Thursday, June 11, 2009

If gaming is good, is prostitution even better?

++Addition++Roissy does favor legalizing prostitution. That makes sense.


Recently, Roissy interestingly (but not surprisingly, given his trade) asserted that the best solution to the civilizational entropy resulting from what he calls the four sirens of the apocalypse (easily accessible contraceptives, no-fault divorce, female economic independence, and feminist-inspired laws) is as much fuck-and-chuck as guys are able to pull off:

No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order *exactly* what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony.

From this position, why not petition for legalizing prostitution*? Searching the site, I couldn't find anything where the issue is directly confronted, other than this post in which Roissy relays the exploits of a couple of friends who've paid for services in the past. In rendering the more 'alpha' of the two as not being pathetic for engaging a prostitute, he doesn't indicate hostility toward the idea.

It seems morally preferable to merely trying to increase gaming skills, as fewer women would be fooled in the process. The PUA approach is probably less popular than outright prostitution, especially among women. In 1996, the GSS asked 1,399 respondents if there is anything inherently wrong with the latter. A substantial minority (42.3%) of women said there was nothing wrong with it, while men were evenly split, with 49.9% calling it wrong and 50.1% saying it is not wrong. Although hardly scientific, it seems that virtually all women commenters who are active in Roissy's comment threads at least claim to oppose the PUA approach he advocates, including even the most 'degenerate' feminists like blogger FeministX. It doesn't have the backing of more than 4 in 10 women, anyway.

The argument against prostitution while still favoring pumping-and-dumping might originate from the desire to keep women from disproportionate gain. The PUA is essentially trying to pick up a prostitute (and I use that term in a morally-neutral way) for the lowest expenditure possible. He's tapping his own mental acuity, using his own free time, spending his own money on favorable image creation and in engaging in whatever social activity is his current playing field, etc for the purpose, but those resources aren't being transferred directly to the woman like they are in outright prostitution. But for more dollars going directly from the guy to the girl and less of everything else, the desired outcome could still be realized.

While almost all attractive women are viewed as potential targets for PUAs, the evidence that lots of guys are nailing lots of girls isn't there. With the goal of stuffing the beast until it dies from its own corpulence, if legalizing prostitution is enough for more marginal men to fornicate, why not? It already transpires in the hours after a strip club closes, but why limit it to explicitly tawdry places like gentleman's clubs? Why not easily facilitate it at a mainstream bar or dance club? If nothing else, it creates another potential avenue for the fuck-and-chucker to take.

The objection that most women don't want to be prostitutes, even among those who favor its legalization, is partially addressed in that most women don't want to be a notch in another pump-and-dumper's belt each weekend, either. But for enough in return (whether it's fun, excitement, status, money, or whatever), it happens. And accepting a favor (money) in return for another favor (sex) in the context of social enjoyment rather than as a necessary and substantial source of regular income would allow for a meaningful distinction between the 'professional' jezebel and Samantha Jones extracting one more thing from the players in the field to be made.

GSS variables used: SELLSEX, SEX

* Personally, I favor the localist's position on prostitution (not in my city for the same reason I want my property taxes to be high and usually vote to raise them, but do in your community what your community wants to do) and think the PUA phenomenon is real but overblown. Engaging in it with no intention of procreation is one of many forms of entertainment I don't take pleasure in because it strikes me as a squandering of time and resources (not to mention cheating is something I simply would never do).


as said...

Won't the men pick up easily transmissible diseases for which condoms are only partially protective like HPV, Herpes Simplex Virus I & II, Epstein-Barr, CMV, etc., and spread them to the woman they eventually marry?


Speaking as a female, I do NOT approve of legalized prostitution.

If you legalized prostitution, more men would of course avail themselves of prostitutes, and there would a greater chance that the man you marry had consorted with them.


I thought you were a conservative? Anyway, I am, and I definitely think the best system is one in which the man and woman are virgins when they marry. Why would you support any legal change which would take us even further away from this ideal?

TGGP said...

as, I share your ideal but as a practical matter even the devout in the middle ages found the idea of banning prostitution silly. Are STDs any more prevalent in Amsterdam than the average U.S city?

BGC said...

This is one of those subjects which show the weakness of mainstream secular morality.

AE clearly has pretty strong personal moral intuitions which he is unable to defend or recommend as policy, because secular morality (based on what makes people happier, or which reduces suffering) simply lacks the resources.

This kind of thing demonstrates why secular morality has turned out to be a failure.

Secular morality is OK for people who are spontaneously well-motivated and well-behaved; but provides no basis for enforcing social morality on people who do not share these moral intuitions; or have consciously decided to be selfish, dishonest, short-termist and exploitative.

Anonymous said...

I think prostitution is too expensive to replace gaming. Street walkers cost about $100 per time, escorts between $500 and $1000 for an evening. Maybe that would work if you were loaded, but for the average guy, game is a much better use of their time and money.

I would rather spend 4 hours in a club on Friday night at a cost of around $40 hanging out with my friends and hitting on chicks. I get to work on my confidence and social skills AND add numbers to my collection, at least one of which will hopefully pay off, eliminating the need for hookers.

As an aside, game isn't just about tricking women, but when it is presented to them as such, of course they will react negatively. Since I've started practicing my game, I can't tell you how many women have acknowledged that they like it when a guy takes control, teases/banters with them, and doesn't smother them, which is essentially what game is all about.


Audacious Epigone said...


I'm trying to see the logic behind stopping at pushing for an all-out PUA offensive and not recommending prostitution. I don't look favorably on either the PUA game or prostitution and want as little as possible where I live--even though I don't have any kids, my neighborhood is overwhelmingly comprised of white collar couples in their late 20s and early 30s who have a couple of young kids toddling and scampering along.


I cannot disagree. Secular morality essentially dictates that if there is a market for it, people are better off for engaging in what they want to engage in. Seems to me the best way to affect change on moral values is through differences in group fertility levels. Winning over the hedonists is futile--better to just outbreed them.


It wouldn't be as expensive if legalized, and if any woman could solicit money, the 'going rate' would be contingent on the parties involved. Highly desirable guys would still be able to get it for what they're spending now (time, a little money on a drink and a car ride, etc) but less successful men would be able to pay X to close the gap. The bottom line would be more men pumping-and-dumping, which Roissy asserts is a solution to the degeneracy, so those who share his position should support it, shouldn't they?

Anonymous said...

Well, according to anecdotal evidence from Roissy's comment threads, many luckless guys do already use prostitutes. Were it legal, I suppose its popularity would increase with its respectability, but prices would probably still remain high.

I've traveled to prostitute-infested Europe, and prices were about as high as in North America, where it is illegal. (For the record, I inquire for fun. I don't use them).

Actually, as I type out my response, I'm beginning to see your point. I was going to argue that brothels in the nightclub district would only be popular with guys who already have the cash to spend on party drugs and bottle service. Well, why buy those in order to impress women when you can just buy the woman herself across the street?

I support the legalisation of prostitution in the same way I support the legalisation of marijuana and cocaine. It's already happening, and isn't any more damaging than many legal vices. We might as well regulate and tax it instead of wasting money trying to stop it. However, you have just given me another reason.


Anonymous said...

asdf -- where are you getting those numbers from? you can get extremely attractive women on sites like for $200/hour.

let's say you take advantage of that say once every two weeks. So maybe $5200/year. Very reasonable hobby if you're a busy single guy making good bank, especially if you basically just want to get back to work. Many don't want the drama of a girl who wants you to call her every day, put up with her bullshit, etc.

Audacious Epigone said...

ASDF and anon,

Right, it simply allows men more options in which resources they expend. Time, socializing, dressing, preening, etc that constitute game can be substituted with money. That doesn't mean it has to be, nor does it necessitate that women who settle for some payment become 'professional' prostitutes, it just sweetens the deal a little for them.

Personally, I don't want it occuring near me, but from Roissy's line of thinking, it seems to follow that prostitution is a desirable thing.

Novaseeker said...

I don't think it makes a huge difference, really. At this point in time, prostitution may as well be legal -- internet "escorts" are available pretty much everywhere and law enforcement for the most part does not bother them unless they are a part of a "ring" or agency -- which they are, for the most part, not. What I mean is that, for all intents and purposes, people can easily find a prostitute for a reasonable amount of money with very low risk of any law enforcement being involved -- so I'm not sure legalizing it would have much of an impact at all. Most guys who want to use hookers for sex are doing it already.

The difference between PUAing and going with a hooker is quite significant. The hooker is a business transaction, the PUA is not. The idea that PUAs are somehow tricking young women into doing something they don't want to do is quite off-base. Women enjoy very much the playful dominance and banter with confident men that is the core of "Game". Yes it can lead to sex, but that's because the woman is enjoying herself and wants to have sex, too. That's very different from the attitude of a prostitute.

This relates, in part, I think to your thread a while ago about sex partners. To my mind there is a generational shift taking place. Women of my generation (I'll be 42 this year) did not generally speaking have a highish number of sex partners by the time they hit 30. There were outliers, but they were outliers. In that sense, I agree with what you wrote directionally about women in my generation. I think, however, that women in their 20s now are indeed behaving very, very differently than women of their age did even as recently as 15 years ago, when I was in my mid-20s. There was a story on npr about this earlier this month ( The young women interviewed all eschewed relationships and dating, and instead admitted that they preferred to hook up with attractive guys for sex only. This certainly suggests that a much higher number of them than in my generation are, in fact, racking up significant numbers of sex partners in their 20s. I suspect the attitudinal studies we've seen, which interview women who are now married and in their 30s and 40s often, are missing the real story, which is that women in their 20s are behaving very, very differently than was the case even 10-15 years ago. That certainly doesn't mean 50, but it does mean quite a few more than was common for women when I was my 20s.

That relates to PUA in that a significant number of young women also want to hook up for sex. The NPR story reflects that. These young women are not being exploited by PUAs, they are simply having fun, and getting the no strings sex they want themselves. When you look at the NPR story and what it suggests about the current educated urban female population, it's hard to decide just who is pumping and dumping whom.

Audacious Epigone said...


Maybe there is a seismic shift taking place among young, well-educated urban white women, but it doesn't appear to be a phenomenon that is sweeping the country.

According to the GSS, among women aged 25-30 queried between 2004-2008 on the number of male partners they've had since 18, the mean is 4.61 and the median is 3. A decade before (1994-1998), the same question among women of the same age cohort shows a mean of 4.59 and a median of 3. The question only began being asked in 1989, but that approximates your generation. From 1989-1993, same question and same age group, the mean is 4.07 and median is 3. A gentle increase in the number of partners does show up over time, but it's hardly revolutionary.

Also, please see Agnostic's post "Your generation was sluttier".

Novaseeker said...

There may very well be regional variations, I would not be surprised if the sexual habits of 20-something women in Manhattan and Los Angeles are different from those in Dubuque or Topeka, even though we don't have the data broken down by MSA.

Novaseeker said...

And one more thing I just came cross.

I know your approach does not favor anecdotal approaches, and I'm not suggesting that the following is "evidence" of anything, but merely an illustration of the kind of women Whiskey is talking about. She posted this a few hours ago over at Roissy's infamous blog:

"I’ve been sexually active since about 15 or 16 (didn’t pay attention to the age, sorry). I’m in my mid-twenties now. In there, I’ve been in a total of six committed (and closed) relationships that knocked out 2.5yrs+2yrs+1.5yrs+3mos+8mos+4mos which knocked me out of the field for a total of 7.25 years of those ten. I don’t bother keeping track of my partners anymore, so I’m around 70-80 for “full” partners, and I don’t even want to attempt to guess about oral-only partners."

Now, as I say, not evidence of a trend, but an illustration of the kind of thing he is talking about. Note that she has had six serial monogamous relationships in the last ten or so years, so she says was in "closed" relationships for 7.25 of the ten years with 6 different men ... but admits that she nevertheless has had 70-80 partners, and that doesn't include oral-only partners, which she doesn't even want to attempt to guess.

Now one could quickly conclude "ah well, she is just a slut", but she says that for 7.25 of the last 10 years, she was in "closed" relationships, suggesting serial monogamy.

The young are behaving differently, at least in the bigger cities. I strongly suspect that the GSS data is inaccurate.

Anonymous said...

"Won't the men pick up easily transmissible diseases for which condoms are only partially protective like HPV, Herpes Simplex Virus I & II, Epstein-Barr, CMV, etc., and spread them to the woman they eventually marry?"

Good point.

Note also that virtual-reality porn is as safe as masturbation.

A generation of men accustomed to porn might find that real sex with an actual partner is too much effort, both physically and emotionally.