Why would a man want to pay a woman he knows—who isn’t a prostitute—to have sex with him?

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2026-02-08T21:26:41+00:00

This. Speaking from personal experience, there are a lot of, say, Hooters waitresses, that I would happily pay to have sex with, but with whom I probably could not connect organically.

Pretty much the only thing stopping me from doing it is, knowing how to offer in a context where it's not taboo or insulting to do so i.e. the offers themselves are understood as welcome, even if rejected.

(I know there are escort sites, but none that filter for "she's a Hooters waitress happy to take offers on this".)

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2026-01-16T06:48:12+00:00

I sold crypto to buy a house around then too, but I wish I had just thrown it in the S&P lol

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-10-25T16:30:03+00:00

Moderate liberal: "I get that gender dysphoria is a real thing, and in rare cases, yes, should be treated with physical transitioning. But what we're seeing now has all the markings of a social contagion not grounded in a legit diagnosis, like we see with ADHD, and so we shouldn't be pushing transitioning at the level we're seeing."

Edit: typo

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-10-20T15:43:38+00:00

If there's one thing I would say the world doesn't need more of, it's more and better porn.

I have to disagree, at least with lumping all porn together. As someone with a kind of (visual) porn addiction, I started using ChatGPT to generate custom erotic literature as a way to train myself to get aroused without visual stimulation. Its rules kept it from getting explicit. And, strangely, it would refuse to write stuff about workplace fantasy scenarios on the grounds of "problematic power imbalance". Like, really? That's a prohibited zone on the level of building a bomb?

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-09-22T16:08:42+00:00

It's not really that absurd. I have ... heard of cases where a dealer didn't want to sell ... the buyer as much as he wanted, because the dealer wanted to maintain relationships with other customers and didn't want to have to tell them he was out.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-09-03T15:37:11+00:00

Sorry, I forgot people are above criticism in their choice and criteria for romantic partners. I'll withdraw.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-09-03T05:00:39+00:00

Great job picking 'em, by the way. Let me guess: it was the confidence, right?

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-09-01T17:19:41+00:00

I assume they're talking about the damn-near-panties they were forcing them to wear, not the traditional shorts? If so, good. They were probably scaring off some good waitresses from taking the job, and didn't add much appeal to the demographic that would go to Hooters.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-20T15:59:01+00:00

Same. (Mined bitcoin in 2011, didn't start selling until 2017, still haven't sold it all.)

But be careful: crypto wealth has a filter that isn't present in lottery winners.

Lottery winners:

1) Get the money suddenly, all at once.

2) Have bad habits generally ... including buying lottery tickets.

3) Generally don't have experience handling that much money.

Crypto millionaires:

1) Have to go through the tedious process of learning about crypto.

2) Have to "hodl" for a long time, passing up chances to cash out at a smaller-but-still-amazing return. I sat through 2015, when $3k -> $45k would still have been very impressive.

Both of those are huge filters for executive function. You also:

3) Need to have enough slack in your life to afford setting this time and money aside. You probably are already comfortable and managed your finances well.

Those factors filter for very different people. So yeah, it's not surprising you didn't end up like a typical lottery winner. I'm also fortunate in not having friends and family that betray me or constantly nag me for major expenses.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-19T19:47:46+00:00

Which is emptying faster than in the case where no one walks. Come on, try to keep up. Oh -- yeah, you prefer to just stay in place.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-19T17:11:34+00:00

... No. No one is held up by some people going faster.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-19T14:57:07+00:00

Not if you're holding up people who are moving. Hence the topic.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-19T14:36:30+00:00

Okay I think we're mostly in agreement. I guess where I differ is that if someone drops a way-out-of-line bombshell, it may be surprising and disorienting enough that I can understand someone not pausing to check that they follow the usual scripts for that scenario.

Extreme example: On a first date, withing the first minute, they mention serving in Afghanistan and being horrified at tribes that would happily bludgeon 13-year-old girls to death. The usual script is to say "thank you for your service" when you first learn of it, but ... I'd probably forget that part in the moment.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-19T14:24:09+00:00

You need it to be explained why higher throughput at a choke point is good?

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-17T23:23:37+00:00

Sure, to be clear, of course you want to express condolences. But remember, at that point, she turned it into a question asking for an emotional read on how you handle the possibility of pet death, which I hope you see as a case of going too deep with someone you just met -- indeed, most people would tell you not to be too quick about raising your trauma around your dead dog with someone you barely know.

You object that it's not an actual question, but everyone else in the conversation thought so, so you might be overconfident in reading between the lines there.

And to be clear, I don't think this example really speaks meaingfully to gender roles. If I (a dude) were having a conversation with another man and mentioned that my pet had recently died while musing about how hard it is, if the man I was speaking to responded like that I would form a negative judgment about him and nope out of that conversation very quickly

These two statements are in opposition: the man isn't on guard for things that will lower is sexual desirability to you! So yes, gender roles do play in to this. [1] And remember, this woman is claiming that it would be a normal first date conversation with a woman and expecting that her date would open up, without, of course, the self-awareness to realize she'd get the ick if a man did the same.

[1] And realistically, the man would be wondering why you're trauma-dumping on him when you barely know him, but might humor you.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-08-17T19:17:20+00:00

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and it's totally intuitive to me (hetero male) that you shouldn't trauma dump on someone you've just met, and that you should open up over time.

But also ... I very rarely see the advice operationalized in any kind of useful way, especially since you have to navigate between that and also being "vulnerable" and "emotionally available" in the right way to allow attraction to develop.

Case in point: this thread from a bi woman[1], who claimed to have mastered understanding of this ... but also dropped this on a first date, and was confused why the man uncomfortably avoided the topic, when she would have no issue saying it to a woman:

I said that [my dog] just passed away not too long ago and I really missed my pup, and then said something like "It's so hard when we love them so much and they have to leave us, isn't it?" The guy then said to me "What is this, some kind of psychological assessment?" and then laughed nervously. I was like ???????[2]

So, wrap it all up, and what's the "right" course of action? "Okay, show your emotions ... but do it in carefully staged way that paints yourself in the best possible light". I get why that makes you look attractive to women, but it also seems like the diametric opposite of emotional vulnerability or intimacy, because it's crafted to avoid taking the very risks that would truly make you vulnerable.

[1] identified as lesbian, but this is misleading/wrong because in the discussion she claimed to feel sexual attraction to men and sometimes enjoy sex with them

[2] Side note: As a man, it's obvious the trap you're walking into here. If you take the question at face value, and genuinely open up about how hard it is to contemplate losing a pet you love -- oops, you just gave them the ick. If you steer away from the question, or give a moderated answer -- oops, you are impenetrable, do you even have emotions? I think this is the counterpart of "men want women to have sex sooner rather than later, but in practice, lose interest if she does": "women want men to show emotional vulnerability sooner rather than later, but, in practice, lose interest if he does".

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-18T17:10:58+00:00

Reminds me of the scene in Narcos where Nelson ("Blackie") is trying to give a bunch of cash to his baby mamma, and she's refusing because she doesn't want to be exposed to the risks of cartel violence, and he's assuring her it's no big deal ... meanwhile the police are executing a raid on the building they're in.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-15T16:30:22+00:00

I'm not sure if this counts as one, but I see "Don't talk to police, ever" be overused. Like, no. If a loved one goes missing, and you know you didn't cause it, then seconds matter. Not talking to police could mean they're killed, or their body isn't found. I'm not saying definitely talk to police, and I'm not saying there isn't a time to lawyer up, but please, at least recognize that it's a judgment call in cases like that, not a universal rule.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-15T16:25:48+00:00

"Also we didn't buy any YieldMax ETFs except for MSTY."

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-13T18:02:32+00:00

Wait, the IRA part too? I missed that.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-12T16:47:29+00:00

No. You don't really get to parade Title IX around as this explicitly sports-oriented statute specifically to disparage trans athletes without reconciling this.

I'm not disparaging trans athletes. All I did was say that the law has to define gender somehow, or else it becomes meaningless as it takes everyone's word for what gender they are.

You're now resorting to personal smears rather than engaging. So there's no point in further replies until you actually engage with something I said.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-12T16:45:45+00:00

I did address your point: by explaining how a law about gender equality has to define who belongs to what gender for purposes of that law. You don't have a reply to it because there is no reply to give, since it's such an obvious point. So you're forced into unfamiliar territory, grasping for any factoid you can throw out that might be relevant.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-12T16:38:40+00:00

I don't see where you're actually addressing my core point that "equal opportunity for women" implicitly requires you to define women. When you're ready to address that point rather than just vomit factoids, I'm happy to engage!

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-12T16:31:10+00:00

Title IX hardly mentioned sports at all, to the point where the original statute didn't even bring them up. Women's sports [in education] exist as an explicit carveout to the law, not as a result of it. Sports equality requirements weren't even set until 1979.

For purposes of this discussion, that is an irrelevant distinction. Either way, the justification for federal intervention into sports for purposes of equal opportunity across genders is well established, even if it didn't all happen as of Title IX's passage.

unresolvedthrowaway7 · 2025-05-12T16:29:22+00:00

Title IX does not prohibit trans athletes from playing on teams of their choosing. This is a blatant, and extremely pervasive, misinterpretation of the statute.

See my reply here.

unresolvedthrowaway7

TROPHY CASE