude, the more you guys play these disingenuous word games, the more you convey that you don't even believe in your own stance
You would not phrase hiring a lawyer as "buying attention"
You would not phrase hiring a nanny (if you had children) as "buying attention"
You're purchasing a service, so you'd include the service in the description, not go out of your way to be as ambiguous as possible to make it sound like you are getting nothing in return. You just look stupid and dishonest when you do this.
You only hurt your argument by trying to play these word games lol
You see the problem may be that you've yet to acknowledge and accept that relationships between men and women
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TRANSACTIONAL.
You wouldn't pay a dude on onlyfans, you wouldn't pay a dude to fuck him, the services you desire are FEMALE ONLY
I would like to hope that this is true for you too, but I'm starting to wonder now, because you are comparing the two as if both are options
When a simp gives a woman money BASED ON HER SEXUALITY, he is paying that woman for FEMALE ATTENTION.
An "escortcel" gives a woman money BASED ON HER SEXUALITY, and gets FEMALE ATTENTION.
It's the same because what you get is the same sort of thing, yes it's not the "exact" same, but it's the same kind of thing and it's not really hard to understand.
No, the way I worded it (honestly) is not hard to understand, you playing word games with "female attention" is what nobody with two brain cells to rub together will understand lol.
The first thing anyone with sense will think when they read responses like yours is - "Why is he trying so hard to word it this way, prostitution has a clear definition"
Wrong. There is such thing as free sex.
Your statement might have been true back in 1853, when women relied on the money of a man, but these times are over.
It's 2021, women DON'T NEED money from men anymore. They fuck for their own pleasure and they do it for free to males that they're attracted to.
Sex is only "free" if you paid for nothing (like how women pay for nothing). The exception to the rule doesn't make the rule, most guys have to take a woman out on a "date" and pay for everything to get sex, so they are in fact paying for sex, they are just paying "indirectly". Then when they "pair up" with that woman they have to protect and provide for her.
This is why dating is the preferred "model" for "courtship" because it allows both sexes to have plausible deniability that they are engaging in "prostitution" so that the "human ego" isn't bruised, but that's literally what's taking place. It's a trade of resources for sex, there's just an added "gambling/probability mechanic" to make both parties involved not feel like they're "trading".
"Dating" is the best example of the phrase "mental gymnastics" in existence.
A man buys a woman food, drinks, entertainment, etc for the sole purpose of fucking her,
BUT the rules of engagement dictate that he pretend that he's not doing it to fuck her.
A woman lets a man wine, dine and entertain her, solely for her own enjoyment, with the implication that he will be rewarded with sex if she is satisfied with her treatment,
BUT the rules of engagement dictate that she pretend like she's not fucking him because he payed for everything and "showed her a good time".
Dating is just prostitution with "extra steps".
I feel people like you cope and tell yourself otherwise because you don't want to see your parents in a "bad light" (especially your mother).
We're wording it like that to get our point across and so that even an idiot could understand what we're saying.
It literally doesn't get your point across and it just comes across as disingenuous.
How hard is it to say - "You're paying a woman for sex"
I don't think you understand how words work, when you leave the "verb" out of the sentence it doesn't make much sense
If someone is paying a woman for "having a vagina" it means you are literally just paying her for that and you aren't fucking her
If someone is paying a woman for "existing" it means you are literally just paying her for that and you aren't fucking her
DATING IS IRONICALLY CLOSER TO PAYING A WOMAN FOR "HAVING A VAGINA" OR "EXISTING" BECAUSE THE SEX ISN'T GUARANTEED AND I'M SURE YOU'D DO THAT
Why do you refer to "our ancestors" as if they were better
They were
they were mostly low IQ idiots.
They were actually very intelligent and survived in times that none of us would. People are still debating how the Pyramids were built, because it's such an amazing feat of architecture to be done with simple man made tools. That's years and years of planning and hard physical labor to get that done, and that's without a simple and clear written language for drawing up easy plans.
You see this is the problem with egoists, they think so highly of themselves that they even project that superiority on the era they just happened to be born in.
Humans today are just building upon the discoveries and work of our ancestors.
You bring one of those fuckers from the past to the future, and in a few years they'll understand the technology and can do what we do, they'll even learn the language. You send any of us back to their time we'll be dead in two fucking weeks lol.
They were 100% without a doubt better than us. The average human can no longer survive in the natural world.
The female doesn't "submit" to the victor. SHE IS ATTRACTED TO the victor.
It doesn't work like that at all. You see what you are doing is assuming that female animals see
ALL of their males as attractive and the males compete so that the female just chooses between two Chads lol.
I'm guessing you've never raised chickens. You can see clearly among the males which one is a "Chad" or an "Incel". The females run from the inferior male and dismount him endlessly, and he only stops because the dominant male often runs in and tries to "mate guard", the males often fight too with the superior one winning all the time and chasing him away. But if the superior one dies the females don't magically see the smaller inferior one as attractive (it doesn't work like that, stop being retarded lol). The females still run from him, still dismount him, but here's the difference, he keeps going and going until the female gets tired and gives up (as there are no other males around to stop him).
There are ugly males among all animals, and their attractiveness is judged based on criteria similar too and sometimes different to humans.
If a smaller, less attractive male beats a larger more attractive one because he's old or was previously injured in another fight. The females don't magically start seeing his ugly features as attractive, it doesn't work like that. He's still ugly, they just
HAVE NO CHOICE but to submit to a dominant male.
There are videos you can find online of a female running off or continuously walking away from a male she finds unattractive as he keeps trying to mount her, sometimes she'll shake him off and force him to dismount over and over, but guess what, at some point she gives up lol. Like I said above:
A lot of what we call mammalian "mating rituals" would be considered "rape" if viewed under a human context.
Modern Male Dating is the exact same thing as mammals competing against each other.
You see this is why I say you're just being disingenuous, because it isn't
Mammalian animals compete
PHYSICALLY (in a fight)
Human males today compete
AESTHETICALLY (on their looks and status)
You see I can't just kill Chad and take his woman, which is something that happens in the wild. The physically superior male doesn't always win, sometimes he's older, or slower because he's bigger and gets gouged somewhere he couldn't guard quickly enough and bleeds to death, sometimes he was previously injured and a weaker male takes advantage of that and takes over his harem/single female.
Human males don't "compete for females", human females are "selecting males"
It's the exact opposite of what you say that's taking place.
Within the animal kingdom, for most mammals, the females have
NO SAY in their world. Human males upset the balance and gave their females rights, privileges, etc. That makes a huge difference. There is no "animal police" in the wild that a female can report a male for rape to lol. There is no "animal jail" for a male to get locked in if he goes around raping females. The female
HAS TO SUBMIT, she quite literally
DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE (unlike human females).
You just come off as dishonest you more you play these word games and the more you pretend like you don't see what's obvious.
Paying for sex is a man-made cuck mechanism that enables foids and gives them money for just existing.
No, women having rights is what "enables foids", when women had no rights men were still "paying for sex", but men had more control and authority. Paying a woman's father a "bride price" is "paying for sex". Taking a woman into your home and providing for her so long as she fucks you and gives you children is "paying for sex".
You have to be a really dishonest person to say otherwise.
I'm not replying again, it's clear that you aren't "arguing in good faith" if all you are doing is playing these word games so it's pointless.
Anybody going out of their way to try and redefine prostitution as "paying for attention" is being disingenuous.