How To Seduce Strippers
A Modern Caveman
I could use a good laugh.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Bryen193
>Come on guys, share all that wonderful wisdom!
Well I hope that not too many of you all are doing that, what with the
prevelance of disease and drug use among these party sluts. Look, be
entertained, but don't touch is a prudent policy at the strip club. However
Ray, just out of curiosity, how many strippers have you had sex with through
the utilization of "stripper gold"?
"They all want to embrace you; they are all taken in by your frigid elegance,
your postures and poses like frozen roses." - Thomas Ligotti
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Heero Yuy
"A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030212190503...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> Come on guys, share all that wonderful wisdom!
Why would we WANT to seduce strippers?
You mistake us for desperate. I know *I* don't want 'tang that has been near
a mouth full of cold sores. Is that how you got herpes? By fucking a
stripper?
It does make sense now that I think about it.
That's why you're so bitter about and towards women.
>
> I could use a good laugh.
Since when have you ever laughed besides whe you deluded yourself into
thinking your suit would be successful.
>
>
> Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand! <--- a delusion
> Limited time only! <--- a lie
Paul Robinson
> Come on guys, share all that wonderful wisdom!
>
> I could use a good laugh.
Look in the mirror sometime, you've proven to everyone that you're a
joke.
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
Paul Robinson
> "A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030212190503...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> >
> > Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand! <--- a delusion
> > Limited time only! <--- a lie
> >
> > Everything you need to know about women.
You missed another joke by calling that a delusion, too!
> > FREE!
You missed a second joke by not saying "and not even worth it" or "and
overpriced at that"
Heero Yuy
"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:3E4AE70B...@paul.washington.dc.us...
> Heero Yuy wrote:
>
> > "A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030212190503...@mb-fp.aol.com...
>
> > >
> > > Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand! <--- a delusion
> > > Limited time only! <--- a lie
> > >
> > > Everything you need to know about women.
>
> You missed another joke by calling that a delusion, too!
>
> > > FREE!
>
> You missed a second joke by not saying "and not even worth it" or "and
> overpriced at that"
Thank you. Yes, I *AM* too kind. :)
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030212190503...@mb-fp.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
Come on guys, share all that wonderful wisdom!
I could use a good laugh.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
James King
recently. As a former strip club DJ, I can vouch for the fact that
quality women (the kind Gordon seems to want to brag about) are *not*
usually found in most strip clubs. But Gordon is duplicitous here. He
chides players for having casual non-committal sex with consenting
adults (1), then says that casual non-committal sex with employees
and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
desirable goal.
James King
P.S. I haven't forgotten about working on Ovid, for those who have
contacted me. I've just been busy with some major music editing
assignments. The first book in my piano method series has been
successfully released as well.
FOOTNOTES
(1) - On the other hand, if someone is committed in a relationship,
then Gordon will then criticize the man for being an AFC, as if Gordon
were an "ASF player" himself. What Gordon doesn't realize is that a
true player *won't* criticize someone who is in a stable, committed
relationship, because that commitment can actually help the player out.
It removes a man who could be considered competition, and it leaves the
player with a pool of remaining women who are single or wanting to end
their current relationship.
In article <20030212191744...@mb-cg.aol.com>, Bryen193
A Modern Caveman
>recently. As a former strip club DJ, I can vouch for the fact that
>quality women (the kind Gordon seems to want to brag about) are *not*
>usually found in most strip clubs.
Key words there are "not USUALLY." The exceptions are notable.
>But Gordon is duplicitous here.
Not DISINGENUOUS?
>He
>chides players for having casual non-committal sex with consenting
>adults
No, I chide them for acting like they've invented the wheel or accomplished
anything more than getting off.
Big difference.
The AFC know how to get women like the ones the players get. The key shift
occurs when they no longer feel guilty about what they have to do to seduce
them.
>(1), then says that casual non-committal sex with employees
>and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
>desirable goal.
I'm saying it's a useful skill to have, one that should be standard for any PUA
worth his salt.
A PUA should be able to, if he desires, literally PLUCK his next lover out of a
strip club on short order. Doesn't mean he has to, but he should have that
ability.
Is that not a fair measure of male seduction prowess?
Your evaluation against strippers seems to ignore the debauchery that many
"respectable" women engage in (such as fucking the boss, being hired as eye
candy, etc.).
>James King
>
>P.S. I haven't forgotten about working on Ovid, for those who have
>contacted me. I've just been busy with some major music editing
>assignments. The first book in my piano method series has been
>successfully released as well.
>
>FOOTNOTES
>
>(1) - On the other hand, if someone is committed in a relationship,
>then Gordon will then criticize the man for being an AFC, as if Gordon
>were an "ASF player" himself.
I am criticizing the contradiction and stating that players pretty much have to
act like AFC if they are in a relationship.
>What Gordon doesn't realize is that a
>true player *won't* criticize someone who is in a stable, committed
>relationship, because that commitment can actually help the player out.
>It removes a man who could be considered competition,
Unless he's got a woman that the player wants, then it gets UGLY.
>and it leaves the
>player with a pool of remaining women who are single or wanting to end
>their current relationship.
See above(1).
FOOTNOTES:
(1)JIMMYKING! is an asshole
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030214002922...@mb-fp.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
Not DISINGENUOUS?
Big difference.
See above(1).
FOOTNOTES:
(1)JIMMYKING! is an asshole
Bryen193
>>(1), then says that casual non-committal sex with employees
>>and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
>>desirable goal.
>
>I'm saying it's a useful skill to have, one that should be standard for any
>PUA
>worth his salt.
>
>A PUA should be able to, if he desires, literally PLUCK his next lover out of
>a
>strip club on short order. Doesn't mean he has to, but he should have that
>ability.
How many strippers have you had sex with through the utilization of "stripper
A Modern Caveman
>>>and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
>>>desirable goal.
>>
>>I'm saying it's a useful skill to have, one that should be standard for any
>>PUA
>>worth his salt.
>>
>>A PUA should be able to, if he desires, literally PLUCK his next lover out
>of
>>a
>>strip club on short order. Doesn't mean he has to, but he should have that
>>ability.
>
>How many strippers have you had sex with through the utilization of "stripper
>gold"?
I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as the guys who CHARGE for their
material provide their sexual diaries. I think full disclosure of one's sex
life is a good idea, but I don't think it should only apply to me.
Not that I don't want to "fuck and tell" myself, but I'd like to see every guru
do that, because I believe that it's fair game. I'm serious: I'm not going to
be held to a different standard than the others here.
Once you get the stripper out of the club, seduction is never going to be less
easy than with normal methods. The obviously difficult part of stripper
seduction is the pluck.
I suppose I should go out and use my method for a few months to "run up the
score" as much as possible so I can go back to usenet and tell you I've fucked
20 women with it.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
James King
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I've been noticing how often you've been taking Gordon's breath away
> >recently. As a former strip club DJ, I can vouch for the fact that
> >quality women (the kind Gordon seems to want to brag about) are *not*
> >usually found in most strip clubs.
>
> Key words there are "not USUALLY." The exceptions are notable.
The exceptions are notable only because they are so rare.
> >But Gordon is duplicitous here.
>
> Not DISINGENUOUS?
No, duplicitous was the correct word to use.
> >He
> >chides players for having casual non-committal sex with consenting
> >adults
>
> No, I chide them for acting like they've invented the wheel or accomplished
> anything more than getting off.
Yet with your repeated comments about "copyright dates," one would
believe that you are acting as if you've invented the wheel.
For the above comment of yours, disingenuous is the correct word to use.
> Big difference.
>
> The AFC know how to get women like the ones the players get. The key shift
> occurs when they no longer feel guilty about what they have to do to seduce
> them.
> >(1), then says that casual non-committal sex with employees
> >and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
> >desirable goal.
> I'm saying it's a useful skill to have, one that should be standard for any
> PUA worth his salt.
That's your opinion. I know several PUA's in my area who reject every
stripper (or rumored stripper) because they don't want the stress,
drama, and baggage that comes with dating most strippers.
> A PUA should be able to, if he desires, literally PLUCK his next lover out of
> a strip club on short order.
Since when did others decide that you were the sole arbiter of what
guideposts a PUA should use?
> Doesn't mean he has to, but he should have that ability.
>
> Is that not a fair measure of male seduction prowess?
I would posit that it is YOUR personal measure of male seduction
prowess.
I would posit that a more appropriate measure would be whether the
player is able to attract and maintain a relationship with a person or
persons he prefers. No limitations to certain groups of people.
> Your evaluation against strippers seems to ignore the debauchery that many
> "respectable" women engage in (such as fucking the boss, being hired as eye
> candy, etc.).
Hardly. But just as you prefer strippers over other women, others may
prefer women in other careers and lifestyles over strippers. You seem
to believe that the process of seduction should be completely about
having sex with adult entertainment employees.
I believe it is much much broader than that.
> >James King
> >P.S. I haven't forgotten about working on Ovid, for those who have
> >contacted me. I've just been busy with some major music editing
> >assignments. The first book in my piano method series has been
> >successfully released as well.
> >FOOTNOTES
> >(1) - On the other hand, if someone is committed in a relationship,
> >then Gordon will then criticize the man for being an AFC, as if Gordon
> >were an "ASF player" himself.
> I am criticizing the contradiction and stating that players pretty much have
> to act like AFC if they are in a relationship.
It seems that when you do so, you are trying to act like an ASF player.
You also are under the mistaken impression that being a player is the
be-all and end-all.
I engaged in "player" behavior because I got to experience
relationships with a wide variety of women. This experience helped me
determine through real-world experience what qualities in a woman I
would be able to live with, and what qualities I would not be able to
live with. When I was ready to settle down, I was able to choose from a
number of available women the person with whom I felt most comfortable
starting a family.
That was my final goal, and I do not believe I would have been as
successful without the "wild oats" period of my life.
You then take my successful achievement of my goal as some horrid
perversion of what you demand that "players" should do and think.
That, of course, is twisted and distorted thinking on a grand scale.
> >What Gordon doesn't realize is that a
> >true player *won't* criticize someone who is in a stable, committed
> >relationship, because that commitment can actually help the player out.
> >It removes a man who could be considered competition,
>
> Unless he's got a woman that the player wants, then it gets UGLY.
If a player wants to break up a stable, committed relationship where
both partners are happy, contented, and fulfilled, then I would suggest
that player has issues which cannot be dealt with adequately in a
Usenet forum.
Much like a certain self-proclaimed guru that made the destruction of a
relationship the guideline of success with his method of seduction.
> >and it leaves the
> >player with a pool of remaining women who are single or wanting to end
> >their current relationship.
>
> See above(1).
Again, I don't look too highly on players whose sole goal is to destroy
committed, stable relationships. However, if either partner is unhappy
in the relationship; if neither partner feels fulfilled, then the
player may be providing a positive experience for the woman in such an
unfulfilling relationship.
> FOOTNOTES:
>
> (1)JIMMYKING! is an asshole
So you believe that character in the movie (I forget the movie's name
now) is an asshole. What does that have to do with me or the topic at
hand?
James King
Bryen193
>>How many strippers have you had sex with through the utilization of
>"stripper
>>gold"?
>
>I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as the guys who CHARGE for
>their
>material provide their sexual diaries. I think full disclosure of one's sex
>life is a good idea, but I don't think it should only apply to me.
You seem to misconstrue the question. I didn't ask for your sexual diary or a
disclosure of your sex life.
>Not that I don't want to "fuck and tell" myself, but I'd like to see every
>guru
>do that, because I believe that it's fair game.
If they so choose. It doesn't mean that their methods (or yours) is any more
or less effective.
>I'm serious: I'm not going
>to
>be held to a different standard than the others here.
Of course not. You are however hyping a "stripper gold" seduction method that
is apparently so effective that it merits being put to paper and perhaps
published. Since the method is apparently brand new, it begs the question "How
many strippers have been seduced and fucked using this method?". Since you
have not yet published the method, and have not mentioned giving it to any
other men for testing, the only person to ask how effective (in terms of
fucking strippers) it is would be you personally.
>Once you get the stripper out of the club, seduction is never going to be
>less
>easy than with normal methods. The obviously difficult part of stripper
>seduction is the pluck.
>
>I suppose I should go out and use my method for a few months to "run up the
>score" as much as possible so I can go back to usenet and tell you I've
>fucked
>20 women with it.
At a minimum. After all, a famous chef wouldn't put a book out with a bunch of
recipies listing instructions and ingredients that he *thinks* might work for a
tasty dish. He would make the dish, then make it again and again to assure
that it worked. It would be very impressive if you were to fuck 20 strippers in
a few months using it, however would it be accurate to say that, as of this
date, very few or possibly no strippers have yet been fucked by men using
"stripper gold"? If so, what makes you think it works so well that it merits
publishing?
Heero Yuy
"Bryen193" <brye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030214135407...@mb-mq.aol.com...
What I'd *really* like to know is: What *are* the merits in doing a woman
who's vagina possibly rubbed up against the face of a man with cold sores?
...OTHER than to get genital herpes yourself...
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030214123910...@mb-ck.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
Scott Bailey
number of threads on this topic in recent weeks. I have a number of
points to make, the last being the most important.
1)Normally, strip clubs are a dead end street. Not to brag, but just
by means of establishing a certain level of knowledge, I have pulled
off a fair number of "plucks" over the years. Let me say this: it just
isn't worth it. Even the girls that appear normal in comparison to the
rest generally have MAJOR issues. When I say major issues, I'm not
talking about run of the mill stuff. I'm talking about problems so
great that they would simply preclude a normal relationship.
Now, as you point out, the quality of the typical female ANYWYERE is
not necessarily that high, but at strip clubs it seems to be far
worse. I sincerely believe that strippers as a group are one of the
most screwed up segments of society. The exceptions are so rare as to
be be the proverbial needle in a haystack, and looking for that needle
is a great idea...if you are immortal. Since most of us don't have
hundreds or thousands of years to get what we want out of life,
looking for results in a strip club has a lot of strikes against it.
Admittedly, if you could find one that is in fact a healthy, balanced,
cool chick...you have hit the jackpot. I mean, who wouldn't want hot,
sweet, sexy and cool all in one package? But how many strippers fit
that bill? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? I don't know, but it's
rare.
2) Having said all of that, I do agree that strip clubs are a
fascinating subject. Even though I am not a "player", I also agree
that a person who claims to be should probably be able to do well with
strippers...even if he chooses not to (probably the wise choice). Or
rather, to put it more accurately, if he CAN do well with
strippers...that's saying something. Those girls get hit on ALL the
time...just being able to set yourself apart from the massive
competition is saying something. Just to get through the shields they
put up is saying something. Just being able to successfully navigate
the clique mentality of these places is saying something (I'm
referring to other dancers, staff, regular patrons, etc.) Of course,
I'm talking about being able to do well based on your personal
attributes, not being an excessive tipper or candyman.
3) And now to my real point: while this is an interesting subject, it
is getting a little ridiculous to have thread after thread where
people are discussing strippers in the context of "stripper gold"....
a theory that you are not interested in disclosing. Threads tend to
get convoluted enough without the added drawback of one person
withholding their theory, while at the same time starting discussion
after discussion on the subject.
You have to know as well as I do what will happen if you choose to
publish "stripper gold". Those who already oppose you on this board
will dismiss it as a piece of crap. That's a given. It won't matter
what the quality of the theory is, it won't be given a fair read.
On the other hand, those who have found value in your writings
(including myself) will give it a fair read. That should be a given
too.
Not exactly rocket science.
But where is the wisdom of engaging in thread after thread on a
subject where you are essentially saying "I'm not telling!"? Again,
the people that oppose you will never give you a fair shake - you have
to know that already. You are not going to change their minds.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that there are more lurkers out
there who would in fact give it a fair shake. Obviously, you need to
do what you think will be best for yourself. I don't pretend to know
what that is. But it does seem ridiculous to engage in thread after
thread over a theory that you are not disclosing. While it might be
interesting initially to wonder about what's behind "door number
three", pretty soon it is time to either open the door or move on and
let the subject rest.
Odious
A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> >>>(1), then says that casual non-committal sex with employees
> >>>and/or independant contractors in the adult entertainment industry is a
> >>>desirable goal.
> >>
> >>I'm saying it's a useful skill to have, one that should be standard for any
> >>PUA
> >>worth his salt.
> >>
> >>A PUA should be able to, if he desires, literally PLUCK his next lover out
> >of
> >>a
> >>strip club on short order. Doesn't mean he has to, but he should have that
> >>ability.
> >
> >How many strippers have you had sex with through the utilization of "stripper
> >gold"?
>
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as the guys who CHARGE for their
> material provide their sexual diaries.
Ray already commented on his sexual history...
_____________________________________
From: winatb...@aol.com (Win At Betting)
Newsgroups: alt.support.divorce
Date: 23 Mar 2002 08:57:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Women are great, but every guy here got fucked over?
Message-ID: <20020323035713...@mb-fk.aol.com>
>
>When was the last time you had sex with smething other than your hand?
Sex? A while, actually.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
From: amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman)
Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
Date: 28 Sep 2002 06:17:22 GMT
Subject: Re: A question for Ray, Ross, and others who are not afraid
Message-ID: <20020928021722...@mb-fr.aol.com>
>I would like everyone to post how many women they have slept with and
>their age. I am very interested to know how many some of these "PUAs"
>have slept with........
>
>
>I have had sex with 13 girls and I am 20 years old.
Slightly less than two dozen women, but I have herpes and a lot of times
stop
short of sex.
Without herpes, I'd be pushing about 200 now.
_____________________________________
So ray's scored about 20 times in 36 years, and hasn't gotten any lately
by his own admission. And this ass wants people to believe he knows a
damn thing about seduction? Not only are his numbers pitifully low, but
he was fucking such skanks that he picked up herpes.
I'm only 25 and I've already fucked 4 times that many women... and none
of them were nasty ass whores that gave me an STD.
Paul Robinson
> What I'd *really* like to know is: What *are* the merits in doing a woman
> who's vagina possibly rubbed up against the face of a man with cold sores?
>
> ...OTHER than to get genital herpes yourself...
Genital herpes is Herpes Simplex 2, the stuff we call "herpes" in most cases.
What 95% of the population - including me - has, is cold sores, or Herpes
Simplex 1. To the best of my knowledge those are two different diseases.
Paul Robinson
> [SNIP] But it does seem ridiculous to engage in thread after
> thread over a theory that you are not disclosing. While it might be
> interesting initially to wonder about what's behind "door number
> three", pretty soon it is time to either open the door or move on and
> let the subject rest.
Thank you. It was patently obvious - but most people around here get
ticked off if I point out the obvious, such as I did when I pointed out
this newsgroup had devolved into a public co-dependency with Ray playing
the part of the abusive boyfriend and all the others who don't like him
playing the abused girlfriend, and the ones who stay here to warn away the
clueless newbies ("children") and who are playing the part of the
altruistic mother who stays in an abusive relationship "for the sake of
the children" even though most of them viewing usenet are probably over 18
or 19 and who should be old enough to take care of themselves - that Ray
only started this thread about this alleged "Stripper Gold" theory -
alleged as in I have serious doubts that it even exists - for the purpose
of taunting everyone with a theory that we know damn well he is not going
to release anyway, and even if he did, everybody who disbelieves him would
dismiss his idea anyway.
I'll bet, if Ray went onto Formhandle's site, took some material off
there, and posted it here, verbatim, people would immediately dismiss it
as invalid because he posted it. But if someone pointed a link to the
exact same material back on Formhandle's site, they would say it was good
material because it wasn't something said by Ray. And they'd probably
never realize the contradiction in what they are saying. ("I'm a man,
without conviction, I'm a man, who doesn't know, how to sell, the
contradiction..." - Culture Club, "Karma Chameleon")
Ray has about as much credibility here as the Church of Scientology or
Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less than none.
It's pretty hard to fall from zero but Ray has achieved unparalleled
success in that respect, in that he has turned himself into a
laughingstock by his own words.
And yet it's not that hard to get out of the hole. I made a lot of people
mad at me the first week I got here, but over time people have started to
actually listen to me because they can see I'm willing to listen and to
consider reasonable arguments.
Ray will never make even that minimum effort, and will forever be tarred
as a "kook" or "crackpot" or "fool" for his sometimes uninformed and often
erroneous opinions. Right or wrong, good or bad, fair or fowl, he has so
contaminated the environment that he cannot hope to win those people over
to his side, and he is - by his own hand - condemned to forever live in
the hell of his own making. He lacks the desire or the interest to exit
the LaBrea Tar Pits, so he will always - as a result of his own misconduct
- be known as the "Creature from the Black Lagoon." (I like the simile
there!) He'll probably threaten to sue me again, too. I'm not worried,
what I am saying is not defamatory and even if it was, I can't defame a
public figure who already has no reputation.
I've even gotten mail - those of you who wrote me, don't worry, I'm not
telling whom - that implicitly admits that people have finally realized
I'm not Ray posting under a different name, and that they actually respect
my opinions.
Not that they have to agree with them, just that they are willing to
accept my opinions are worth making even if they do not necessarily agree
with them.
Paul Robinson
> >From: amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman)
> >Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
> >Date: 28 Sep 2002 06:17:22 GMT
> >Subject: Re: A question for Ray, Ross, and others who are not afraid
> >Message-ID: <20020928021722...@mb-fr.aol.com>
>
> >>I have had sex with 13 girls and I am 20 years old.
>
> > Slightly less than two dozen women, but I have herpes and a
> > lot of times stop short of sex.
>
> So ray's scored about 20 times in 36 years--
What does that tell us? That anyone can get laid. If someone as obnoxious as Ray
can find more than 10 women who will fuck him, there's hope for everyone!
Scott Bailey
> Heero Yuy wrote:
>
> > What I'd *really* like to know is: What *are* the merits in doing a woman
> > who's vagina possibly rubbed up against the face of a man with cold sores?
> >
> > ...OTHER than to get genital herpes yourself...
>
> Genital herpes is Herpes Simplex 2, the stuff we call "herpes" in most cases.
> What 95% of the population - including me - has, is cold sores, or Herpes
> Simplex 1. To the best of my knowledge those are two different diseases.
I'm not a doctor, so take this with however many grains of salt.
Simplex 1 and 2 are indeed different diseases...but not by much.
Traditionally, it was assumed that Simplex 1 was oral, and simplex 2
was genital. But there is increasing evidence to suggest that the two
are getting "mixed". In other words, you could have Simplex 2 in your
mouth, and Simplex 1 genitally. Apparently the fact that oral sex has
become so common has led to significant transmission through that
route (in other words, if you have a cold sore and then perform oral
sex, then that can transmit herpes (simplex 1, for example) to the
partner's genital area).
So yes, they are technically two different diseases - but they are
extremely close in terms of symptoms and are increasingly being
transmitted through oral sex in such a way that they don't end up in
the "traditional" body areas. Another way of putting it is this: you
could have herpes simplex 2 in your body...but not have it genitally.
Similarly, you could have only herpes simplex 1 (traditionally
associated with the mouth) in your body...but have it genitally.
Bottom line: in practical terms, there is less and less reason to
distinguish between the two.
Scott Bailey
Ray's PR skills are, well, sorely lacking. Let's assume for a moment
that "stripper gold" in fact exists, and let's further assume that it
is valuable theory.
What Ray is currently doing is certainly not properly promoting it. If
his goal is in fact not to promote it, but just to play a game of "I'm
never going to tell you, na na na!" then I think that speaks volumes.
Congratulations on finally being acknowledged as not being Ray. lol.
It was pretty damn obvious from the beginning that you were not, but
it takes some people awhile to come around I guess. There are a couple
of people that have accused me of "being Ray" as well, and since they
have never retracted their accusation I can only assume that they
persist in such delusions. What it boils down to is a rather simple
formula:
1) If you can write in a remotely coherent manner; and
2) You refuse to participate in the ritualistic condemnation of Ray
(the sacraments?); then
3) Heretic! You must be Ray, or Snowball, or whatever.
Powerful logic, I admit.
Regardless, moving right along...as you point out, Ray has shot
himself in the foot more than anything else. He may counter that he
has been the victim of a "conspiracy" of sorts...and given the lock
step mentality that I have seen of some he may well have a point. But
a guy skilled in PR could have handled the situation far more adeptly,
and probably could have come out of the situation intact. Apparently,
Ray doesn't really want that. His opponents may not want that either,
so maybe your co-dependency illustration hits the mark.
ex-d...@no-email.com
says...
As a former exotic dancer who worked in high-end clubs in Vegas for several
years, I resent your statement, above, that "strippers as a group are one of the
most screwed up segments of society." And that "exceptions" are "rare".
Dancers are, as a group, as varied as any other. I used the clubs to work my way
through UNLV, and am now a respected professional. As an occasional reader of
this forum, I can say without fear of contradiction that some of the regular
posters here are no more or less screwed up, in their own ways, than some of the
girls that I knew when I was dancing. But my motivation, the money I needed for
school, was actually very common.
"Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a kind of
erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or practicing my
routines, as I did dancing in the club. Male atheletes have the field and court
upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college girl. I
also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
It may be true that the street clubs you have habituated were worked by a lot of
very emotionally damaged young women. And I have met girls, even in the more
exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen young
women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further their
education and careers. And in one case, a married girl was working to save up
the down-payment for a home. Several of the girls I used to work with are now
wives and mothers and no one would ever quess as to their former careers, other
than they are very attractive soccer moms.
I am not going to validate or invalidate anything about Mr. Gordon's method
called "Stripper Gold". I have no idea what he is talking about. Speaking for
myself and several of the girls I worked with, and who are still close friends,
I never dated clients. Not once. In fact, I had regular boyfriends most of the
time I worked.
You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
ex-dancer
A Modern Caveman
>years, I resent your statement, above, that "strippers as a group are one of
>the
>most screwed up segments of society." And that "exceptions" are "rare".
I knew eventually a few dancers (or at least, for now, those who claim to be,
as we can't prove anything out here) would check in to question that one. As
I've said, a lot of what the men here say won't fly in mixed company.
>Dancers are, as a group, as varied as any other. I used the clubs to work my
>way
>through UNLV, and am now a respected professional.
Now that I wouldn't know about. It's hard to tell since you have two
advantages that make your skills the third most important thing: first off, as
a female, you have affirmative-action working for you in ways you couldn't
comprehend. A woman today who says that she didn't get where she is because of
affirmative action is deluding herself. I'm not going to lay out that case
here, however, as it's protracted.
On another note, if you think being sexy doesn't help your career, you're also
kidding yourself. If you think that's legitimate, that's one thing (you'd be
thinking ugly and old and fat women are second-class citizens if you do), but
again the "beauty premium" has been documented by neurologists and
psychological researchers.
You can argue that this is how the world is and no one can change it, but the
price of that argument is that because two very clear unfair advantages exist
for you, any success you achieve will always be suspect.
It's easier to take the money from the advantage than to admit that it exists,
and easier to just acknowledge it than to do anything to change it. White men
weren't lining up to give their power away 40 years ago, and in fact those who
did did so because they answer to the voters, who are more than half female.
You may be respected by your peers as a professional, but I can't respect any
woman who would leave in place two things that rig the employment game in her
favor. I correctly see her as not really earning her money.
One thing I like about strippers is that they don't rely on the beauty premium
or affirmative action. While beauty is a requirement for stripping, it is also
the commodity that men are legitimately buying, so it's morally stronger than
hiring someone for a job that doesn't have a legitimate beauty requirement for
the same reason (in other words, I would not tip an old, fat, or ugly stripper
much, but I would hire an old, fat or ugly woman without a second thought).
>As an occasional reader of
>this forum, I can say without fear of contradiction that some of the regular
>posters here are no more or less screwed up, in their own ways, than some of
>the
>girls that I knew when I was dancing. But my motivation, the money I needed
>for
>school, was actually very common.
All well and good, but I dropped out of college with a 4.0 GPA. I needed money
for school too, and so did many others. Now if you got a degree because of
your sexuality, than that is what is rewarded in this society (pretty women
also get higher grades). Your "achievement" then is playing to a corrupt
system, not being inherently smarter or more skilled.
>"Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a kind
>of
>erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or practicing
>my
>routines, as I did dancing in the club.
Unfortunately, not every stripper takes her job so seriously. You'd think
dance lessons would be the first thing they buy with their tips.
>Male atheletes have the field and
>court
>upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
>occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college girl.
Yet you still chose to fuck some men for some reason. It is also not likely
you'd ever give an accurate accounting of what it took for those men to get you
into bed, even if you thought you were giving one.
>I
>also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
The beauty premium also applies to grades.
>It may be true that the street clubs you have habituated were worked by a lot
>of
>very emotionally damaged young women.
What defines a "street club" to you?
>And I have met girls, even in the more
>exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen young
>women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further their
>education and careers.
A vehicle not open to the masses. Thus, a form of privilege and wealth.
>And in one case, a married girl was working to save up
>the down-payment for a home. Several of the girls I used to work with are now
>wives and mothers and no one would ever quess as to their former careers,
>other
>than they are very attractive soccer moms.
It's not as difficult to figure out as one might think. It also doesn't hurt
for a guy to circulate in his area's clubs for just that reason. At least when
the women move on he'll know them.
>I am not going to validate or invalidate anything about Mr. Gordon's method
>called "Stripper Gold". I have no idea what he is talking about.
Basically, that seducing strippers in their clubs is a lot easier than people
realize. It's easier than in regular nightclubs and doesn't come with any
hassles.
>Speaking for
>myself and several of the girls I worked with, and who are still close
>friends,
>I never dated clients. Not once.
Even if you did, odds are you'd never admit it because you wouldn't want guys
getting the idea that they could do it too, but even if you didn't, you weren't
the only stripper in the world.
As for the women you worked with, you can't trust them to admit it to you if
they did, and even then, often their minds start thinking of the guys they
associate with outside their clubs as "not" being customers or clients.
In Vegas, of course, one need not go to a strip club to meet women who behave
or look like strippers, so it's a bit of a moot point. Show dancers are
generally more wild in private, better looking, and better dancers.
>In fact, I had regular boyfriends most of
>the
>time I worked.
Young, attractive women usually will. That just proves that guys want to fuck
you. Says absolutely nothing more about you than that.
>You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
We can assume, then, that if women don't take any of these methods seriously,
that there's nothing in need of change, correct?
That there is no problem, that women choose right, choose willingly, and are
happy with what they choose and how it turns out, correct?
To that extent, I imagine a storeowner greeting the guy who comes in to loot
his store every morning, while showing him to the vault.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
Mistress Zorak
> Ray has about as much credibility here as the Church of Scientology or
> Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less than none.
Scientologists are responsible for: lowering crime rates,
rehabilitating drug users, teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
pschiatric abuse, making the world a bit safer.
A Modern Caveman
>number of threads on this topic in recent weeks. I have a number of
>points to make, the last being the most important.
>
>1)Normally, strip clubs are a dead end street. Not to brag, but just
>by means of establishing a certain level of knowledge, I have pulled
>off a fair number of "plucks" over the years.
I'd be surprised if you haven't.
>Let me say this: it just
>isn't worth it.
Worth it or not, it's a skill that any PUA should have. It's not that
difficult. The PUA who can't pull this off isn't much of a PUA.
I also should qualify this by saying "hot stripper" because there are some damn
ugly ones who aren't even conquests.
>Even the girls that appear normal in comparison to the
>rest generally have MAJOR issues. When I say major issues, I'm not
>talking about run of the mill stuff. I'm talking about problems so
>great that they would simply preclude a normal relationship.
That can be said of any type of woman.
>Now, as you point out, the quality of the typical female ANYWYERE is
>not necessarily that high, but at strip clubs it seems to be far
>worse. I sincerely believe that strippers as a group are one of the
>most screwed up segments of society.
I think legal secretaries take that crown, but you might be right.
>The exceptions are so rare as to
>be be the proverbial needle in a haystack, and looking for that needle
>is a great idea...if you are immortal.
That I don't agree with.
>Since most of us don't have
>hundreds or thousands of years to get what we want out of life,
>looking for results in a strip club has a lot of strikes against it.
>Admittedly, if you could find one that is in fact a healthy, balanced,
>cool chick...you have hit the jackpot.
I've found several.
>I mean, who wouldn't want hot,
>sweet, sexy and cool all in one package? But how many strippers fit
>that bill? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? I don't know, but it's
>rare.
One in a hundred is more than enough to satisfy any man.
I'd say more like one in ten or one in twenty.
>2) Having said all of that, I do agree that strip clubs are a
>fascinating subject. Even though I am not a "player", I also agree
>that a person who claims to be should probably be able to do well with
>strippers...even if he chooses not to (probably the wise choice). Or
>rather, to put it more accurately, if he CAN do well with
>strippers...that's saying something. Those girls get hit on ALL the
>time...just being able to set yourself apart from the massive
>competition is saying something. Just to get through the shields they
>put up is saying something. Just being able to successfully navigate
>the clique mentality of these places is saying something (I'm
>referring to other dancers, staff, regular patrons, etc.)
I've never seen a club where the patrons interact. That's one of the reasons I
like them.
>Of course,
>I'm talking about being able to do well based on your personal
>attributes, not being an excessive tipper or candyman.
One guy who was tipping big one night while next to me (same dancer I wasn't
tipping) seemed to "do well" with the dancers because of his money, but also
because they thought he was interesting. I know of other guys whose money
won't help them at all.
If I were wealthy I wouldn't be averse to using it, but it's certainly not
necessary.
>3) And now to my real point: while this is an interesting subject, it
>is getting a little ridiculous to have thread after thread where
>people are discussing strippers in the context of "stripper gold"....
>a theory that you are not interested in disclosing.
Oh well....
>Threads tend to
>get convoluted enough without the added drawback of one person
>withholding their theory, while at the same time starting discussion
>after discussion on the subject.
The point is that my past theories were abused by those who benefitted from
them, and now I want to see people talking about areas where I have new theory
so they can go on record for what their views are. THEN I can release my
theories, possibly with a number of women to back them up (haven't decided how
public to go with them yet).
>You have to know as well as I do what will happen if you choose to
>publish "stripper gold". Those who already oppose you on this board
>will dismiss it as a piece of crap. That's a given. It won't matter
>what the quality of the theory is, it won't be given a fair read.
Which is why I'm not releasing it.
The price people pay for rewarding defamation is that they get future advice
from those sources, without the benefit of the sources being able to co-opt it
from me.
I did this on a handicapping board once. Someone was stealing my picks and
building a nice record with them. I stopped giving out games for a while and
suddenly "the board" got a lot weaker.
Pretty soon people approached me with "hey, c'mon, you know we like what you
say" and I told them to fuck off. I'm already getting that now with this.
If the market isn't properly rewarding those who have the best ideas, then the
people with those best ideas would be wise to hold them close to the vest. I
don't think anyone here or anywhere is going to figure out what I've learned
through four years of "painstaking" research by going to clubs.
>On the other hand, those who have found value in your writings
>(including myself) will give it a fair read.
And my life will improve HOW because of this? There's no benfit to having a
few people give me a "fair read" in an industry where people aren't given fair
rewards.
If I'm smarter than most of the men who get paid to write columns on this, I
should have a column. If I'm smarter than most of the men who are published
and in bookstores, then my books belong there. If my content is superior and
without cost, then advertisers should realize that their consumers would rather
have higher-quality content sponsored.
Fact is, there's no merit system here, and those who would succeed under a
merit system have no reason to participate in this crap.
You keep hearing that "all the information you need" is at this site or that
site. I would suggest that people who believe that not look to me for their
answers, as they have already said they are getting "all the information they
need" elsewhere. Let the sites who throw down that gauntlet live up to their
billing, and without any indirect assistance from me (i.e., I release the
method, someone else posts it, then it sticks, etc.).
>That should be a given
>too.
>
>Not exactly rocket science.
>
>But where is the wisdom of engaging in thread after thread on a
>subject where you are essentially saying "I'm not telling!"?
Explaining to people that they are being punished for not being straight-up
about who has helped develop the theory around here.
By THEIR OWN logic, if I have nothing of value, then it shouldn't matter what I
say or not. If it DOES matter, and if it is top-level theory, then the attacks
on me are unsound and unjustified, as is the praise on those who have inferior
theory that happens to be more popular, even if only as the result of an
illegal smear campaign against me.
I've already published enough information for a man to get laid by hotties.
That information is FREE.
>Again,
>the people that oppose you will never give you a fair shake - you have
>to know that already.
>You are not going to change their minds.
Well then, the "fair" people pay the price for their conduct. Too damn bad.
>On the other hand, I have a feeling that there are more lurkers out
>there who would in fact give it a fair shake.
And that would benefit me how?
>Obviously, you need to
>do what you think will be best for yourself. I don't pretend to know
>what that is. But it does seem ridiculous to engage in thread after
>thread over a theory that you are not disclosing.
Ridiculous is when some wannabe cyber-vigilante plants himself in this group as
if he were somehow on-topic or relevant with the purpose of doing nothing other
than to defame me and incite others against me.
What better way to punish that behavior than with what I'm doing now?
>While it might be
>interesting initially to wonder about what's behind "door number
>three", pretty soon it is time to either open the door or move on and
>let the subject rest.
Then move on. I was just trying to see what "everyone else" has to say about
the subject of seducing strippers.
So far I've said that many strippers are quite relationship worthy, and I saw
you say they were fucked-up people. Then someone claiming to be an ex-dancer
comes out here having taken strong offense to that. I figure I can let her
make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd actually
have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper, because in that
arena she was earning her money; in the corporate world, odds are she is not.
ex-d...@no-email.com
I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on attractive
working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I do not intend to
discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable, or even civil, outcome to
such a discussion.
My post was meant for the other gentleman.
Everything I said was 100% truthful. You, or anyone else for that matter, can
choose to believe or disbelieve what I have said. The choice is yours and
theirs. What I am offering is a serious word of caution for the unwary male
regarding the idea that men reading this forum can go to strip clubs and "score"
with the dancers using a "secret formula".
I would seriously suggest they better employ their time and money elsewhere.
Strip clubs are about fantasy. Intelligent and savvy clients know this. Those
who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers are
really good at spotting the easy "marks".
My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood. I trust
their honesty on this issue. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am saying,
from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
clients.
What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and out.
But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile. And it isn't the most
important. If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
regardless of my looks.
And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
In article <20030216124438...@mb-fa.aol.com>, A Modern Caveman
says...
James King
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
> >I sincerely believe that strippers as a group are one of the
> >most screwed up segments of society.
>
> I think legal secretaries take that crown [...]
Given that I believe at one time you claimed to be a legal secretary, I
would agree with your statement.
By the way, how's the complaint against me with the EEOC coming along? I
haven't heard from any government officials.
James King
A Modern Caveman
>
>I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on
>attractive
>working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I do not intend to
>discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable, or even civil, outcome
>to
>such a discussion.
And since leaving the status quo in place favors you, it also favors you not to
discuss the issue, much as it favored men not to discuss the issue back during
the civil rights movement.
Your willingness to tolerate that bias, however, reveals an ethical flaw which
will likely cause you to wind up marrying a man who shares your ethics, and
later divorcing him.
>My post was meant for the other gentleman.
>
>Everything I said was 100% truthful. You, or anyone else for that matter, can
>choose to believe or disbelieve what I have said. The choice is yours and
>theirs. What I am offering is a serious word of caution for the unwary male
>regarding the idea that men reading this forum can go to strip clubs and
>"score"
>with the dancers using a "secret formula".
But they can. I learned of strip clubs in fact when friends of mine had
brought dancers home with them. I mean, I knew they had existed, but all I had
heard of them pretty much had to do with guys I knew bringing home dancers from
there.
When you see men doing this it's hard not to believe it is possible. All I did
was merely take the time to figure out how this can be accomplished.
>I would seriously suggest they better employ their time and money elsewhere.
As players do, but that doesn't mean that this skill shouldn't be acquired.
>Strip clubs are about fantasy. Intelligent and savvy clients know this. Those
>who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers
>are
>really good at spotting the easy "marks".
So the other guy can be the mark.
>My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood.
Sad.
>I
>trust
>their honesty on this issue.
Don't. They'd never admit it.
>I am not saying that it is impossible. I am
>saying,
>from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
>clients.
And I'm saying that either they will lie about it when they do, or will have
found a way to think of the man as something other than a client.
>What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
>This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
Let's just say I think you're closer to a whore in your corporate position than
you were in a strip club. Now you're pretending to be respectable.
>Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and
>out.
And by definition it's harmed those who aren't sexy, and will harm you as you
age and your looks go. It totally invalidates any notion that you got ahead on
merit, or that your morals are such that you'd even care. Long as you get
yours.
Women like that make lousy wives and mothers, and tend to marry men who are
just like them....and divorce them.
>But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile.
A critical one, however, and one which results in unearned money and
opportunity.
>And it isn't the most
>important.
Not to YOU maybe.
>If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
>regardless of my looks.
That's not the point: if you are only EQUAL to others, however, you get hired.
In an economy like this, that can mean the difference between paying the bills
and not....something you "earn" with your body.
Let's just forget any talk of merit here, and admit why you get ahead. If you
cared about that, you'd be working to eliminate the unfair advantages. That
you aren't is a fact of life, but so is the fact that you didn't get ahead on
merit, but you got ahead because of how you look.
>And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
You wouldn't have to in order to have an advantage given to you because of how
you look. That's not how the beauty premium works.
It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s. People
of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's how
the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
shouldn't be profiting from it."
You choose to profit from it. My personal belief is that in the afterlife, God
will fry you in hell because you chose to take survival resources at the
expense of others based on your sexuality (I know, those patheitc-looking older
women DESERVE to be cast aside for special old YOU), but it's also not likely
you'll be concerned about that until it's way too late.
Any husband you wind up with has to deal with the fact that he married a woman
like this (who is basically corporate eye-candy trash), and while he may be
enjoying the sex, he probably won't wind up enjoying the ethical package that
comes with it.
You could choose to separate yourself from this bias you embrace instead; that
would make you ethical. It would also make you unpopular with the very people
who pay you, and your sense of self-entitlement won't allow you to hear that,
so instead you play along.
In doing so, men like the horndogs from this group will call you a "strong,
independent woman" and ignore it, so that they can get sex from you. You'll
ignore it because you lack the courage to fight it.
One day your looks will go, your husband will follow, your boss will find
another version of you in 15-20 years (or whenever), and you'll wonder why all
that stuff "happened to you." The only defense you have is to save up enough
money between now and then that it won't matter to you when you get older.
You may not like ASF men, but at least with them, you don't have to pass any
ethical standards. You just have to look good and/or put out.
That would leave you quite at home, I would imagine.
Alex
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 2/16/03 6:08 PM:
> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s. People
> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's how
> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
> shouldn't be profiting from it."
Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium" possesses.
All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant or
both.
Bryen193
>I figure I can let her
>make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
>beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd actually
>have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper
Given that she chose to end a "career" that she could pursue until (at best)
the age of 30, to pursue a different career path that could provide good income
until retirement age, it's safe to say in this case that you "respect" the
woman who chooses STUPIDLY. Strange, considering that when it comes to your
view about women choosing men, you advocate choices that will help them in the
long run over a quick romantic or sexual fix with a player.
So how many strippers have been fucked using "stripper gold"?
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216124438...@mb-fa.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216130402...@mb-fa.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
I've found several.
Oh well....
A Modern Caveman
>People
>> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
>how
>> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
>> shouldn't be profiting from it."
>
>
>Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
>
>The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
>
>Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium" possesses.
>
>All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant or
>both.
Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
inflicted by "society" have two choices:
They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or they
can work to eliminate it (ethical).
It's very clear that today's women are more than happy to leave the beauty
premium in place, as well as the unearned gains that come with affirmative
action.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
Alex
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 2/16/03 6:28 PM:
>>> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s.
>> People
>>> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
>> how
>>> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
>>> shouldn't be profiting from it."
>>
>>
>> Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
>>
>> The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
>>
>> Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium" possesses.
>>
>> All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant or
>> both.
>
> Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
> inflicted by "society" have two choices:
>
> They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or they
> can work to eliminate it (ethical).
>
And what of those who don't profit from it? Or does everyone who accepts
reality profit from it?
A Modern Caveman
>>> People
>>>> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
>>> how
>>>> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
>>>> shouldn't be profiting from it."
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
>>>
>>> The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
>>>
>>> Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium"
>possesses.
>>>
>>> All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant
>or
>>> both.
>>
>> Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
>> inflicted by "society" have two choices:
>>
>> They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or
>they
>> can work to eliminate it (ethical).
>>
>
>And what of those who don't profit from it? Or does everyone who accepts
>reality profit from it?
Affirmative action is such a cancer that women and minorities can't help but
profit from it unless they cross strong gender barriers.
The beauty premium is also such that the only way not to profit from it is to
speak out against it.
Both are quite entrenched in our society, to the point where the merit system
we supposedly pride so much is but a pathetic joke. The game is literally
rigged by both.
Paul Robinson
> Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<3E4E83AE...@paul.washington.dc.us>...
>
> > Ray [Gordon] has about as much credibility here as the Church of Scientology or
> > Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less than none.
>
> Scientologists are responsible for: lowering crime rates,
> rehabilitating drug users, teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
> pschiatric abuse, making the world a bit safer.
So? The Church of Scientology has a bad reputation with the general public, most people consider it a cult. What it
actually was, was L. Ron Hubbard's tax dodge.
Personally I agree with their standing against the use of psychotropic drugs. That does not mean they don't have a
truckload of other problems some of which border on if not exceed criminal behavior, much of which I find deplorable.
Another "L", L. Sprague deCamp defined the difference between a church and a cult. A "church" has been around long
enough to have people "born" into the particular religion, as a result of parents marrying and having kids, and
potentially those kids being raised within that religion. A "cult" is anything that hasn't been around long enough to
be into its second generation members.
A "cult" is also any religion other than the one belonging to the person calling it a cult. The religion they belong
to is a "church."
Alex
postm...@paul.washington.dc.us wrote on 2/16/03 6:56 PM:
> Mistress Zorak wrote:
>
>> Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
>> news:<3E4E83AE...@paul.washington.dc.us>...
>>
>>> Ray [Gordon] has about as much credibility here as the Church of Scientology
>>> or
>>> Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less than none.
>>
>> Scientologists are responsible for: lowering crime rates,
>> rehabilitating drug users, teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
>> pschiatric abuse, making the world a bit safer.
>
> So? The Church of Scientology has a bad reputation with the general public,
> most people consider it a cult. What it
> actually was, was L. Ron Hubbard's tax dodge.
>
It was also a way for him to win $50 from Isaac Asimov, who bet that Hubbard
could create a religion so ridiculous that no one would follow it.
Android Cat
> Mistress Zorak wrote:
>
>> Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
>> news:<3E4E83AE...@paul.washington.dc.us>...
>>
>>> Ray [Gordon] has about as much credibility here as the Church of
>>> Scientology or Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less
>>> than none.
>>
>> Scientologists are responsible for: lowering crime rates,
>> rehabilitating drug users, teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
>> pschiatric abuse, making the world a bit safer.
That's what they *say* they do. Frequently when they make claims about
Doing Great Things in other countries, it turns out to bogus when someone
there looks into it.
> So? The Church of Scientology has a bad reputation with the general
> public, most people consider it a cult. What it actually was, was L.
> Ron Hubbard's tax dodge.
>
> Personally I agree with their standing against the use of
> psychotropic drugs. That does not mean they don't have a truckload
> of other problems some of which border on if not exceed criminal
> behavior, much of which I find deplorable.
Elron was a frequent drug (ab)user, and used drugs on other people in his
"experiments" for Dianetics and Scientology.
> Another "L", L. Sprague deCamp defined the difference between a
> church and a cult. A "church" has been around long enough to have
> people "born" into the particular religion, as a result of parents
> marrying and having kids, and potentially those kids being raised
> within that religion. A "cult" is anything that hasn't been around
> long enough to be into its second generation members.
There are a number of 2nd and 3rd generation Scientologists. For many of
them, it is their church and they rarely see the nastiness built into the
organization. (Either they don't see it, or they don't *see* it. "I see
nothing!" :^)
> A "cult" is also any religion other than the one belonging to the
> person calling it a cult. The religion they belong to is a "church."
Yeah, that happens.
Ron of that ilk.
A Modern Caveman
>>make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
>>beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd
>actually
>>have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper
>
>Given that she chose to end a "career" that she could pursue until (at best)
>the age of 30, to pursue a different career path that could provide good
>income
>until retirement age, it's safe to say in this case that you "respect" the
>woman who chooses STUPIDLY.
Better she remain a stripper (or move into a neutral arena afterwards) than to
become a shining example of the "beauty premium." Even then, her "career" was
built off of her sexuality. Merit isn't an issue.
>Strange, considering that when it comes to your
>view about women choosing men, you advocate choices that will help them in
>the
>long run over a quick romantic or sexual fix with a player.
Avoiding taking advantage of unethical biases IS a wise choice.
>So how many strippers have been fucked using "stripper gold"?
Wouldn't you like to know....I told you already, when the other gurus start
getting more specific, so will I.
Either that or you'll have to wait until I have live sex on the internet with
one of them...
Paul Robinson
him? If I was the target of the stuff he wrote in this article, I'd probably be
looking to chase him with a baseball bat! My God, what a tremendous shit load of
hatred and anger he is holding on to!
A Modern Caveman wrote:
> >Please excuse this top post.
> >
> >I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on
> >attractive working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I
> >do not intend to discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable,
> >or even civil, outcome to such a discussion.
>
> And since leaving the status quo in place favors you, it also favors you not to
> discuss the issue, much as it favored men not to discuss the issue back during
> the civil rights movement.
There is a BIG difference you ignore. Those who have allegedly done some of this
so-called discrimination - if it was - are the ones responsible for any misconduct.
Have you made any effort to atone for the stealing of America away from the
aborigines here? Or are you willing to continue living on land taken - at gunpoint
- from the various tribes of "indians" that were originally here for hundreds or
thousands of years? (They're only called "Indians" because some lost white man -
Columbus - called them that because he thought he was in India!)
One of the few rivers in the U.S. that runs northbound runs right through
Pittsburgh. Ever wondered where the Monongohela River got its name? Hint: from
certain persons of a darker pigmentation than your ancestors, (and I don't mean
negroes).
If you're so upset about the exploitation of other people, and the failure to do
anything about that exploitation, why do you remain living on land that the white
men took from the native redskins?
> Your willingness to tolerate that bias, however, reveals an ethical flaw which
> will likely cause you to wind up marrying a man who shares your ethics, and
> later divorcing him.
How about she finds trying to have a civil discussion with you less productive than
having one with a brick wall.
> >What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
> >This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
>
> Let's just say I think you're closer to a whore in your corporate position than
> you were in a strip club. Now you're pretending to be respectable.
Like Johnny Cochran dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck, here comes
Ray dealing the "whore" card from the bottom of the deck.
> >Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and
> >out.
>
> And by definition it's harmed those who aren't sexy, and will harm you as you
> age
> and your looks go. It totally invalidates any notion that you got ahead on
> merit, or
> that your morals are such that you'd even care. Long as you get yours.
And by definition the white man's presence here in North America harmed those who
weren't white, and will harm you as you continue to occupy land seized by your
ancestors as you age. It totally invalidates any notion that you got anywhere
based on merit, or that your morals are that you'd even care. Long as you get
yours.
> Women like that make lousy wives and mothers, and tend to marry men who are
> just like them....and divorce them.
>
> >But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile.
>
> A critical one, however, and one which results in unearned money and opportunity.
A critical point is how you live on land which was stolen from the red man and you
continue to obtain unearned money and opportunity living on land stolen by your
ancestors.
> >And it isn't the most important.
>
> Not to YOU maybe.
Nor to you.
> >If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed, regardless of my
> looks.
>
> That's not the point: if you are only EQUAL to others, however, you get hired.
> In an economy like this, that can mean the difference between paying the bills
> and not....something you "earn" with your body.
>
> Let's just forget any talk of merit here, and admit why you get ahead. If you
> cared about that, you'd be working to eliminate the unfair advantages. That
> you aren't is a fact of life, but so is the fact that you didn't get ahead on
> merit, but you got ahead because of how you look.
Let's just forget any talk of merit here, and admit why you have gotten ahead. If
you cared about that, you'd be working to eliminate the unfair advantages. That
you aren't is a fact of life, but so is the fact that you didn't get ahead on
merit, but you got ahead because you're white and your ancestors stole the land you
live on.
> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s. People
> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's how
> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
> shouldn't be profiting from it."
Why do you continue to profit from the land stolen from the red man?
> You choose to profit from it. My personal belief is that in the afterlife, God
> will fry you in hell because you chose to take survival resources at the
> expense of others based on your sexuality (I know, those patheitc-looking older
> women DESERVE to be cast aside for special old YOU), but it's also not likely
> you'll be concerned about that until it's way too late.
Maybe you should expect God will fry YOU in hell because you chose to keep survival
resources at the expense of others who were *murdered* because they refused to
allow your ancestors to steal their land without a fight, and you refuse to make an
effort to return those resources from whom they were stolen. It's also not likely
you'll be concerned about that until it's way too late.
> Any husband you wind up with has to deal with the fact that he married a woman
> like this (who is basically corporate eye-candy trash), and while he may be
> enjoying the sex, he probably won't wind up enjoying the ethical package that
> comes with it.
>
> You could choose to separate yourself from this bias you embrace instead; that
> would make you ethical. It would also make you unpopular with the very people
> who pay you, and your sense of self-entitlement won't allow you to hear that,
> so instead you play along.
Your sense of self entitlement won't allow you to hear how you continue to enjoy
the spoils of theft committed by your ancestors, so instead you play along.
See, ray, I can sling bullshit just as well as you can. And what I have to say is
probably just as relevant to you as it is to her.
Paul Robinson
> >> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s.
> >People
> >> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
> >how
> >> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
> >> shouldn't be profiting from it."
> >
> >
> >Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
> >
> >The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
> >
> >Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium" possesses.
> >
> >All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant or
> >both.
>
> Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
> inflicted by "society" have two choices:
As do you.
> They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or they
> can work to eliminate it (ethical).
What have you done to eliminate the status quo and see about the return of the
lands stolen by the white man back to the original red skinned people's who lived
here for hundreds of years before we did, Mr. Gordon?
> It's very clear that today's women are more than happy to leave the beauty
> premium
> in place, as well as the unearned gains that come with affirmative action.
It's very clear that you are more than happy to leave the theft premium in place,
as well as the unearned gains that came with murdering the red man.
Saddam Insane
> >Dancers are, as a group, as varied as any other. I used the clubs to work my
> >way
> >through UNLV, and am now a respected professional.
>
> Now that I wouldn't know about. It's hard to tell since you have two
> advantages that make your skills the third most important thing: first off, as
> a female, you have affirmative-action working for you in ways you couldn't
> comprehend. A woman today who says that she didn't get where she is because of
> affirmative action is deluding herself. I'm not going to lay out that case
> here, however, as it's protracted.
This statement is not only insulting to women but blatantly false. So
all women who have a good position got it by pushing aside a
supposedly more qualified man? Sounds like sour grapes from a white
male who is mad that he no longer has a built-in advantage.
> On another note, if you think being sexy doesn't help your career, you're also
> kidding yourself. If you think that's legitimate, that's one thing (you'd be
> thinking ugly and old and fat women are second-class citizens if you do), but
> again the "beauty premium" has been documented by neurologists and
> psychological researchers.
All beautiful women are stupid unqualified bimbos who stole their job
from some ugly woman who of course was more qualified (based on her
ugliness)?
> You can argue that this is how the world is and no one can change it, but the
> price of that argument is that because two very clear unfair advantages exist
> for you, any success you achieve will always be suspect.
More whining that someone who actually has gotten further in life than
his lazy ass doesn't deserve it BECAUSE she happens to possess
physical beauty.
You want to be a success? Get off your lazy fucking ass and fight for
it, like everyone else who is successful has done.
> It's easier to take the money from the advantage than to admit that it exists,
> and easier to just acknowledge it than to do anything to change it. White men
> weren't lining up to give their power away 40 years ago, and in fact those who
> did did so because they answer to the voters, who are more than half female.
And of course you weren't lining up to give away YOUR advantage.
I guess to a lazy shlub like you, it sucks that women now actually
have the right to fight for their fair share of the American dream and
that you can't depend on your white male-ness anymore to get by.
> You may be respected by your peers as a professional, but I can't respect any
> woman who would leave in place two things that rig the employment game in her
> favor. I correctly see her as not really earning her money.
What Ray is really saying is: Beautiful women are worthless stupid
parasites who don't deserve a thing because they only earned it by
using sex appeal anyway.
> One thing I like about strippers is that they don't rely on the beauty premium
> or affirmative action. While beauty is a requirement for stripping, it is also
> the commodity that men are legitimately buying, so it's morally stronger than
> hiring someone for a job that doesn't have a legitimate beauty requirement for
> the same reason (in other words, I would not tip an old, fat, or ugly stripper
> much, but I would hire an old, fat or ugly woman without a second thought).
Would you hire an old fat or ugly woman who was less qualified than a
pretty woman? Oh that's right... pretty women are NEVER qualified to
do anything other than go-go dance.
> >As an occasional reader of
> >this forum, I can say without fear of contradiction that some of the regular
> >posters here are no more or less screwed up, in their own ways, than some of
> >the
> >girls that I knew when I was dancing. But my motivation, the money I needed
> >for
> >school, was actually very common.
>
> All well and good, but I dropped out of college with a 4.0 GPA. I needed money
> for school too, and so did many others. Now if you got a degree because of
> your sexuality, than that is what is rewarded in this society (pretty women
> also get higher grades). Your "achievement" then is playing to a corrupt
> system, not being inherently smarter or more skilled.
More whining from a lazy slug who is jealous of someone who actually
earned a degree through hard work.
> >"Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a kind
> >of
> >erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or practicing
> >my
> >routines, as I did dancing in the club.
>
> Unfortunately, not every stripper takes her job so seriously. You'd think
> dance lessons would be the first thing they buy with their tips.
Guys don't pay go-go dancers for their dancing skills dumb ass.
> >Male atheletes have the field and
> >court
> >upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
> >occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college girl.
>
> Yet you still chose to fuck some men for some reason. It is also not likely
> you'd ever give an accurate accounting of what it took for those men to get you
> into bed, even if you thought you were giving one.
Pretty women are not allowed to have a sex life unless they have Ray's
permission. And you thought your DAD was strict!
> >I
> >also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
>
> The beauty premium also applies to grades.
Again, pretty women are too dumb to have actually EARNED what they
worked for.
> >And I have met girls, even in the more
> >exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen young
> >women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further their
> >education and careers.
>
> A vehicle not open to the masses. Thus, a form of privilege and wealth.
More whining and pouting. Some people were born to rich families or
have other advantages, deal with it. It isn't a crime to use whatever
advantages that one may have been born with. You sound like you
somehow expect to have life handed to you on a silver platter because
some others were born with advantages.
> Young, attractive women usually will. That just proves that guys want to fuck
> you. Says absolutely nothing more about you than that.
So guys want to fuck her. Where's the crime?
> >You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
>
> We can assume, then, that if women don't take any of these methods seriously,
> that there's nothing in need of change, correct?
>
> That there is no problem, that women choose right, choose willingly, and are
> happy with what they choose and how it turns out, correct?
Or better yet, maybe she should join a convent so she will never have
sex, in order to please Ray.
ex-d...@no-email.com
>
>Jesus, all I can say after reading this, is why does Ray wonder why people hate
>him? If I was the target of the stuff he wrote in this article, I'd probably be
>looking to chase him with a baseball bat! My God, what a tremendous shit load of
>hatred and anger he is holding on to!
I don't chase people around with baseball bats. Ray Gordon is entitled to his
opinions. And I am entitled to disagree with his opinions. Apparently many
people do disagree with him.
My post was mostly directed to Scott Bailey's statement about "strippers". Many
young women choose to enter that occupation for a brief time and with a specific
economic goal in mind. Once the goal is accomplished, they move on to other
things.
I don't think that strip clubs are the best place to meet women. They are places
to go to watch women dance.
A Modern Caveman
>> comprehend. A woman today who says that she didn't get where she is
>because of
>> affirmative action is deluding herself. I'm not going to lay out that case
>> here, however, as it's protracted.
>
>This statement is not only insulting to women but blatantly false. So
>all women who have a good position got it by pushing aside a
>supposedly more qualified man?
Did all slaveowners physically bring the Africans over on the boats?
>Sounds like sour grapes from a white
>male who is mad that he no longer has a built-in advantage.
Which built-in advantage did white men of my generation ever have when it comes
to getting secretarial jobs?
>> again the "beauty premium" has been documented by neurologists and
>> psychological researchers.
>
>All beautiful women are stupid unqualified bimbos who stole their job
>from some ugly woman who of course was more qualified (based on her
>ugliness)?
Ph.D. level research indicates that being attractive gets a woman 15 percent
more salary, ON AVERAGE. That 15 percent is often the difference between
having money to save and invest, and not having it, so the impact is much, much
greater.
>> You can argue that this is how the world is and no one can change it, but
>the
>> price of that argument is that because two very clear unfair advantages
>exist
>> for you, any success you achieve will always be suspect.
>
>More whining that someone who actually has gotten further in life than
>his lazy ass doesn't deserve it BECAUSE she happens to possess
>physical beauty.
It's not whining if we purport to care about justice and merit. In fact, YOU
are the one whining about my posting here.
If women don't want it to be thought of them that they got ahead unfairly, they
need to eliminate what would cause people to think that.
>You want to be a success? Get off your lazy fucking ass
Notice that personal attacks are a required part of your side of this argument.
>and fight for
>it, like everyone else who is successful has done.
And that's the point: my odds of success improve dramatically if I pursue
traditionally male careers, not in spite of affirmative action, but BECAUSE OF
IT.
For example, if I pursue an executive career track at a company that has only
34 percent of females in executive positions, women are said to be "properly
utilized" at the executive level, and further steps are not deemed necessary to
help them. This of course "helps" men, who can retain their 66 percent
majority with the full blessing of the government.
By contrast, if I choose to be a secretary, a company can have 90 percent
female secretaries and still be said to be "underutilizing" them because they
are lower than the "area average" of 97 percent (which of course is also a
quota but that's a separate issue).
This is the government that is causing this bias, which is supposed to be
illegal.
>> It's easier to take the money from the advantage than to admit that it
>exists,
>> and easier to just acknowledge it than to do anything to change it. White
>men
>> weren't lining up to give their power away 40 years ago, and in fact those
>who
>> did did so because they answer to the voters, who are more than half
>female.
>
>And of course you weren't lining up to give away YOUR advantage.
Actually I was....I felt it was unethical and my DUTY to work towards
"equality." It was that way that I realized that women and minorities have a
concept of equality that equates to the "his money is our money but my money is
still my money" logic most housewives use.
>I guess to a lazy shlub like you,
Once again we see how a personal attack is required to justify this argument.
Sad, bullying, and incredibly negative.
>it sucks that women now actually
>have the right to fight for their fair share of the American dream
If you call keeping a 97 percent majority in the country's largest profession
with the government's full blessing "fair." I do not.
>and
>that you can't depend on your white male-ness anymore to get by.
When could a male secretary ever be said to have been advantaged?
>> You may be respected by your peers as a professional, but I can't respect
>any
>> woman who would leave in place two things that rig the employment game in
>her
>> favor. I correctly see her as not really earning her money.
>
>What Ray is really saying is: Beautiful women are worthless stupid
>parasites who don't deserve a thing because they only earned it by
>using sex appeal anyway.
If beautiful women don't want people thinking this of them, they should work to
eliminate the beauty premium.
Obviously, what can be attributed to the "premium" is unearned.
It would be like saying that you can't pin the success of any company from the
1800s on the existence of slave labor, yet you'd be attributing the wealth in
the economy to that very factor.
Or, another way of saying it would be to acknowledge that we are a nation of
fat people yet still try to claim that no one overeats. An obvious statistical
impossibility.
>> One thing I like about strippers is that they don't rely on the beauty
>premium
>> or affirmative action. While beauty is a requirement for stripping, it is
>also
>> the commodity that men are legitimately buying, so it's morally stronger
>than
>> hiring someone for a job that doesn't have a legitimate beauty requirement
>for
>> the same reason (in other words, I would not tip an old, fat, or ugly
>stripper
>> much, but I would hire an old, fat or ugly woman without a second thought).
>
>Would you hire an old fat or ugly woman who was less qualified than a
>pretty woman?
Nope. I believe in merit.
>Oh that's right... pretty women are NEVER qualified to
>do anything other than go-go dance.
It's not my fault they choose to profit from their beauty rather than fight the
injustice.
If women make that choice, I have every right to point out that it's an
unethical one.
>> All well and good, but I dropped out of college with a 4.0 GPA. I needed
>money
>> for school too, and so did many others. Now if you got a degree because of
>> your sexuality, than that is what is rewarded in this society (pretty women
>> also get higher grades). Your "achievement" then is playing to a corrupt
>> system, not being inherently smarter or more skilled.
>
>More whining from a lazy slug who is jealous of someone who actually
>earned a degree through hard work.
It's not work when the government practically mandates that someone be hired
because they are female, or if the woman is pretty and the loser boss wants to
fuck her.
If women are going to take unfair help, they have to accept being thought
meritless. If they don't like that, let them work to eliminate these unfair
biases so no one can accuse them of profiting from them.
>> >"Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a
>kind
>> >of
>> >erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or
>practicing
>> >my
>> >routines, as I did dancing in the club.
>>
>> Unfortunately, not every stripper takes her job so seriously. You'd think
>> dance lessons would be the first thing they buy with their tips.
>
>Guys don't pay go-go dancers for their dancing skills dumb ass.
Many do. The better dancers always get the bigger tips.
>> >Male atheletes have the field and
>> >court
>> >upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
>> >occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college
>girl.
>>
>> Yet you still chose to fuck some men for some reason. It is also not
>likely
>> you'd ever give an accurate accounting of what it took for those men to get
>you
>> into bed, even if you thought you were giving one.
>
>Pretty women are not allowed to have a sex life unless they have Ray's
>permission. And you thought your DAD was strict!
Your comprehension skills appear to be lacking.
>> >I
>> >also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
>>
>> The beauty premium also applies to grades.
>
>Again, pretty women are too dumb to have actually EARNED what they
>worked for.
More like neurologists and behavior scientists have documented the beauty
premium, and that it would logically apply to pretty women.
Again, if the pretty women don't like it, they should work to eliminate the
bias rather than WHINE to the men who would point it out.
>> >And I have met girls, even in the more
>> >exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen
>young
>> >women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further
>their
>> >education and careers.
>>
>> A vehicle not open to the masses. Thus, a form of privilege and wealth.
>
>More whining and pouting. Some people were born to rich families or
>have other advantages, deal with it. It isn't a crime to use whatever
>advantages that one may have been born with. You sound like you
>somehow expect to have life handed to you on a silver platter because
>some others were born with advantages.
I expect those who profit from those advantages not to go around preaching
equality and merit when they don't get ahead on those bases.
If you want to argue that we should have privileges for people who don't earn
them, go ahead. My claim is that these women don't get ahead on merit, nothing
more, nothing less. I have substantial evidence to support my claim.
Women who want MY approval have to earn it on MY terms. If they don't like
those terms, they are not obligated to try to gain my approval. If they don't
like what I say, that's just too damn bad.
The women enjoy all the benefits of their "privilege" and that should be
sufficient. They just aren't going to be perceived as having earned anything
they have. If they don't like that perception, too damn bad. They can work to
eliminate the injustice if they feel it is hurting their rep.
After all, why would a woman want two things to exist that she is claiming she
has NOT benefitted from?
Has affirmative action failed so badly that it doesn't help individual women
now? Is the woman pretty or not? If she's pretty, then she's benefitted from
it, and if she hasn't benefitted from it, by definition, she's not pretty.
>> Young, attractive women usually will. That just proves that guys want to
>fuck
>> you. Says absolutely nothing more about you than that.
>
>So guys want to fuck her. Where's the crime?
No crime. I was saying that a woman who thinks that a man wanting to fuck her
is a sign of anything else is wrong.
>> >You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
>>
>> We can assume, then, that if women don't take any of these methods
>seriously,
>> that there's nothing in need of change, correct?
>>
>> That there is no problem, that women choose right, choose willingly, and
>are
>> happy with what they choose and how it turns out, correct?
>
>Or better yet, maybe she should join a convent so she will never have
>sex, in order to please Ray.
Once again you miss the point of my posting.
A Modern Caveman
>hate
>him? If I was the target of the stuff he wrote in this article, I'd probably
>be
>looking to chase him with a baseball bat!
More of his pathetic "don't anger me" fantasy....like it somehow MATTERS if he
doesn't approve of what someone says.
You seem like a sad soul who seems to think bullying me is his ticket to
belonging. That is about the biggest mistake you could possibly make.
You are best dealt with via the judicial system, and you will be. As you seem
to like to say, these are problems you are bringing on yourself, without help.
You are hereby instructed not to address me or make references to committing
violence against me.
Bryen193
>>Given that she chose to end a "career" that she could pursue until (at best)
>>the age of 30, to pursue a different career path that could provide good
>>income
>>until retirement age, it's safe to say in this case that you "respect" the
>>woman who chooses STUPIDLY.
>
>Better she remain a stripper (or move into a neutral arena afterwards) than
>to
>become a shining example of the "beauty premium." Even then, her "career"
>was
>built off of her sexuality. Merit isn't an issue.
But since the "beauty premium" is a naturally (God given you might say)
occuring phenomenon of human interaction (as domcumented by neurologists), why
should any pretty woman (or anyone for that matter) fight against it? Anyway,
companies that hire based on looks over merit (for jobs where looks <> greater
revenue for the company) will pay the price in lost production. Companies tend
not to like that and will adjust accordingly.
>>So how many strippers have been fucked using "stripper gold"?
>
>Wouldn't you like to know....
I think a potential user of "stripper gold" would like to know. I just thought
a number might help legitimize your hype-filled remarks about the product.
>I told you already, when the other gurus start
>getting more specific, so will I.
>Either that or you'll have to wait until I have live sex on the internet with
>one of them...
<Yawn>
I don't think I have that much time.
Has even *one* stripper been fucked using "stripper gold"?
A Modern Caveman
>load of
>>hatred and anger he is holding on to!
>
>I don't chase people around with baseball bats.
But listen to the idiot who talks the way he does. Doesn't that tell you
something about him?
>Ray Gordon is entitled to his
>opinions. And I am entitled to disagree with his opinions. Apparently many
>people do disagree with him.
Many men APPEAR to disagree with me to score points with women or to justify
entering marriages before they realized the divorce laws would screw them.
Many who disagree with me often have a rival political agenda. Again, it
should be taken with a grain of salt.
>My post was mostly directed to Scott Bailey's statement about "strippers".
>Many
>young women choose to enter that occupation for a brief time and with a
>specific
>economic goal in mind.
And in doing so, have shown what they are willing to do for money.
>Once the goal is accomplished, they move on to other
>things.
But it becomes established what they are willing to do for money if they need
it. That doesn't evaporate when they stop stripping.
>I don't think that strip clubs are the best place to meet women. They are
>places
>to go to watch women dance.
Then let the women dance and not circle the bar afterwards. Let there be no
lapdances, champagne rooms, or large tips.
Sound good to the dancers? Guys wouldn't mind that at all.
As I've said before, strip clubs are EASY once you figure out why they are
easy. I have figured this out, and almost ANY man can succeed in one because
the women there are trained to flirt with literally EVERY man who walks into
the place. You can't say that about a regular club.
For men who aren't in their 20s, or who aren't tall and rich, they can almost
totally neutralize any problem and still "pluck" a good number of women out of
an environment which is almost perpetually open, and where he knows he can find
a few dozen hotties every day.
Something like that cannot be so easily dismissed.
A Modern Caveman
Don't you get it?
Most men think strippers are "lousy women" because THEY CANNOT SEDUCE THE GOOD
ONES.
The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper at her club, so
he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
If he doesn't do this, he has to answer to why he can't pull in such a simple
environment.
A Modern Caveman
>>to
>>become a shining example of the "beauty premium." Even then, her "career"
>>was
>>built off of her sexuality. Merit isn't an issue.
>
>But since the "beauty premium" is a naturally (God given you might say)
>occuring phenomenon of human interaction (as domcumented by neurologists),
>why
>should any pretty woman (or anyone for that matter) fight against it?
1. Because it's unfair.
2. Because it harms older women, fat women, and ugly women (do these women
count or does how they look cause us to think they somehow DESERVE to be
treated as second-class citizens?).
>Anyway,
>companies that hire based on looks over merit (for jobs where looks <>
>greater
>revenue for the company) will pay the price in lost production.
And their shareholders will pay the price in a tanked stock market.
Now all those people who lost their retirement savings can know that they
brought it on themselves and stop whining about how they were robbed. They
were STUPID and DESERVED to be robbed, if what you say is true.
Further, even if they "get theirs" in the end, the injury to others doesn't go
away. Many Wall Street criminals got away with millions and a slap on the
wrist; you think that is going to make the people they stole from feel better?
>Companies
>tend
>not to like that and will adjust accordingly.
Wrong again. The positions where this occurs are often not that high-paying
and not that crucial to the functioning of the company. The paperwork still
gets done, it just gets done by a hottie.
Just like a restaurant that discriminates on looks will still be packed, even
if the service is second-class.
>>>So how many strippers have been fucked using "stripper gold"?
>>
>>Wouldn't you like to know....
>
>I think a potential user of "stripper gold" would like to know. I just
>thought
>a number might help legitimize your hype-filled remarks about the product.
I've already written three free books. That's more "proof" of my work than
anyone should ever have to submit.
>>I told you already, when the other gurus start
>>getting more specific, so will I.
>
>>Either that or you'll have to wait until I have live sex on the internet
>with
>>one of them...
>
><Yawn>
>
> I don't think I have that much time.
>
>Has even *one* stripper been fucked using "stripper gold"?
Since you could slide down a slippery slope with this questions (if I say one
then it's two, etc.) I'm not going to answer it until I see the other gurus
reporting their diaries to the internet.
Right now, the purpose of Stripper Gold is to show what happens when an
audience doesn't give proper credit for past theory to me. By removing future
theory, I can leave it to those who co-opted my past theory to come up with
something that works, since they claim to be the best sources. Whether or not
I publish my methods should be irrelevant since they are NOT stealing my ideas.
So far I haven't seen anything close to the type of analysis I've done of strip
clubs, an analysis that is obvious in the way I break down every element of
stripper seduction and mold it into a powerful system. What I have seen are
some men who are strong enough to pull in strip clubs because they are strong
enough to pull anywhere, but that's not what I'm aiming at here.
Heero Yuy
"A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030216212655...@mb-de.aol.com...
> >>looking to chase him with a baseball bat! My God, what a tremendous
shit
> >load of
> >>hatred and anger he is holding on to!
> >
> >I don't chase people around with baseball bats.
>
> But listen to the idiot who talks the way he does. Doesn't that tell you
> something about him?
This from the man who wanted mother's to watch as their children get beaten
by him with, of all things, a baseball bat.
>
> >Ray Gordon is entitled to his
> >opinions. And I am entitled to disagree with his opinions. Apparently
many
> >people do disagree with him.
>
> Many men APPEAR to disagree with me to score points with women or to
justify
> entering marriages before they realized the divorce laws would screw them.
>
> Many who disagree with me often have a rival political agenda. Again, it
> should be taken with a grain of salt.
You fails to realize that the hideous things you say to and about people
make it difficult to bear you.
Speaking solely for myself, I have no political motivation for disliking
anything you have said, nor have I had an agenda when I've shown that more
often than not you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
> >My post was mostly directed to Scott Bailey's statement about
"strippers".
> >Many
> >young women choose to enter that occupation for a brief time and with a
> >specific
> >economic goal in mind.
>
> And in doing so, have shown what they are willing to do for money.
>
> >Once the goal is accomplished, they move on to other
> >things.
>
> But it becomes established what they are willing to do for money if they
need
> it. That doesn't evaporate when they stop stripping.
I'll concede to that point.
>
>
> >I don't think that strip clubs are the best place to meet women. They are
> >places
> >to go to watch women dance.
>
> Then let the women dance and not circle the bar afterwards. Let there be
no
> lapdances, champagne rooms, or large tips.
>
> Sound good to the dancers? Guys wouldn't mind that at all.
>
> As I've said before, strip clubs are EASY once you figure out why they are
> easy. I have figured this out, and almost ANY man can succeed in one
because
> the women there are trained to flirt with literally EVERY man who walks
into
> the place. You can't say that about a regular club.
"Trained to flirt"... That again doesn't mean she's open to sleeping with
anyone. It still takes effort.
>
> For men who aren't in their 20s, or who aren't tall and rich, they can
almost
> totally neutralize any problem and still "pluck" a good number of women
out of
> an environment which is almost perpetually open, and where he knows he can
find
> a few dozen hotties every day.
And then there's the cover charge, the tips you give to the women, the
drinks. So much for guys not having a lot of money still having a good time.
It'd be prostitution if clubs didn't have rules against sleeping with
clients and others who come to watch them.
>
> Something like that cannot be so easily dismissed.
Yes it can.
>
>
> Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand! <--- a delusion
> Limited time only! <--- a lie
>
> Everything Ray thinks you need to know about women. FREE! (it's not even
worth that... seriously.)
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Bryen193
>Now all those people who lost their retirement savings can know that they
>brought it on themselves and stop whining about how they were robbed. They
>were STUPID and DESERVED to be robbed, if what you say is true.
Not at all. Nobody lost any savings because of the hiring of hot secretaries.
>Further, even if they "get theirs" in the end, the injury to others doesn't
>go
>away. Many Wall Street criminals got away with millions and a slap on the
>wrist; you think that is going to make the people they stole from feel
>better?
Yes. That's right. They STOLE. They may or may not have had hot secretaries.
It's an entirely diifferent issue.
>>I think a potential user of "stripper gold" would like to know. I just
>>thought
>>a number might help legitimize your hype-filled remarks about the product.
>
>I've already written three free books. That's more "proof" of my work than
>anyone should ever have to submit.
Um... The fact that you wrote 3 books proves that...you wrote three books. I'm
still waiting for someone to come forward saying "I used anti-player to fuck a
hottie".
>Right now, the purpose of Stripper Gold is to show what happens when an
>audience doesn't give proper credit for past theory to me.
Oh, I thought the purpose was to have sex with strippers. My bad.
>By removing
>future
>theory, I can leave it to those who co-opted my past theory to come up with
>something that works, since they claim to be the best sources.
Perhaps they don't want to "come up with something that works" because it's a
bad idea in the first place.
Bryen193
>The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper at her club, so
>he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your "only sluts
respond to asf methods" argument.
A Modern Caveman
>>brought it on themselves and stop whining about how they were robbed. They
>>were STUPID and DESERVED to be robbed, if what you say is true.
>
>Not at all. Nobody lost any savings because of the hiring of hot
>secretaries.
You're wrong. When older women can't find work, how do thgey pay their bills
again?
When fat women earn $17,000 a year while a hottie earns $32,000, which one do
you think can save more money?
Do we have a MERIT system in this country or not? Do the rights of old, fat
and ugly women matter or don't they?
Very in-depth studies have been done on this over the past ten years, and ALL
of them have reached the same conclusion. The beauty premium translates into
real money going into the real pockets of very real and very undeserving women.
Perhaps you know something that Ph.D.'s from this world in everything from
economics to neurology do not. If so, please publish your paper in a
peer-reviewed journal soon!
>>Further, even if they "get theirs" in the end, the injury to others doesn't
>>go
>>away. Many Wall Street criminals got away with millions and a slap on the
>>wrist; you think that is going to make the people they stole from feel
>>better?
>
>Yes. That's right. They STOLE. They may or may not have had hot
>secretaries.
Many of the firms were first sued for sexual harassment, in fact. That was a
warning sign to anyone who could figure out that one lack of ethics often is a
good predictor that others lurk beneath the surface.
Here, however, I was talking about how a criminal getting caught doesn't
necessarily make the victims whole.
> It's an entirely diifferent issue.
The concept is the same. Saying that a company wouldn't profit from doing it
is disingenuous, because the "profit" comes at the expense of the shareholders,
who foot the bill for the personal gain of the Office Johns.
One company that had a major scandal in fact saw the wife of the CEO rise from
a $32,000 secretarial position to a "marketing" job that paid her $425,000 a
year instead. She met him "at work."
I can show you many qualified older and fat women who would LOVE the
opportunity to make that $32,000 a year. Is there a reason that they
shouldn't? The CEO "getting his" in the end doesn't remove the bias that was
inflicted on the other women.
>>>I think a potential user of "stripper gold" would like to know. I just
>>>thought
>>>a number might help legitimize your hype-filled remarks about the product.
>>
>>I've already written three free books. That's more "proof" of my work than
>>anyone should ever have to submit.
>
>Um... The fact that you wrote 3 books proves that...you wrote three books.
>I'm
>still waiting for someone to come forward saying "I used anti-player to fuck
>a
>hottie".
The ones who attribute it to Foxhunting aren't sufficient?
Take a look at how many of my methods have been co-opted on the net sometime.
Check my publication dates and copyrights against theirs.
>>Right now, the purpose of Stripper Gold is to show what happens when an
>>audience doesn't give proper credit for past theory to me.
>
>Oh, I thought the purpose was to have sex with strippers. My bad.
That's MY purpose with it. I have no reason to share it.
>>By removing
>>future
>>theory, I can leave it to those who co-opted my past theory to come up with
>>something that works, since they claim to be the best sources.
>
>Perhaps they don't want to "come up with something that works" because it's a
>bad idea in the first place.
Sounds like a copout from men who can't seduce strippers at their clubs.
It would make a PUA look pretty bad to admit this, so instead they put the
strippers down (which of course offended one of them enough to post here).
Once again, I say that this is a necessary skill for the PUA, so even if he
doesn't want to do it, he should know HOW.
Let's hear them speak up on this "easy" topic.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Saddam Insane
> >Please excuse this top post.
> >
> >I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on
> >attractive
> >working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I do not intend to
> >discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable, or even civil, outcome
> >to
> >such a discussion.
>
> And since leaving the status quo in place favors you, it also favors you not to
> discuss the issue, much as it favored men not to discuss the issue back during
> the civil rights movement.
I think her reluctance to discuss anything with you stems from your
charming personality. She knows that the inevitable outcome is you
dragging her into a vicious flame war, leading to your harassing and
threatening to sue her.
> Your willingness to tolerate that bias, however, reveals an ethical flaw which
> will likely cause you to wind up marrying a man who shares your ethics, and
> later divorcing him.
Meet Ray Gordon, the world's most perfect and ethical person.
> >My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood.
>
> Sad.
Yeah isn't it so sad that someone out there actually has friends, and
whose social life extends further than typing flames on a loser
newsgroup with one hand and jacking off with the other.
> >I
> >trust
> >their honesty on this issue.
>
> Don't. They'd never admit it.
Everyone lies. Except for Ray.
> >What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
> >This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
>
> Let's just say I think you're closer to a whore in your corporate position than
> you were in a strip club. Now you're pretending to be respectable.
That's right... because every pretty woman is stupid and unqualified
and only has a job because she seduced some horny boss.
And he can say this without even knowing the person he's writing this
to, what position he holds, or what industry she works in.
> >Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and
> >out.
>
> And by definition it's harmed those who aren't sexy, and will harm you as you
> age and your looks go. It totally invalidates any notion that you got ahead on
> merit, or that your morals are such that you'd even care. Long as you get
> yours.
So the solution is for her to get plastic surgery to make herself
ugly, so that she can prove that she's worthy of Ray's approval and
deserving of her job.
> Women like that make lousy wives and mothers, and tend to marry men who are
> just like them....and divorce them.
Ugly women make better mothers. Boy that manic phase is a bitch ain't
it.
> >But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile.
>
> A critical one, however, and one which results in unearned money and
> opportunity.
Only ugly women actually earn what they get.
The more I read this crap the more I see a bitter person who is
jealous that someone else is a success, and looks for any excuse he
can find to justify why the successful person "stole" what he feels is
rightfully his.
> >If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
> >regardless of my looks.
>
> That's not the point: if you are only EQUAL to others, however, you get hired.
> In an economy like this, that can mean the difference between paying the bills
> and not....something you "earn" with your body.
People have the right to pay their bills.
> Let's just forget any talk of merit here, and admit why you get ahead. If you
> cared about that, you'd be working to eliminate the unfair advantages. That
> you aren't is a fact of life, but so is the fact that you didn't get ahead on
> merit, but you got ahead because of how you look.
More bitterness and jealousy rearing its ugly head. There isn't a
single pretty woman out there who deserves or earned what she got.
Only Ray deserves to be successful, and if it isn't handed to his lazy
whining ass on a silver platter, then that's the fault of some SLUT
who "stole" it from him.
> >And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
>
> You wouldn't have to in order to have an advantage given to you because of how
> you look. That's not how the beauty premium works.
Maybe pretty women have an advantage in life. Rich people have an
advantage too. But the ones who get furthest ahead in life are the
ones who get off their fat lazy asses, quit whining about how everyone
else is cheating them out of what they think they're entitled to, and
fight like hell to make something out of their lives.
There are immigrants who came to this country with nothing more than
the clothes on their backs, who fled a life of eating rats to stay
alive, from the most politically repressive regimes on earth. They
didn't whine and cry about how their life sucks because someone else
caused all their problems... they took advantage of the opportunities
presented by the American system, WORKED their asses off, saved their
money, and grabbed their share of the American dream. YOU were born
with the advantages of being an American citizen, white, and male and
you still sit and whine about how you are at a "disadvantage" while
you waste the time you should be spending working or educating
yourself typing useless flames on a loser newsgroup.
If this was harsh... well reality checks usually are. If you think you
got it so bad, then maybe someone should dump you into a peasant
village in Vietnam or Columbia or some other hell hole and believe me
after a day or two you would be begging God Almighty to bring you back
to your "disadvantaged" live here. You think you have adversity to
deal with... brother you don't know what adversity IS.
> You choose to profit from it. My personal belief is that in the afterlife, God
> will fry you in hell because you chose to take survival resources at the
> expense of others based on your sexuality (I know, those patheitc-looking older
> women DESERVE to be cast aside for special old YOU), but it's also not likely
> you'll be concerned about that until it's way too late.
There goes Ray... speaking for God again.
> Any husband you wind up with has to deal with the fact that he married a woman
> like this (who is basically corporate eye-candy trash), and while he may be
> enjoying the sex, he probably won't wind up enjoying the ethical package that
> comes with it.
Assuming that what you say is even remotely true, doesn't that speak
more against the MAN's ethics than the woman's?
> You could choose to separate yourself from this bias you embrace instead; that
> would make you ethical. It would also make you unpopular with the very people
> who pay you, and your sense of self-entitlement won't allow you to hear that,
> so instead you play along.
Lots of people have to kiss some ass in order to keep their jobs so
that they can provide for themselves and their families. Not everyone
has the luxury of playing Jesus on the internet while living in
mommy's basement.
A Modern Caveman
>so
>>he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
>
>That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your "only sluts
>respond to asf methods" argument.
And sluts are what does respond to them: women who are easy to fool, and who
put out easily.
Who told you that strippers put out easily?
Scott Bailey
> >Ray, obviously your allusions to "stripper gold" have led to any
> >number of threads on this topic in recent weeks. I have a number of
> >points to make, the last being the most important.
> >
> >1)Normally, strip clubs are a dead end street. Not to brag, but just
> >by means of establishing a certain level of knowledge, I have pulled
> >off a fair number of "plucks" over the years.
>
> I'd be surprised if you haven't.
>
>
> >Let me say this: it just
> >isn't worth it.
>
> Worth it or not, it's a skill that any PUA should have. It's not that
> difficult. The PUA who can't pull this off isn't much of a PUA.
I've already noted my qualified agreement with this.
>
> I also should qualify this by saying "hot stripper" because there are some damn
> ugly ones who aren't even conquests.
True enough. I'm talking "hot strippers".
>
>
> >Even the girls that appear normal in comparison to the
> >rest generally have MAJOR issues. When I say major issues, I'm not
> >talking about run of the mill stuff. I'm talking about problems so
> >great that they would simply preclude a normal relationship.
>
> That can be said of any type of woman.
I still maintain that it is significantly worse among strippers, but I
have also acknowledged that there are exceptions.
>
>
> >Now, as you point out, the quality of the typical female ANYWYERE is
> >not necessarily that high, but at strip clubs it seems to be far
> >worse. I sincerely believe that strippers as a group are one of the
> >most screwed up segments of society.
>
> I think legal secretaries take that crown, but you might be right.
>
> >The exceptions are so rare as to
> >be be the proverbial needle in a haystack, and looking for that needle
> >is a great idea...if you are immortal.
>
> That I don't agree with.
It all depends on how rare the good ones are, and how effeciently you
can sort through the bad. For most guys, I think strip clubs would be
a losing proposition.
>
> >Since most of us don't have
> >hundreds or thousands of years to get what we want out of life,
> >looking for results in a strip club has a lot of strikes against it.
> >Admittedly, if you could find one that is in fact a healthy, balanced,
> >cool chick...you have hit the jackpot.
>
> I've found several.
Agreed, they are out there.
>
> >I mean, who wouldn't want hot,
> >sweet, sexy and cool all in one package? But how many strippers fit
> >that bill? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? I don't know, but it's
> >rare.
>
> One in a hundred is more than enough to satisfy any man.
>
> I'd say more like one in ten or one in twenty.
Perhaps.
>
>
> >2) Having said all of that, I do agree that strip clubs are a
> >fascinating subject. Even though I am not a "player", I also agree
> >that a person who claims to be should probably be able to do well with
> >strippers...even if he chooses not to (probably the wise choice). Or
> >rather, to put it more accurately, if he CAN do well with
> >strippers...that's saying something. Those girls get hit on ALL the
> >time...just being able to set yourself apart from the massive
> >competition is saying something. Just to get through the shields they
> >put up is saying something. Just being able to successfully navigate
> >the clique mentality of these places is saying something (I'm
> >referring to other dancers, staff, regular patrons, etc.)
>
> I've never seen a club where the patrons interact. That's one of the reasons I
> like them.
>
> >Of course,
> >I'm talking about being able to do well based on your personal
> >attributes, not being an excessive tipper or candyman.
>
> One guy who was tipping big one night while next to me (same dancer I wasn't
> tipping) seemed to "do well" with the dancers because of his money, but also
> because they thought he was interesting. I know of other guys whose money
> won't help them at all.
True enough.
>
> If I were wealthy I wouldn't be averse to using it, but it's certainly not
> necessary.
>
>
> >3) And now to my real point: while this is an interesting subject, it
> >is getting a little ridiculous to have thread after thread where
> >people are discussing strippers in the context of "stripper gold"....
> >a theory that you are not interested in disclosing.
>
> Oh well....
>
> >Threads tend to
> >get convoluted enough without the added drawback of one person
> >withholding their theory, while at the same time starting discussion
> >after discussion on the subject.
>
> The point is that my past theories were abused by those who benefitted from
> them, and now I want to see people talking about areas where I have new theory
> so they can go on record for what their views are. THEN I can release my
> theories, possibly with a number of women to back them up (haven't decided how
> public to go with them yet).
That seems reasonable.
>
>
> >You have to know as well as I do what will happen if you choose to
> >publish "stripper gold". Those who already oppose you on this board
> >will dismiss it as a piece of crap. That's a given. It won't matter
> >what the quality of the theory is, it won't be given a fair read.
>
> Which is why I'm not releasing it.
While that is certainly your perogative, I think you are missing the
point. One way of looking at it is this way: how many people are
actually attacking you on this board? Ten? Twenty? Certainly not much
more than twenty, I wouldn't think. Is that all the hits this board
gets? I think not. There are probably many, many lurkers out
there...they are the real audience.
>
> The price people pay for rewarding defamation is that they get future advice
> from those sources, without the benefit of the sources being able to co-opt it
> from me.
>
> I did this on a handicapping board once. Someone was stealing my picks and
> building a nice record with them. I stopped giving out games for a while and
> suddenly "the board" got a lot weaker.
>
> Pretty soon people approached me with "hey, c'mon, you know we like what you
> say" and I told them to fuck off. I'm already getting that now with this.
You should be smart enough to figure out how to make things work for
you, rather than allowing a handful of people to checkmate you.
>
> If the market isn't properly rewarding those who have the best ideas, then the
> people with those best ideas would be wise to hold them close to the vest. I
> don't think anyone here or anywhere is going to figure out what I've learned
> through four years of "painstaking" research by going to clubs.
>
>
> >On the other hand, those who have found value in your writings
> >(including myself) will give it a fair read.
>
> And my life will improve HOW because of this? There's no benfit to having a
> few people give me a "fair read" in an industry where people aren't given fair
> rewards.
To repeat, you should be able to figure out how to make the deal work
for you in such a way that your life improves. If it is a good
product, presumably there is such a way. And how does you life improve
by allowing yourself to essentially be shut down by a relative handful
of people?
>
> If I'm smarter than most of the men who get paid to write columns on this, I
> should have a column. If I'm smarter than most of the men who are published
> and in bookstores, then my books belong there. If my content is superior and
> without cost, then advertisers should realize that their consumers would rather
> have higher-quality content sponsored.
True enough, but how are you going to win support by allowing your
enemies to shut you down?
>
> Fact is, there's no merit system here, and those who would succeed under a
> merit system have no reason to participate in this crap.
>
> You keep hearing that "all the information you need" is at this site or that
> site. I would suggest that people who believe that not look to me for their
> answers, as they have already said they are getting "all the information they
> need" elsewhere. Let the sites who throw down that gauntlet live up to their
> billing, and without any indirect assistance from me (i.e., I release the
> method, someone else posts it, then it sticks, etc.).
To the extent that they are successful, apparently those guys have
figured out a way to market their product. Presumably, you can as
well. Where is your opposition? A relative handful of posters on
usenet?
>
> >That should be a given
> >too.
> >
> >Not exactly rocket science.
> >
> >But where is the wisdom of engaging in thread after thread on a
> >subject where you are essentially saying "I'm not telling!"?
>
> Explaining to people that they are being punished for not being straight-up
> about who has helped develop the theory around here.
But they aren't being punished. You are just shooting yourself in the
foot.
>
> By THEIR OWN logic, if I have nothing of value, then it shouldn't matter what I
> say or not. If it DOES matter, and if it is top-level theory, then the attacks
> on me are unsound and unjustified, as is the praise on those who have inferior
> theory that happens to be more popular, even if only as the result of an
> illegal smear campaign against me.
Again, you focus on your enemies instead of focusing on how to build
your audience.
>
> I've already published enough information for a man to get laid by hotties.
> That information is FREE.
>
> >Again,
> >the people that oppose you will never give you a fair shake - you have
> >to know that already.
> >You are not going to change their minds.
>
> Well then, the "fair" people pay the price for their conduct. Too damn bad.
That's the way to build an audience!
>
>
> >On the other hand, I have a feeling that there are more lurkers out
> >there who would in fact give it a fair shake.
>
> And that would benefit me how?
Are you admitting that you have no audience? If you don't, then you
are right, it won't benefit you. But if you do have an audience (or a
potential audience), then it would benefit you by building that
audience. Obviously.
>
> >Obviously, you need to
> >do what you think will be best for yourself. I don't pretend to know
> >what that is. But it does seem ridiculous to engage in thread after
> >thread over a theory that you are not disclosing.
>
> Ridiculous is when some wannabe cyber-vigilante plants himself in this group as
> if he were somehow on-topic or relevant with the purpose of doing nothing other
> than to defame me and incite others against me.
I'm not sure who is the "cyber-vigilante". But assuming that you are
correct, then how exactly does allowing a cyber-vigilante to shut you
down make your life better? How dow focusing on punishing a
cyber-vigilante (which he won't see as punishment at all) instead of
focusing on building your own base make your life better?
>
> What better way to punish that behavior than with what I'm doing now?
The biggest way to punish your enemies would be by becoming
successful. What you are doing now is essentially allowing your
enemies to shut you down, and turn you into a whiner.
>
>
> >While it might be
> >interesting initially to wonder about what's behind "door number
> >three", pretty soon it is time to either open the door or move on and
> >let the subject rest.
>
> Then move on. I was just trying to see what "everyone else" has to say about
> the subject of seducing strippers.
I can understand that.
>
> So far I've said that many strippers are quite relationship worthy, and I saw
> you say they were fucked-up people. Then someone claiming to be an ex-dancer
> comes out here having taken strong offense to that. I figure I can let her
> make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
> beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd actually
> have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper, because in that
> arena she was earning her money; in the corporate world, odds are she is not.
I said that on average, they are pretty screwed up people. I said that
quality ones are hard to find, but I also acknowledged that there are
exceptions. For what little it's worth, I do agree that there are some
worthwhile dancers. You are saying one in ten or one in twenty. I
think that's a little high, but we are still in the same ballpark.
Scott Bailey
> As a former exotic dancer who worked in high-end clubs in Vegas for several
> years, I resent your statement, above, that "strippers as a group are one of the
> most screwed up segments of society." And that "exceptions" are "rare".
All I can go by is my own experience, observations, and reliable
anecdotal evidence. All of this leads me to suggest that as a group,
on average, strippers are a pretty screwed up lot. I have freely
acknowledged that there are exceptions. And believe me, as a guy, I
wish there were more quality dancers. That would be great if it was
true. I just don't think it is.
>
> Dancers are, as a group, as varied as any other.
This seems to suggest that no "group" of people are more prone to
problems than others. All groups have troubled individuals, but some
groups have more problems than others. Strippers seem to fit into the
more problem prone area.
Even the girls who were "cool" when they started dancing have a lot of
problems to overcome. They are constantly exposed to seedy people,
they work in an environment that is drenched with drugs and various
forms of sleaze, and they are in an extremely manipulative situation.
Many, if not most, make the bulk of their money off of a core of
"regulars". They have to cultivate these guys, and the only way to do
that is to be extremely dishonest. Let's face it, the typical
"regular" is a lonely guy who has come to like the dancer, and would
like to actually date her. She has to play on this weakness in order
to get the rent payed (she will of course call it "creating a
fantasy"). This is manipulation on the crassest of levels. But hey,
the rent is due.
I've even seen guys turn over their entire paychecks to some of these
girls.
Now, I will say that I think that ANY job (salesman, whatever) that
involves playing on customer weakness or foolishness is going to
transorm the person in time into a less than desirable individual.
Stripping certainly isn't the only job that involves manipulation, but
it is the premier example of crass manipulation of men AS MEN and by
women AS WOMEN.
That's why the relatively few exceptions are so impressive. If you
have a girl that was surrounded by sleaze, but didn't become corrupted
by it - that's impressive. If you have a girl who could have profited
on shameless manipulation...but didn't...that's impressive. I think an
argument could be made that such girls are actually of HIGHER quality
than the average non-dancer. But I submit that these girls are damn
rare.
I used the clubs to work my way
> through UNLV, and am now a respected professional. As an occasional reader of
> this forum, I can say without fear of contradiction that some of the regular
> posters here are no more or less screwed up, in their own ways, than some of the
> girls that I knew when I was dancing.
I don't doubt that.
But my motivation, the money I needed for
> school, was actually very common.
>
> "Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a kind of
> erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or practicing my
> routines, as I did dancing in the club. Male atheletes have the field and court
> upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
> occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college girl. I
> also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
There is the rub. Stripping is a job, but not "like any other". I
would agree that if you have a dancer that just gets on the stage,
dances, collects tips at the stage...and then leaves - then it could
properly be called a job. I have no doubt that with some girls that is
all there is to it, but most are operating on a different level -
whether that be manipulating "regulars" (read, lonely and desperate
men), the party and drug scene, etc. In other words, they are not just
dancing, but rather there is a whole lifestyle involved. It's that
lifestyle, and not the dancing per se, that I'm talking about.
To put it another way, I wouldn't hold it against a girl because she
is or was a dancer. What would trouble me are the other aspects of the
game.
>
> It may be true that the street clubs you have habituated were worked by a lot of
> very emotionally damaged young women. And I have met girls, even in the more
> exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen young
> women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further their
> education and careers. And in one case, a married girl was working to save up
> the down-payment for a home. Several of the girls I used to work with are now
> wives and mothers and no one would ever quess as to their former careers, other
> than they are very attractive soccer moms.
I think that's cool; I just don't think it's that common. Honestly,
what portion of the women that you worked with meet that standard? One
in a hundred? One in ten? I'm curious. And even though you might not
have worked at them, what do you think the proportion would be at the
"street clubs", the vast majority of clubs in the country?
>
> I am not going to validate or invalidate anything about Mr. Gordon's method
> called "Stripper Gold". I have no idea what he is talking about. Speaking for
> myself and several of the girls I worked with, and who are still close friends,
> I never dated clients. Not once.
Does this mean that quality dancers will not date anyone who comes
through the front door, no matter how cool they might be? If an
intelligent, interesting and good guy comes in the front door, will a
quality dancer still spurn him? Why? Do dancers consider all men who
walk through the front door to be screwed up losers? I know for a fact
that many think just that way, but I'm curious as to what you would
say about that.
In fact, I had regular boyfriends most of the
> time I worked.
>
> You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
Thanks.
>
> ex-dancer
ex con
James King
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper at her club,
> >>so he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
> >
> >That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your "only sluts
> >respond to asf methods" argument.
>
> And sluts are what does respond to them: women who are easy to fool, and who
> put out easily.
>
> Who told you that strippers put out easily?
My personal experience as a DJ in several strip clubs over a three year
span of time would indicate that strippers do put out more easily.
James King
Scott Bailey
event, a few additional comments.
ex-d...@no-email.com wrote in message news:<9oS3a.13195$15....@www.newsranger.com>...
> Please excuse this top post.
>
> I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on attractive
> working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I do not intend to
> discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable, or even civil, outcome to
> such a discussion.
>
> My post was meant for the other gentleman.
>
> Everything I said was 100% truthful. You, or anyone else for that matter, can
> choose to believe or disbelieve what I have said. The choice is yours and
> theirs. What I am offering is a serious word of caution for the unwary male
> regarding the idea that men reading this forum can go to strip clubs and "score"
> with the dancers using a "secret formula".
>
> I would seriously suggest they better employ their time and money elsewhere.
That's what I was saying.
>
> Strip clubs are about fantasy. Intelligent and savvy clients know this. Those
> who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers are
> really good at spotting the easy "marks".
Exactly. And as I noted below, I would hardly consider this preying on
marks to be particularly good for an individual's
development....neither for the "mark" or the dancer that is
manipulating him. I can't imagine doing that on a regular basis
without it having a significant effect on the type of person someone
becomes.
>
> My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood. I trust
> their honesty on this issue. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am saying,
> from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
> clients.
As I asked below, why not? Would they not date a customer if he was a
really top notch guy? Or do dancers simply view any man who comes in
the front door as a loser?
>
> What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
> This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
>
> Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and out.
> But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile. And it isn't the most
> important. If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
> regardless of my looks.
>
> And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
This is really more for Ray, but I'll include it here:
I'm not exactly sure what Ray expects you to do about the "looks
premium", a premium that certainly exists. How exactly would someone
go about verifying that they are not getting a beauty premium, even if
they were so inclined as to turn the benefit down for ethical reasons?
However, I'm not at all sure that someone should turn down a beauty
premium even if they could.
We are all born with different advantages and drawbacks. Some are born
with greater intelligence, musical talent, etc. Some seem to have
inherent people skills that can be extremely advantageous later on in
life, some are born to wealthy and generous parents, and yes...some
are born with the genetic basis for great beauty. Are the beautiful
people supposed to handicap themselves, while everyone else enjoys
whatever benefits the lottery of birth conferred upon them?
What about the guy with great social skills who rises along the
corporate ladder...even though he is no more talented than the guy
that gets left behind because he couldn't get along with his boss or
co-workers as well? How do we "even the playfield" on that? We could
probably come up with many traits besides beauty that are rewarded,
even though technically they might not be essential for any given job.
To my way of thinking, as long as one is being honest...use what you
have.
A Modern Caveman
>club,
>> >>so he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
>> >
>> >That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your "only
>sluts
>> >respond to asf methods" argument.
>>
>> And sluts are what does respond to them: women who are easy to fool, and
>who
>> put out easily.
>>
>> Who told you that strippers put out easily?
>
>My personal experience as a DJ in several strip clubs over a three year
>span of time would indicate that strippers do put out more easily.
Sure, the slutty ones!
A Modern Caveman
>> who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers
>are
>> really good at spotting the easy "marks".
>
>Exactly. And as I noted below, I would hardly consider this preying on
>marks to be particularly good for an individual's
>development....neither for the "mark" or the dancer that is
>manipulating him. I can't imagine doing that on a regular basis
>without it having a significant effect on the type of person someone
>becomes.
What's wrong with some chump paying for her AND me?
>> My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood. I
>trust
>> their honesty on this issue. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am
>saying,
>> from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
>> clients.
>
>As I asked below, why not? Would they not date a customer if he was a
>really top notch guy? Or do dancers simply view any man who comes in
>the front door as a loser?
That raises the question of why men would give money to women who thought so
poorly of them.
>> And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
>
>This is really more for Ray, but I'll include it here:
>
>I'm not exactly sure what Ray expects you to do about the "looks
>premium", a premium that certainly exists. How exactly would someone
>go about verifying that they are not getting a beauty premium, even if
>they were so inclined as to turn the benefit down for ethical reasons?
How would a white male go about repudiating his advantages as women and
minorities *demanded* white men do back in the 1960s?
>However, I'm not at all sure that someone should turn down a beauty
>premium even if they could.
So the 53 year-old woman who can't get a job because of her age and looks
doesn't make a pretty enough damsel in distress to warrant the cavalry she'd
have gotten when she was 23?
For example, when the exotic dancer in California was told her kid couldn't go
to religious school if she kept her job, several area businesses offered her
jobs, UNSOLICITED.
>We are all born with different advantages and drawbacks. Some are born
>with greater intelligence, musical talent, etc. Some seem to have
>inherent people skills that can be extremely advantageous later on in
>life, some are born to wealthy and generous parents, and yes...some
>are born with the genetic basis for great beauty. Are the beautiful
>people supposed to handicap themselves, while everyone else enjoys
>whatever benefits the lottery of birth conferred upon them?
Merit is not a lottery. Either we have a merit system or we do not.
>What about the guy with great social skills who rises along the
>corporate ladder...even though he is no more talented than the guy
>that gets left behind because he couldn't get along with his boss or
>co-workers as well?
Neither one should be left behind. One can work in production, the other in
marketing.
>How do we "even the playfield" on that?
We don't shut anyone out who is skilled, that's how.
That includes the 53 year-old secretaries.
>We could
>probably come up with many traits besides beauty that are rewarded,
>even though technically they might not be essential for any given job.
This one is a seed of sexual harassment and something women claim to hate.
Apparently they don't hate it so much if the price is right.
>To my way of thinking, as long as one is being honest...use what you
>have.
If they were honest about it they'd be sued under Title VII.
So you see, PERJURY is what backs up this "innocent preference."
roger gonnet
"Paul Robinson" <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> a écrit dans le
message de news: 3E5024EC...@paul.washington.dc.us...
> Mistress Zorak wrote:
>
> > Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:<3E4E83AE...@paul.washington.dc.us>...
> >
> > > Ray [Gordon] has about as much credibility here as the Church of
Scientology or
> > > Lyndon Larouche does in mainstream America: less than none.
> >
> > Scientologists are responsible for: lowering crime rates,
> > rehabilitating drug users, teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
> > pschiatric abuse, making the world a bit safer.
>
public, most people consider it a cult. What it
> actually was, was L. Ron Hubbard's tax dodge.
>
> Personally I agree with their standing against the use of psychotropic
drugs.
I agree in part. But as usual, scientologists do speak from things they
have not studied, and the best about that is that they do forbid
entrance or membership/"services" to people having seen any
psychologist - while psychologists do not give drugs, and moreover,
their gutru was a druggie with illegal and legal drugs and alcohol, and
tobacco... etc
r
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030217000643...@mb-de.aol.com>
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216212655...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
Anonymous
Don't forget, Ray, who's real name is Gordon Parker, states his opinions as if they were
facts. Furthermore he doesn't do so with the intention of offering information or debate, but
rather to offend, provoke and get attention. Interacting with him is pointless and disrupts
the group.
For further background and information please visit
www.ray-gordon.com
The site is NOT affiliated with Ray.
In article <OkX3a.13212$15....@www.newsranger.com>
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216235217...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216215401...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
A Modern Caveman
>
>
>I've already noted my qualified agreement with this.
Okay.
>> I also should qualify this by saying "hot stripper" because there are some
>damn
>> ugly ones who aren't even conquests.
>
>True enough. I'm talking "hot strippers".
That's the first thing I noticed after going to the clubs for a while. Few of
the women really measure up physically enough to be considered notable
conquests.
>> >great that they would simply preclude a normal relationship.
>>
>> That can be said of any type of woman.
>
>I still maintain that it is significantly worse among strippers, but I
>have also acknowledged that there are exceptions.
It's almost universal among say legal secretaries or even waitresses.
Any eye-candy profession is more messed up than stripping.
You can throw in flight attendant, "marketing," "sales," and "human resources"
(for the idiot chicks who can't do anything else).
>> >The exceptions are so rare as to
>> >be be the proverbial needle in a haystack, and looking for that needle
>> >is a great idea...if you are immortal.
>>
>> That I don't agree with.
>
>It all depends on how rare the good ones are, and how effeciently you
>can sort through the bad. For most guys, I think strip clubs would be
>a losing proposition.
How can it be a losing proposition? Same price as a regular bar, maybe a few
bucks more, and perpetual opportunity.
It can no more be a loser for a guy than print-on-demand can be a loser for a
publisher, or a spare tire and battery in the trunk can be a losing proposition
for someone driving down the highway (spare me the situations with freak
accidents involving the tire or battery).
>> >Admittedly, if you could find one that is in fact a healthy, balanced,
>> >cool chick...you have hit the jackpot.
>>
>> I've found several.
>
>Agreed, they are out there.
Which is why I find it useful to learn how to tap into this endless stream of
quailty pussy.
>> One in a hundred is more than enough to satisfy any man.
>>
>> I'd say more like one in ten or one in twenty.
>
>Perhaps.
Usually if I go to a club I'll find two or three women worth fucking, tops.
Of those, I might be able to seduce about 5-7 percent of them if I devote all
my energy to it. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it is, and it adds up over
time. First off, you aren't going to want most of the women (as you point
out), and the ones you do want are going to usually have about 300-500 men to
choose from, so anything over 1 percent is actually strong.
Most men avoid the game because of this apparent difficulty. A seven percent
success ratio means that a guy should be able to pull sex within his fifteenth
pluck.
Remember, this is seven percent scoring with the cream of the crop, not the
crap (you can hit 80 percent with them and you know the type I'm talking
about). I've come out of clubs with two or three numbers in one day from
dancers that I threw away because they were useless, and given to me
unsolicited.
That's 7 percent for a guy my age, with no real wealth to speak of, overweight,
and in possession of an STD....not only that, from that 7 percent I'd say about
80 percent of them are relationship worthy, and of that 80 percent, about half
would hold up pretty well in a marriage.
A man who scores more often than that in a strip club doesn't have high enough
standards. These women should not be easy to score with. Hitting only 7
percent of the time as opposed to say 35 percent is that once she's with you,
the odds of other guys scoring with her are much less. I'm willing to wait
through a dozen plucks to land one of this type of woman (i.e., player-immune).
Now, if I just want "sex with a stripper" that's very easy to accomplish. In
the course of pursuing the "7 percent" options, you will land several other
"sure thing" numbers, mostly from women who notice you ignoring them so
completely and convincingly that it's an earthquake to their self-esteem. Of
those women, a pluck has an 80-100 percent chance of succeeding, but is not
really worth it unless you're just into the short-term sex. That 7 percent
also comes from being the approacher at her club, which is one of the worst
starting positions a guy can ask for.
I don't care what any of the players here say, but if they claim to score more
than 5 percent of the time with the women they want the most, they are probably
either lying or they aren't differentiating these women properly.
In 1991, I did an experiment with a player who lived in my area. We hit on 10
women who didn't know we knew each other and compared notes. Final score was
8-1-1 in his favor (one woman didn't want either of us), and the one woman who
wanted me was the one he wanted (he fucked several of the 8, including the one
I wanted who was in that group).
Of the one of the 8 I wanted, I told him ONE thing: who her favorite singer
was. He goes up to her at her job and says "I bet I can guess your favorite
singer." She bites, he "guesses," she freaks, and they start "dating." She
slips him her # and one time after blowing me off, I go down to his place and
he calls her; 15 minutes later she's over (almost after dropping off the
phone).
It was amusing to watch how she treated me versus him, but even more amusing
was watching him fall all over the woman who wanted me (she was practically a
double for former Playboy Playmate Lisa Mathhews, and every bit as hot).
Bottom line is all women aren't created equal, even though ASF has a nasty
habit of presuming them to be. I'd rather hit 7 percent with what I want than
70 percent with what I don't. I'm not out to break Ted Williams' record here.
>> The point is that my past theories were abused by those who benefitted from
>> them, and now I want to see people talking about areas where I have new
>theory
>> so they can go on record for what their views are. THEN I can release my
>> theories, possibly with a number of women to back them up (haven't decided
>how
>> public to go with them yet).
>
>That seems reasonable.
Just how the internet game works.
>> >You have to know as well as I do what will happen if you choose to
>> >publish "stripper gold". Those who already oppose you on this board
>> >will dismiss it as a piece of crap. That's a given. It won't matter
>> >what the quality of the theory is, it won't be given a fair read.
>>
>> Which is why I'm not releasing it.
>
>While that is certainly your perogative, I think you are missing the
>point. One way of looking at it is this way: how many people are
>actually attacking you on this board? Ten? Twenty? Certainly not much
>more than twenty, I wouldn't think. Is that all the hits this board
>gets? I think not. There are probably many, many lurkers out
>there...they are the real audience.
And the attackers here know that their crap is archived. Creates an
intolerable situation for me at this time.
Let a big media outfit step in and give me a six-figure salary so I don't have
to concern myself with being compensated, which I should be if my methods are
so good.
I'm not saying this method is a be-all and end-all, but it makes visiting strip
clubs very stress free. That's an improvement over the one-sided giving away
of money that most men have happen to them there.
>> I did this on a handicapping board once. Someone was stealing my picks and
>> building a nice record with them. I stopped giving out games for a while
>and
>> suddenly "the board" got a lot weaker.
>>
>> Pretty soon people approached me with "hey, c'mon, you know we like what
>you
>> say" and I told them to fuck off. I'm already getting that now with this.
>
>You should be smart enough to figure out how to make things work for
>you, rather than allowing a handful of people to checkmate you.
Unfortunately, I don't have czar powers over the internet. Suing them is the
only recourse, and that takes time.
It's not that I don't make money with this; I do, but I make the same amount
regardless of the content I put out. I have little incentive to put anything
new out right now, and it also hurts me to have others profit from my work. If
they are going to do that, I have to profit first.
>> >On the other hand, those who have found value in your writings
>> >(including myself) will give it a fair read.
>>
>> And my life will improve HOW because of this? There's no benfit to having
>a
>> few people give me a "fair read" in an industry where people aren't given
>fair
>> rewards.
>
>To repeat, you should be able to figure out how to make the deal work
>for you in such a way that your life improves.
I did that. I publish sufficient seduction content to attract a sizeable
audience to the point where I could spend the rest of my life advertising what
I already wrote and never share another thing.
I would like to raise public awareness about "information chaos" and the
information mafias that are cancers on the internet, using everything from
hackers to shills to dominate the flow of public opinion.
>If it is a good
>product, presumably there is such a way.
And how does you life improve
>by allowing yourself to essentially be shut down by a relative handful
>of people?
I have three books on the market. Free. They can't be shut down. I can let
market conditions change before I release any new stuff.
Further, it would seem that people have unlimited money for rewarding illegal
marketing. There's no sign that these people will ever go away. The idea that
honest people will thrive in that environment is as ludicrous as it was on Wall
Street during the dotcom bubble and Enron.
There were telco managers who were getting FIRED because they couldn't match
Worldcom's numbers. How could they have been rewarded?
>> If I'm smarter than most of the men who get paid to write columns on this,
>I
>> should have a column. If I'm smarter than most of the men who are
>published
>> and in bookstores, then my books belong there. If my content is superior
>and
>> without cost, then advertisers should realize that their consumers would
>rather
>> have higher-quality content sponsored.
>
>True enough, but how are you going to win support by allowing your
>enemies to shut you down?
They haven't shut me down. I have three free books available.
Another thing: shutting me down does have legal consequences. I am suing over
this, so I am taking action. Leveling the playing field has to be the first
priority. The problem with writing and the internet is that others can
disseminate your work too fast. The only way around it is to make $3,000 a
column for a monthly magazine that can turn around and load up the side columns
of your pages with ads.
Absent that revenue support, the incentive to produce is GONE. Most writers
simply won't write; I'll continue to write and remind people of why they won't
be seeing my writing.
The protest is a benefit in that it raises public awareness that standing by
while this crap goes on might cost them some good information, and maybe it's
time they woke up.
>> You keep hearing that "all the information you need" is at this site or
>that
>> site. I would suggest that people who believe that not look to me for
>their
>> answers, as they have already said they are getting "all the information
>they
>> need" elsewhere. Let the sites who throw down that gauntlet live up to
>their
>> billing, and without any indirect assistance from me (i.e., I release the
>> method, someone else posts it, then it sticks, etc.).
>
>To the extent that they are successful, apparently those guys have
>figured out a way to market their product.
We're talking here about quality of product, not quality of marketing. A lot
of that "marketing" has also crossed severe legal lines. The only way to
punish their sins is to sue them for it.
>Presumably, you can as
>well. Where is your opposition? A relative handful of posters on
>usenet?
More like a brazen conspiracy to destroy my business and reputation everywhere
I turn, either online or offline, including places to which I have applied for
employment.
Normally this is not done because normally those who would do it would fear
being sued. Something in the brains of some of these people has actually
convinced them that these rules do not apply here.
I've seen people taking legal advice from ANONYMOUS REMAILER postings, for
christ's sake.
>> >But where is the wisdom of engaging in thread after thread on a
>> >subject where you are essentially saying "I'm not telling!"?
>>
>> Explaining to people that they are being punished for not being straight-up
>> about who has helped develop the theory around here.
>
>But they aren't being punished. You are just shooting yourself in the
>foot.
They are being punished if they follow bad advice.
>> By THEIR OWN logic, if I have nothing of value, then it shouldn't matter
>what I
>> say or not. If it DOES matter, and if it is top-level theory, then the
>attacks
>> on me are unsound and unjustified, as is the praise on those who have
>inferior
>> theory that happens to be more popular, even if only as the result of an
>> illegal smear campaign against me.
>
>Again, you focus on your enemies instead of focusing on how to build
>your audience.
I am building an audience anyway.
>> >You are not going to change their minds.
>>
>> Well then, the "fair" people pay the price for their conduct. Too damn
>bad.
>
>That's the way to build an audience!
I have free books for doing that.
>> >On the other hand, I have a feeling that there are more lurkers out
>> >there who would in fact give it a fair shake.
>>
>> And that would benefit me how?
>
>Are you admitting that you have no audience? If you don't, then you
>are right, it won't benefit you. But if you do have an audience (or a
>potential audience), then it would benefit you by building that
>audience. Obviously.
It wouldn't benefit me if that same audience later on gives credit to others
for my work, as I've seen done in the past.
>> Ridiculous is when some wannabe cyber-vigilante plants himself in this
>group as
>> if he were somehow on-topic or relevant with the purpose of doing nothing
>other
>> than to defame me and incite others against me.
>
>I'm not sure who is the "cyber-vigilante". But assuming that you are
>correct, then how exactly does allowing a cyber-vigilante to shut you
>down make your life better? How dow focusing on punishing a
>cyber-vigilante (which he won't see as punishment at all) instead of
>focusing on building your own base make your life better?
Actually, under the laws, those who have broken them can be made to stop by the
courts.
The idea is that someone isn't going to rely on trade defamation or Lanham Act
violations if doing so will cost them every cent they could ever earn.
I have a vested interest in punishing those who break the law against me.
>> What better way to punish that behavior than with what I'm doing now?
>
>The biggest way to punish your enemies would be by becoming
>successful.
I can do that without publishing this.
>What you are doing now is essentially allowing your
>enemies to shut you down, and turn you into a whiner.
So anyone who points out an injustice is a whiner now?
People on the internet have to realize that where they spend their money is
where they have to get their information from. If they don't like the
information they get, they have to redirect their money.
>> Then move on. I was just trying to see what "everyone else" has to say
>about
>> the subject of seducing strippers.
>
>I can understand that.
Let's hear the experts.
>> So far I've said that many strippers are quite relationship worthy, and I
>saw
>> you say they were fucked-up people. Then someone claiming to be an
>ex-dancer
>> comes out here having taken strong offense to that. I figure I can let her
>> make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
>> beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd
>actually
>> have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper, because in
>that
>> arena she was earning her money; in the corporate world, odds are she is
>not.
>
>I said that on average, they are pretty screwed up people.
I'm not having sex with an average.
>I said that
>quality ones are hard to find, but I also acknowledged that there are
>exceptions. For what little it's worth, I do agree that there are some
>worthwhile dancers. You are saying one in ten or one in twenty. I
>think that's a little high, but we are still in the same ballpark.
And that's all that matters if they are the ones you wake up with.
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216194019...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
> >>I figure I can let her
> >>make that case better than me, even if she's not going to like my
> >>beauty-premium arguments against her newfound "respectability." I'd
> >actually
> >>have had more respect for her if she had remained a stripper
> >
> >Given that she chose to end a "career" that she could pursue until (at best)
> >the age of 30, to pursue a different career path that could provide good
> >income
> >until retirement age, it's safe to say in this case that you "respect" the
> >woman who chooses STUPIDLY.
Better she remain a stripper (or move into a neutral arena afterwards) than to
become a shining example of the "beauty premium." Even then, her "career" was
built off of her sexuality. Merit isn't an issue.
> >Strange, considering that when it comes to your
> >view about women choosing men, you advocate choices that will help them in
> >the
> >long run over a quick romantic or sexual fix with a player.
Avoiding taking advantage of unethical biases IS a wise choice.
> >So how many strippers have been fucked using "stripper gold"?
Wouldn't you like to know....I told you already, when the other gurus start
getting more specific, so will I.
Either that or you'll have to wait until I have live sex on the internet with
one of them...
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216183717...@mb-fa.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
> >>>> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s.
> >>> People
> >>>> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
> >>> how
> >>>> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
> >>>> shouldn't be profiting from it."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
> >>>
> >>> The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium"
> >possesses.
> >>>
> >>> All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant
> >or
> >>> both.
> >>
> >> Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
> >> inflicted by "society" have two choices:
> >>
> >> They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or
> >they
> >> can work to eliminate it (ethical).
> >>
> >
> >And what of those who don't profit from it? Or does everyone who accepts
> >reality profit from it?
Affirmative action is such a cancer that women and minorities can't help but
profit from it unless they cross strong gender barriers.
The beauty premium is also such that the only way not to profit from it is to
speak out against it.
Both are quite entrenched in our society, to the point where the merit system
we supposedly pride so much is but a pathetic joke. The game is literally
rigged by both.
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216212059...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
> >Jesus, all I can say after reading this, is why does Ray wonder why people
> >hate
> >him? If I was the target of the stuff he wrote in this article, I'd probably
> >be
> >looking to chase him with a baseball bat!
More of his pathetic "don't anger me" fantasy....like it somehow MATTERS if he
doesn't approve of what someone says.
You seem like a sad soul who seems to think bullying me is his ticket to
belonging. That is about the biggest mistake you could possibly make.
You are best dealt with via the judicial system, and you will be. As you seem
to like to say, these are problems you are bringing on yourself, without help.
You are hereby instructed not to address me or make references to committing
violence against me.
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216182849...@mb-fa.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
>
> >> It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s.
> >People
> >> of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's
> >how
> >> the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
> >> shouldn't be profiting from it."
> >
> >
> >Well, someone obviously needs a history lesson.
> >
> >The number of slaveowners in the antebellum south was between 25% and 33%.
> >
> >Hardly the pervasive influence Gordon claims the "beauty premium" possesses.
> >
> >All that's left is to determine whether Gordon is disingenuous, ignorant or
> >both.
Read what I wrote again. I said that those who are confronted with a wrong
inflicted by "society" have two choices:
They can either accept the status quo and profit from it (unethical), or they
can work to eliminate it (ethical).
It's very clear that today's women are more than happy to leave the beauty
premium in place, as well as the unearned gains that come with affirmative
action.
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216180814...@mb-fa.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
> >Please excuse this top post.
> >
> >I am fully aware of your opinions, Mr. Gordon, on working women, on
> >attractive
> >working women, and, in fact, women in general. Therefore, I do not intend to
> >discuss the issue with you. I can foresee no amicable, or even civil, outcome
> >to
> >such a discussion.
And since leaving the status quo in place favors you, it also favors you not to
discuss the issue, much as it favored men not to discuss the issue back during
the civil rights movement.
Your willingness to tolerate that bias, however, reveals an ethical flaw which
will likely cause you to wind up marrying a man who shares your ethics, and
later divorcing him.
> >My post was meant for the other gentleman.
> >
> >Everything I said was 100% truthful. You, or anyone else for that matter, can
> >choose to believe or disbelieve what I have said. The choice is yours and
> >theirs. What I am offering is a serious word of caution for the unwary male
> >regarding the idea that men reading this forum can go to strip clubs and
> >"score"
> >with the dancers using a "secret formula".
But they can. I learned of strip clubs in fact when friends of mine had
brought dancers home with them. I mean, I knew they had existed, but all I had
heard of them pretty much had to do with guys I knew bringing home dancers from
there.
When you see men doing this it's hard not to believe it is possible. All I did
was merely take the time to figure out how this can be accomplished.
> >I would seriously suggest they better employ their time and money elsewhere.
As players do, but that doesn't mean that this skill shouldn't be acquired.
> >Strip clubs are about fantasy. Intelligent and savvy clients know this. Those
> >who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers
> >are
> >really good at spotting the easy "marks".
So the other guy can be the mark.
> >My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood.
Sad.
> >I
> >trust
> >their honesty on this issue.
Don't. They'd never admit it.
> >I am not saying that it is impossible. I am
> >saying,
> >from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
> >clients.
And I'm saying that either they will lie about it when they do, or will have
found a way to think of the man as something other than a client.
> >What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
> >This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
Let's just say I think you're closer to a whore in your corporate position than
you were in a strip club. Now you're pretending to be respectable.
> >Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and
> >out.
And by definition it's harmed those who aren't sexy, and will harm you as you
age and your looks go. It totally invalidates any notion that you got ahead on
merit, or that your morals are such that you'd even care. Long as you get
yours.
Women like that make lousy wives and mothers, and tend to marry men who are
just like them....and divorce them.
> >But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile.
A critical one, however, and one which results in unearned money and
opportunity.
> >And it isn't the most
> >important.
Not to YOU maybe.
> >If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
> >regardless of my looks.
That's not the point: if you are only EQUAL to others, however, you get hired.
In an economy like this, that can mean the difference between paying the bills
and not....something you "earn" with your body.
Let's just forget any talk of merit here, and admit why you get ahead. If you
cared about that, you'd be working to eliminate the unfair advantages. That
you aren't is a fact of life, but so is the fact that you didn't get ahead on
merit, but you got ahead because of how you look.
> >And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
You wouldn't have to in order to have an advantage given to you because of how
you look. That's not how the beauty premium works.
It's roughly the same test that was given to slaveowners in the 1840s. People
of that era could have cited "presentism" as an argument and said "that's how
the world is, I can't change it" or they could say "that's wrong, and I
shouldn't be profiting from it."
You choose to profit from it. My personal belief is that in the afterlife, God
will fry you in hell because you chose to take survival resources at the
expense of others based on your sexuality (I know, those patheitc-looking older
women DESERVE to be cast aside for special old YOU), but it's also not likely
you'll be concerned about that until it's way too late.
Any husband you wind up with has to deal with the fact that he married a woman
like this (who is basically corporate eye-candy trash), and while he may be
enjoying the sex, he probably won't wind up enjoying the ethical package that
comes with it.
You could choose to separate yourself from this bias you embrace instead; that
would make you ethical. It would also make you unpopular with the very people
who pay you, and your sense of self-entitlement won't allow you to hear that,
so instead you play along.
In doing so, men like the horndogs from this group will call you a "strong,
independent woman" and ignore it, so that they can get sex from you. You'll
ignore it because you lack the courage to fight it.
One day your looks will go, your husband will follow, your boss will find
another version of you in 15-20 years (or whenever), and you'll wonder why all
that stuff "happened to you." The only defense you have is to save up enough
money between now and then that it won't matter to you when you get older.
You may not like ASF men, but at least with them, you don't have to pass any
ethical standards. You just have to look good and/or put out.
That would leave you quite at home, I would imagine.
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030217015912...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030217015326...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
Sure, the slutty ones!
The Sputnik Group
>"teaching folsk to read, ferreting out
> pschiatric abuse"
ex-d...@no-email.com
I think it depends upon the quality of the club in which one works. As in all
things, there is a club and dancer hierarchy. And those who have both the looks
AND talent to work at the higher end of the scale, perhaps the top 10%, do not
fit into your assessment.
However, dancing does tend to lower one's inhibitions. (If that is what you
mean.) I would say one's inhibitions decrease in direct porportion to the
increase in one's confidence. The result being this: becoming an exotic dancer
greatly increased my personal confidence. And that has translated itself into
success outside the clubs.
Since I never worked in a low-end club, I am probably not qualified to discuss
what goes on in them. So perhaps this discussion should be qualified and
re-stated as "How To Seduce Strippers (in Sleazy Dead-End Dives)"?
ex-d...@no-email.com
>
>amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman):
>
>>The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper at her club, so
>>he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
>
>That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your "only sluts
>respond to asf methods" argument.
One of the consistent problems in this newsgroup seems to be the ambiguity of
bothering to seduce a gender that many men (at least here) seem to secretly (or
quite openly) detest.
As with Mr. Gordon, who seems to desire and despise "strippers" at the same
time. This creates a kind of emotive/cognitive dissonance.
If he feels that ASF methods are so reprehensible, why does he post here in the
first place?
Speaking as a female, my opinion is that SOME ASF methods actually make perfect
sense. In this, as in all things, the intent will dictate whether or not those
"methods" are abusive.
>"They all want to embrace you; they are all taken in by your frigid elegance,
>your postures and poses like frozen roses." - Thomas Ligotti
> ++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Interesting quote.
Android Cat
Narcanon can help with that Fonix addiction! "I'm Mistress Zorak, and I'm
hooked on fawniques" "Hi Mistress Zorak!" ;^)
Ron of that ilk.
ex-d...@no-email.com
>
>
>"A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030216212655...@mb-de.aol.com...
>> >>looking to chase him with a baseball bat! My God, what a tremendous
>shit
>> >load of
>> >>hatred and anger he is holding on to!
>> >
>> >I don't chase people around with baseball bats.
>>
>> something about him?
>
>by him with, of all things, a baseball bat.
One wonders; how "ethical" is that!?
>> >Ray Gordon is entitled to his
>> >opinions. And I am entitled to disagree with his opinions. Apparently
>many
>> >people do disagree with him.
>>
>> Many men APPEAR to disagree with me to score points with women
I can't imagine Mr. Gordon believing that men come to ASF in order to pick up
women. It seems they come here, as if it were an online men's locker room, to
share ideas. (Which is why this newsgroup often makes interesting reading for a
woman!)
>> Many who disagree with me often have a rival political agenda. Again, it
>> should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>You fails to realize that the hideous things you say to and about people
>make it difficult to bear you.
>Speaking solely for myself, I have no political motivation for disliking
>anything you have said, nor have I had an agenda when I've shown that more
>often than not you don't know what you're talking about.
"Political agenda"? It seems, rather, a heated debate about the best
methodologies for how to "score", and nothing more.
>> >My post was mostly directed to Scott Bailey's statement about
>"strippers".
>> >Many
>> >young women choose to enter that occupation for a brief time and with a
>> >specific
>> >economic goal in mind.
>>
>> And in doing so, have shown what they are willing to do for money.
And so, one wonders, if Mr. Gordon has so little regard for the women who work
as exotic dancers - why oh why - would he want to soil his higher "ethical" self
with their evil? Why isn't he developing a method for seducing Baptists?
I would not have sex with someone I loathe. So if he loathes "strippers", why
has he bothered to construct a system for seducing these loathesome women?
There is a contradiction here.
>> >Once the goal is accomplished, they move on to other
>> >things.
>>
>> But it becomes established what they are willing to do for money if they
>need
>> it. That doesn't evaporate when they stop stripping.
No,indeed. If I lost my job and suddenly found myself impoverished - I'd do it
again! I am in no way ashamed of how I paid my way through school. And, thanks
to a developed habit of staying in shape - I could doubtlessly find employment
very easily.
>I'll concede to that point.
If a man, any man, finds dancers to be morally reprehensable, then why would
they go to a "strip club" in the first place? No one sticks a gun to their head
and forces them inside.
>> >I don't think that strip clubs are the best place to meet women. They are
>> >places
>> >to go to watch women dance.
>>
>> Then let the women dance and not circle the bar afterwards. Let there be
>no
>> lapdances, champagne rooms, or large tips.
Better yet. If you find these activities so distasteful, don't go!
(By the way - the better clubs forbid lap dancing. That kind of behavior is more
typical of low-end clubs.)
>> Sound good to the dancers? Guys wouldn't mind that at all.
Here I think he is only speaking for himself. Why not simply allow the market to
decide? What is so offensive about large tips?
>> As I've said before, strip clubs are EASY once you figure out why they are
>> easy. I have figured this out, and almost ANY man can succeed in one
>because
>> the women there are trained to flirt with literally EVERY man who walks
>into
>> the place. You can't say that about a regular club.
>
>"Trained to flirt"... That again doesn't mean she's open to sleeping with
>anyone. It still takes effort.
Flirting is an art form like any other. As for sleeping with someone, that is a
matter of individual selectivity. The more choices an individual has, the more
selective they can afford to be.
>> For men who aren't in their 20s, or who aren't tall and rich, they can
>almost
>> totally neutralize any problem and still "pluck" a good number of women
>out of
>> an environment which is almost perpetually open, and where he knows he can
>find
>> a few dozen hotties every day.
But if these are "unethical" women, why bother? If his intent is merely to use
these women for sex - then he is the one being "unethical".
>And then there's the cover charge, the tips you give to the women, the
>drinks. So much for guys not having a lot of money still having a good time.
And at the higher end clubs, the cost factor tends to eliminate those who are
impecunious. Market forces at work - once again!
>It'd be prostitution if clubs didn't have rules against sleeping with
>clients and others who come to watch them.
Some clubs have very strict rules. Others merely "strongly discourage" dating
clients. What is being overlooked here is that, in the higher-end clubs, many
men bring their dates. The dancer, in this case, serves as a medium for relaxing
their date's inhibitions. It is a kind of vicarious seduction. And I've gotten
sizable tips from Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia and even women!
ex-d...@no-email.com
says...
Seduction, Mr. Bailey, is everywhere in our society. It sells most of the
products that people buy. All models and dancers serve a function. If one does
not approve of that function - one should avoid the clubs and not buy the
products marketed by beauty and seduction.
As for its long-term effects; I am a very confident person as a result of my
time as a dancer. I learned certain "techniques" that I have transfered to life
outside of the club life.
>> My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood. I trust
>> their honesty on this issue. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am saying,
>> from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
>> clients.
>
>As I asked below, why not? Would they not date a customer if he was a
>really top notch guy? Or do dancers simply view any man who comes in
>the front door as a loser?
No - not at all! The clients where I worked were, almost without exception, very
affluent. But dating clients is problematic. The dancers are viewed, from
outside, as innately promiscuous. And certain expectations arise in that kind of
relationship. My boyfriends tended to be guys I met at school. Students and
atheletes. People with whom I could relate OUTSIDE of the club scene.
>> What you all choose to do with this information is your own business.
>> This post is not meant as a "flame" at anyone, including Mr. Gordon.
>>
>> Of course being "sexy" has helped my career. Both inside the club life and out.
>> But it is only one aspect of a my employment profile. And it isn't the most
>> important. If my employer found me unproductive, I wouldn't be employed,
>> regardless of my looks.
>>
>> And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
>
>This is really more for Ray, but I'll include it here:
>
>I'm not exactly sure what Ray expects you to do about the "looks
>premium", a premium that certainly exists. How exactly would someone
>go about verifying that they are not getting a beauty premium, even if
>they were so inclined as to turn the benefit down for ethical reasons?
Beauty is marketable and we live in a market economy. I am not going to make
myself ugly and fat to suit Mr. Gordon or anyone else. (It isn't in my best
economic interests to do so.) If he feels as he does - then he should date,
exclusively, ugly, fat and marginally employed women.
>However, I'm not at all sure that someone should turn down a beauty
>premium even if they could.
And do what? Should they admit everyone, regardless of genius and GPA to
graduate school? Do you want an affirmative action heart surgeon working on you?
We all have, if we just look closely enough, some talent or gift that we can use
in the market place. I merely maximized my assests.
And I achieved my goal. Working as a dancer made it possible for me to leave
college without owing a monsterous debt. Now, please explain, in pragmatic
terms, what I did wrong.
To my way of thinking - nothing.
>We are all born with different advantages and drawbacks. Some are born
>with greater intelligence, musical talent, etc. Some seem to have
>inherent people skills that can be extremely advantageous later on in
>life, some are born to wealthy and generous parents, and yes...some
>are born with the genetic basis for great beauty. Are the beautiful
>people supposed to handicap themselves, while everyone else enjoys
>whatever benefits the lottery of birth conferred upon them?
No! We do not live in a communist society.
>What about the guy with great social skills who rises along the
>corporate ladder...even though he is no more talented than the guy
>that gets left behind because he couldn't get along with his boss or
>co-workers as well? How do we "even the playfield" on that? We could
>probably come up with many traits besides beauty that are rewarded,
>even though technically they might not be essential for any given job.
Exactly. One practical skill I learned as a dancer was interviewing well.
>To my way of thinking, as long as one is being honest...use what you
>have.
I entirely agree.
Mistress Zorak
> So? The Church of Scientology has a bad reputation with the general public, > most people consider it a cult. What it actually was, was L. Ron Hubbard's
> tax dodge.
Only a group that actually gets something done is worthy of
attack.
> Personally I agree with their standing against the use of psychotropic
> drugs. That does not mean they don't have a truckload of other problems some > of which border on if not exceed criminal behavior, much of which I find
> deplorable.
yes on the sickness. in fact, L. Ron Hubbard has discoverd that the
*only* reason people get sick (or have accidents) is because of evil
intended folk in proximity. Luckily, only 2.5% of the world's
population fall into that category.
> A "cult" is also any religion other than the one belonging to the person
> calling it a cult. The religion they belong to is a "church."
I am beign attacked foro the simple matter that I am a Scientologist.
It's basically a religious hate attack.
A Modern Caveman
>>span of time would indicate that strippers do put out more easily.
>>
>>James King
>
>I think it depends upon the quality of the club in which one works. As in all
>things, there is a club and dancer hierarchy. And those who have both the
>looks
>AND talent to work at the higher end of the scale, perhaps the top 10%, do
>not
>fit into your assessment.
>
>However, dancing does tend to lower one's inhibitions. (If that is what you
>mean.) I would say one's inhibitions decrease in direct porportion to the
>increase in one's confidence. The result being this: becoming an exotic
>dancer
>greatly increased my personal confidence. And that has translated itself into
>success outside the clubs.
Your LOOKS are what got you ahead inside or outside of them.
Get rid of any fantasy about merit being a factor in your life. It's not.
If you don't like it, then do what you can to eliminate the beauty premium,
since you claim not to need it.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
A Modern Caveman
>>respond to asf methods" argument.
>
>One of the consistent problems in this newsgroup seems to be the ambiguity of
>bothering to seduce a gender that many men (at least here) seem to secretly
>(or
>quite openly) detest.
>
>As with Mr. Gordon, who seems to desire and despise "strippers" at the same
>time. This creates a kind of emotive/cognitive dissonance.
You miss the point. I don't despise women or strippers. I do despise CHEATERS
or women who try to attribute their success to merit when it's obvious that
they aren't getting ahead on that basis.
Ever wonder why so many teen girls have EATING DISORDERS? They aren't stupid;
they know who the good jobs and the rich men go to: the THIN.
>If he feels that ASF methods are so reprehensible, why does he post here in
>the
>first place?
You are missing my point, lady. Here are these men reporting sexual success
with women that claim the methods don't work.
Someone's lying, and since the men's results are reproducible, it would appear
that would be the women, who seem to want to publicly disown the idea of the
methods working while the women continue to make them work.
Even beneath your "not me" denials if we scratch underneath the surface, we
could find that you in fact are rewarding these methods, only your mind has
glossed over the key ingredients to what seduced you.
>Speaking as a female, my opinion is that SOME ASF methods actually make
>perfect
>sense.
Which ones? Say, how do you feel about "MLTR?"
>In this, as in all things, the intent will dictate whether or not
>those
>"methods" are abusive.
The intent by the men is to try to get laid by as many hot women as possible.
ex-d...@no-email.com
says...
>
>To the Dancer,
>
>Don't you get it?
I doubt that there is anything you can say that I wouldn't "get".
>Most men think strippers are "lousy women" because THEY CANNOT SEDUCE THE GOOD
>ONES.
If you really want to seduce a dancer - meet her outside of the club. That is my
honest advice. Inside the club, dancers know they are going to get hit on and
their defenses are up. (Mine always were.)
If you want to meet the dancers when their defenses are down - find the clubs
THEY go to when they are not working. Or meet them in the gym or grocery
store...or anyplace BUT the club.
>The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper at her club, so
>he instead puts her down as trash that isn't worthy of being seduced.
But didn't you just say that I was "unethical" - implying that I was a trashy
person?
Mr. Gordon, you are going to have to struggle toward some kind of consistency.
>If he doesn't do this, he has to answer to why he can't pull in such a simple
>environment.
These "PUAs" as you call them don't have to explain a thing. Because the fact of
the matter is the "environment" in the club is stacked against scoring with the
dancers.
And for further reference, I will only communicate with you if you behave
yourself. Otherwise I will tune you out.
Kim P
That is one way to look at it. I prefer to ask why the COS uses PI's
and litigation to harass people who raise legitimate questions about
its policies and procedures. I also question Hubbard's so-called
research and his obvious lack of understanding of basic science.
Kim P
A Modern Caveman
>>> something about him?
>>
>>This from the man who wanted mother's to watch as their children get beaten
>>by him with, of all things, a baseball bat.
>
>One wonders; how "ethical" is that!?
Dear lady,
Do not believe what you read on the internet, and whatever you do, don't go
around republishing it.
People get SUED for that.
Since you went and PRESUMED this to be true, you are what I consider a
REPUBLISHER of this LIE.
Remember, no one made you check in with this remark, you did that all on your
own. You could have deleted the remark, but no, you had to act as if it were
true.
It's not my job to tell you what constitutes libel or what doesn't, but you've
just crossed that line. Your newsgroup buddies here may try to give you legal
advice.
I don't take kindly to women who blindly repeat lies about me, or who endorse
them.
>>> Many men APPEAR to disagree with me to score points with women
>
>I can't imagine Mr. Gordon believing that men come to ASF in order to pick up
>women. It seems they come here, as if it were an online men's locker room, to
>share ideas. (Which is why this newsgroup often makes interesting reading for
>a
>woman!)
Most of this group is designed to capitalize on the traffic. Lies like the one
you republished (thus opening yourself up to liability after taking a cheap
shot at me without checking your facts) are a good example of that.
>>Speaking solely for myself, I have no political motivation for disliking
>>anything you have said, nor have I had an agenda when I've shown that more
>>often than not you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>"Political agenda"? It seems, rather, a heated debate about the best
>methodologies for how to "score", and nothing more.
Follow the advice trails in this group and almost always, someone is asking
them to spend money at the end of the rainbow.
Read my Shill FAQ for more information.
>>> And in doing so, have shown what they are willing to do for money.
>
>And so, one wonders, if Mr. Gordon has so little regard for the women who
>work
>as exotic dancers - why oh why - would he want to soil his higher "ethical"
>self
>with their evil? Why isn't he developing a method for seducing Baptists?
I said I have more respect for exotic dancers than corporate eye-candy trash.
Your question begs logical credulity, however.
>I would not have sex with someone I loathe.
Men judge on looks, not personality. That includes YOUR man, you lying piece
of shit (I never said what you attributed to me).
>So if he loathes "strippers", why
>has he bothered to construct a system for seducing these loathesome women?
>There is a contradiction here.
No, there's STUPIDITY here on your part.
That's what happens when you give jobs to a gender based on how its members
LOOK; they get a false sense of achievement and accomplishment.
I already said before why seducing strippers is a skill that a PUA should have.
>>> >Once the goal is accomplished, they move on to other
>>> >things.
>>>
>>> But it becomes established what they are willing to do for money if they
>>need
>>> it. That doesn't evaporate when they stop stripping.
>
>No,indeed. If I lost my job and suddenly found myself impoverished - I'd do
>it
>again! I am in no way ashamed of how I paid my way through school. And,
>thanks
>to a developed habit of staying in shape - I could doubtlessly find
>employment
>very easily.
Which establishes what your meal ticket in life is: your body, not your brain.
>>I'll concede to that point.
>
>If a man, any man, finds dancers to be morally reprehensable, then why would
>they go to a "strip club" in the first place? No one sticks a gun to their
>head
>and forces them inside.
Where'd I say that? I said I found women who take jobs in CORPORATE AMERICA
because of how they look are the true trash.
I think your brainpower could use an upgrade. First you libel me, then you go
around not even understanding what I write.
>>> Then let the women dance and not circle the bar afterwards. Let there be
>>no
>>> lapdances, champagne rooms, or large tips.
>
>Better yet. If you find these activities so distasteful, don't go!
How many men would have to "not go" before the dancers wished they did?
>(By the way - the better clubs forbid lap dancing. That kind of behavior is
>more
>typical of low-end clubs.)
How long has it been since you danced?
>>> Sound good to the dancers? Guys wouldn't mind that at all.
>
>Here I think he is only speaking for himself. Why not simply allow the market
>to
>decide? What is so offensive about large tips?
What are the men getting for them?
Also, if you're taking money from corrupt men (like the Houston strippers did
where Enron was concerned), you're profiting from that as well.
Are you familiar with the case of Stephanie Rabinowitz?
>>"Trained to flirt"... That again doesn't mean she's open to sleeping with
>>anyone. It still takes effort.
>
>Flirting is an art form like any other. As for sleeping with someone, that is
>a
>matter of individual selectivity. The more choices an individual has, the
>more
>selective they can afford to be.
But women do have a short "shelf life" for attractiveness.
Many women who are 25 don't realize that they are nearing the tail end of their
peak attractiveness. Still more women wind up arrogant in their youth, "spend"
that youth on the wrong men, then wind up 40 and desperate.
>>> For men who aren't in their 20s, or who aren't tall and rich, they can
>>almost
>>> totally neutralize any problem and still "pluck" a good number of women
>>out of
>>> an environment which is almost perpetually open, and where he knows he can
>>find
>>> a few dozen hotties every day.
>
>But if these are "unethical" women, why bother?
Where'd I say strippers were unethical? You're misreading again.
>If his intent is merely to
>use
>these women for sex - then he is the one being "unethical".
So having sex with a consenting woman is unethical? How is that?
I think using rich men for their money is far less ethical, but the men are the
ones who have to fix that problem, by not handing over their money so easily.
>>And then there's the cover charge, the tips you give to the women, the
>>drinks. So much for guys not having a lot of money still having a good time.
>
>And at the higher end clubs, the cost factor tends to eliminate those who are
>impecunious. Market forces at work - once again!
The premium for tipping isn't that great, the cover charges aren't always
there, and it's not like I wouldn't drink in a regular bar.
Obviously it's not FREE, but there is some intrinsic value in what you get
there, at least where the basics are concerned.
A "regular" club has a cover that is usually $20, by the way, and that can
cover the ENTIRE cost of a visit to a strip club.
>>It'd be prostitution if clubs didn't have rules against sleeping with
>>clients and others who come to watch them.
>
>Some clubs have very strict rules. Others merely "strongly discourage" dating
>clients.
Short of a signed contract the club has no standing in the matter.
>What is being overlooked here is that, in the higher-end clubs, many
>men bring their dates. The dancer, in this case, serves as a medium for
>relaxing
>their date's inhibitions.
Odds are the man's MONEY did that to begin with.
>It is a kind of vicarious seduction. And I've
>gotten
>sizable tips from Mr. & Mrs. Suburbia and even women!
Lovely for you.
Get yourself a good attorney, by the way.
A Modern Caveman
>> something about him?
>
>This from the man who wanted mother's to watch as their children get beaten
>by him with, of all things, a baseball bat.
That is a defamatory lie. People get sued for telling lies like that.
Bryen193
>As with Mr. Gordon, who seems to desire and despise "strippers" at the same
>time. This creates a kind of emotive/cognitive dissonance.
The "desire" part no doubt arises from the undulating tits and asses, while the
"despise" part manifests itself quite clearly with his message that it is a
better idea for a attractive young woman to use her vital 20's years dancing
for him, as opposed to building an educational and occupational skillset that
will provide finianical security for a lifetime.
>If he feels that ASF methods are so reprehensible, why does he post here in
>the
>first place?
Gimmie a "T"...Gimmie an "R"....Gimmie an "O"...
>Speaking as a female, my opinion is that SOME ASF methods actually make
>perfect
>sense. In this, as in all things, the intent will dictate whether or not
>those
>"methods" are abusive.
Ooh...common sense. You can't post here. For me, ASF has been very helpful in
coming up with certain things to say in certain situations, although I won't be
using any NLP hypnosis or approaching 20 women a day. It's mostly useful in
developing the right attitude and ridding oneself of the AFC mindset that can
be so detrimental in the pursuit of one's romantic goals, be they to sleep with
20 different woman a month or to find one woman for a monogamous LTR.
>>"They all want to embrace you; they are all taken in by your frigid
>elegance,
>>your postures and poses like frozen roses." - Thomas Ligotti
>Interesting quote.
It is from the excellent Thomas Ligotti short story "Drink to Me Only with
Labyrinthine Eyes". More information on this author can be found at
http://www.longshadows.com/ligotti/
Scott Bailey
> >Those
> >> who do not are far more likely to get fleeced than fucked. And some dancers
> are
> >> really good at spotting the easy "marks".
> >
> >Exactly. And as I noted below, I would hardly consider this preying on
> >marks to be particularly good for an individual's
> >development....neither for the "mark" or the dancer that is
> >manipulating him. I can't imagine doing that on a regular basis
> >without it having a significant effect on the type of person someone
> >becomes.
>
I'm not really arguing the rightness or wrongness of it. That's a
different, and much broader, discussion. Instead, I'm simply noting
that brazen manipulation and dishonesty is probably not so "good for
the soul". If you consider a girl that sucks money out of desperate
losers, a girl that preys upon the fact that these guys like her, and
then laughs about them behind their backs after successfully
misleading them....well, I think that this speaks for itself.
>
>
> >> My ex-dancer friends and I are very close. We form a tight sisterhood. I
> trust
> >> their honesty on this issue. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am
> saying,
> >> from my direct personal knowledge, that dancers, by and large, do not date
> >> clients.
> >
> >As I asked below, why not? Would they not date a customer if he was a
> >really top notch guy? Or do dancers simply view any man who comes in
> >the front door as a loser?
>
> That raises the question of why men would give money to women who thought so
> poorly of them.
It does indeed.
>
>
>
> >> And before you ask Mr. Gordon, no, I am not dating my boss.
> >
> >This is really more for Ray, but I'll include it here:
> >
> >I'm not exactly sure what Ray expects you to do about the "looks
> >premium", a premium that certainly exists. How exactly would someone
> >go about verifying that they are not getting a beauty premium, even if
> >they were so inclined as to turn the benefit down for ethical reasons?
>
> How would a white male go about repudiating his advantages as women and
> minorities *demanded* white men do back in the 1960s?
This "white male" thing that has been popping up in recent posts is
ludicrous.
I will make a couple of points however. To those who snidely take
cheap shots at white males for their "built in advantages", I say take
a look at history.
The same people that froth at the mouth about any advantages that
white males have in the West don't seem to care about the advantages
that Chinese males have in China, or Japanese males have in Japan, or
Arab males have in Saudi Arabia, etc. But a white male having a
perceived advantage somewhere? The injustice! What these people seem
to want is that all males maintain their advantages across the
planet....except for white guys. Hypocricy rules supreme.
Similarly, they love to talk about white guys having stolen land. What
race hasn't done this? Just as one example among many, numerous white
mummies have been discovered across western China...there was a white
civilization there that pre-dated the Chinese. Does that mean whites
get western China back? Of course not...only whites should be
lambasted.
Or they love to talk about the Crusades, while ignoring the Moorish
conquest of Spain, or the Turkish conquest of the Balkans, or the the
Mongol conquest of Russia. All these attacks on Europe were far
larger, lengthy, and brutal (often mass genocide against Europeans)
than the Crusades ever were. White men and women were butchered and
terrorized....but apparently this isn't important, although it was
both more recent and of much larger scale and duration than the
crusades.
Point is, these people who are bashing white males are either ignorant
of history and the world, or they just don't give a shit and enjoy
hating white males. Hence a rational discussion with someone so
blinded by hate (while of course accusing others of hate) is
impossible.
>
>
> >However, I'm not at all sure that someone should turn down a beauty
> >premium even if they could.
>
> So the 53 year-old woman who can't get a job because of her age and looks
> doesn't make a pretty enough damsel in distress to warrant the cavalry she'd
> have gotten when she was 23?
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Certainly it is true
that women who thrive due to their beauty premium when they are young
are heading for a world of disappointment when the looks go. Yet as a
practical matter, I'm not sure what can be done about it. Again, how
is a girl to insure that she is not getting a beauty premium? How does
she verify this?
One thing that you mentioned was that prettier girls get better
grades. Assuming for the moment that such is true...what exactly is a
pretty girl to do about this? How can she verify that she wasn't given
a better grade due to her looks? As a purely practical matter, it
would seem to me that the beauty premium kicks in regardless of what
the girl actually does or doesn't do.
>
> For example, when the exotic dancer in California was told her kid couldn't go
> to religious school if she kept her job, several area businesses offered her
> jobs, UNSOLICITED.
Look, you will get no argument from me that the younger hottie is
going to get the "cavalry" where an unattractive woman might not.
>
>
> >We are all born with different advantages and drawbacks. Some are born
> >with greater intelligence, musical talent, etc. Some seem to have
> >inherent people skills that can be extremely advantageous later on in
> >life, some are born to wealthy and generous parents, and yes...some
> >are born with the genetic basis for great beauty. Are the beautiful
> >people supposed to handicap themselves, while everyone else enjoys
> >whatever benefits the lottery of birth conferred upon them?
>
> Merit is not a lottery. Either we have a merit system or we do not.
That is a little fuzzier. The point is that our society rewards all
sorts of behaviors and traits...the beauty premium is just one of
many. In that sense, we do not have a pure merit system, but rather a
merit system with certain inherent distortions. Some of these
distortions may be amenable to correction, but others probably are not
(simply as a practical matter). I really don't see how the beauty
premium, as a practical matter, can be changed - short of some bizarre
and insane scheme to make beautiful women ugly.
>
>
> >What about the guy with great social skills who rises along the
> >corporate ladder...even though he is no more talented than the guy
> >that gets left behind because he couldn't get along with his boss or
> >co-workers as well?
>
> Neither one should be left behind. One can work in production, the other in
> marketing.
Sure. But as a practical matter, the guy with good people skills is
going to have an advantage in ALL fields, not just marketing. Is that
"fair"? Who knows, but as a practical matter not much can be done
about it.
>
> >How do we "even the playfield" on that?
>
> We don't shut anyone out who is skilled, that's how.
>
> That includes the 53 year-old secretaries.
Look, I agree with you on this point. It should go without saying. The
question is, as a practical matter what can be done about it? Do we
institute a quota system whereby pretty girls are limited to a certain
percentage of the workforce, or a certain percentage of promotions? Do
we set up commissions to evaluate women on whether they are pretty or
not? Since looks rapidly change, and every month new people both
become beautiful and cease to be beautiful...how to we track matters
so as to make sure that our quotas are being followed?
Bottom line: there are things we can change, and things that we really
can't. Some forms of injustice can and should be challenged. Others
are simply not amenable to solution. I mean, let's say your views were
reflected in anti-discrimination laws. How the hell would it be
enforced? We can reliably determine someone's sex or race...but their
beauty level?
>
>
> >We could
> >probably come up with many traits besides beauty that are rewarded,
> >even though technically they might not be essential for any given job.
>
> This one is a seed of sexual harassment and something women claim to hate.
>
> Apparently they don't hate it so much if the price is right.
I am sure that on the streets of the city in which you live, there are
some pretty sorry specimens of manhood. Mayber there is a guy who is
dirt poor, ugly as shit, misshapen and malformed....a modern elephant
man. He can't get the girls that you have gotten. Do you feel guilty
about being able to pull in a stripper that he could never get? Or do
you simply accept your ability to do something that he can't as part
of the natural order of things?
>
>
> >To my way of thinking, as long as one is being honest...use what you
> >have.
>
> If they were honest about it they'd be sued under Title VII.
>
> So you see, PERJURY is what backs up this "innocent preference."
Ray, there is a difference between fighting wrongs that can be
corrected, and fighting wrongs that cannot be corrected.
I'd be very curious to know, as a purely practical matter, how the
beauty premium can be eliminated. As I've already noted, the idea of
beauty itself is pretty nebulous....and always changing. In purely
practical terms...how do you solve the problem (if indeed it is a
problem)?
A.Melon
http://www.ray-gordon.com/ (now over 19,000 hits)
In an effort to inform the many people on Usenet who have been offended, provoked, harassed
or otherwise puzzled by the individual calling himself "Ray Gordon", the above website was
created to detail some of his behaviors, opinions, mental illness, and his tendency to
proclaim himself an expert on pretty much everything. The site is NOT affiliated with Gordon
Parker and he has made numerous threats of legal action against it.
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, as
harassment and bad behavior is prevented there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In article <20030216211547...@mb-de.aol.com>
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:
> >> comprehend. A woman today who says that she didn't get where she is
> >because of
> >> affirmative action is deluding herself. I'm not going to lay out that case
> >> here, however, as it's protracted.
> >
> >This statement is not only insulting to women but blatantly false. So
> >all women who have a good position got it by pushing aside a
> >supposedly more qualified man?
Did all slaveowners physically bring the Africans over on the boats?
> >Sounds like sour grapes from a white
> >male who is mad that he no longer has a built-in advantage.
Which built-in advantage did white men of my generation ever have when it comes
to getting secretarial jobs?
> >> again the "beauty premium" has been documented by neurologists and
> >> psychological researchers.
> >
> >All beautiful women are stupid unqualified bimbos who stole their job
> >from some ugly woman who of course was more qualified (based on her
> >ugliness)?
Ph.D. level research indicates that being attractive gets a woman 15 percent
more salary, ON AVERAGE. That 15 percent is often the difference between
having money to save and invest, and not having it, so the impact is much, much
greater.
> >> You can argue that this is how the world is and no one can change it, but
> >the
> >> price of that argument is that because two very clear unfair advantages
> >exist
> >> for you, any success you achieve will always be suspect.
> >
> >More whining that someone who actually has gotten further in life than
> >his lazy ass doesn't deserve it BECAUSE she happens to possess
> >physical beauty.
It's not whining if we purport to care about justice and merit. In fact, YOU
are the one whining about my posting here.
If women don't want it to be thought of them that they got ahead unfairly, they
need to eliminate what would cause people to think that.
> >You want to be a success? Get off your lazy fucking ass
Notice that personal attacks are a required part of your side of this argument.
> >and fight for
> >it, like everyone else who is successful has done.
And that's the point: my odds of success improve dramatically if I pursue
traditionally male careers, not in spite of affirmative action, but BECAUSE OF
IT.
For example, if I pursue an executive career track at a company that has only
34 percent of females in executive positions, women are said to be "properly
utilized" at the executive level, and further steps are not deemed necessary to
help them. This of course "helps" men, who can retain their 66 percent
majority with the full blessing of the government.
By contrast, if I choose to be a secretary, a company can have 90 percent
female secretaries and still be said to be "underutilizing" them because they
are lower than the "area average" of 97 percent (which of course is also a
quota but that's a separate issue).
This is the government that is causing this bias, which is supposed to be
illegal.
> >> It's easier to take the money from the advantage than to admit that it
> >exists,
> >> and easier to just acknowledge it than to do anything to change it. White
> >men
> >> weren't lining up to give their power away 40 years ago, and in fact those
> >who
> >> did did so because they answer to the voters, who are more than half
> >female.
> >
> >And of course you weren't lining up to give away YOUR advantage.
Actually I was....I felt it was unethical and my DUTY to work towards
"equality." It was that way that I realized that women and minorities have a
concept of equality that equates to the "his money is our money but my money is
still my money" logic most housewives use.
> >I guess to a lazy shlub like you,
Once again we see how a personal attack is required to justify this argument.
Sad, bullying, and incredibly negative.
> >it sucks that women now actually
> >have the right to fight for their fair share of the American dream
If you call keeping a 97 percent majority in the country's largest profession
with the government's full blessing "fair." I do not.
> >and
> >that you can't depend on your white male-ness anymore to get by.
When could a male secretary ever be said to have been advantaged?
> >> You may be respected by your peers as a professional, but I can't respect
> >any
> >> woman who would leave in place two things that rig the employment game in
> >her
> >> favor. I correctly see her as not really earning her money.
> >
> >What Ray is really saying is: Beautiful women are worthless stupid
> >parasites who don't deserve a thing because they only earned it by
> >using sex appeal anyway.
If beautiful women don't want people thinking this of them, they should work to
eliminate the beauty premium.
Obviously, what can be attributed to the "premium" is unearned.
It would be like saying that you can't pin the success of any company from the
1800s on the existence of slave labor, yet you'd be attributing the wealth in
the economy to that very factor.
Or, another way of saying it would be to acknowledge that we are a nation of
fat people yet still try to claim that no one overeats. An obvious statistical
impossibility.
> >> One thing I like about strippers is that they don't rely on the beauty
> >premium
> >> or affirmative action. While beauty is a requirement for stripping, it is
> >also
> >> the commodity that men are legitimately buying, so it's morally stronger
> >than
> >> hiring someone for a job that doesn't have a legitimate beauty requirement
> >for
> >> the same reason (in other words, I would not tip an old, fat, or ugly
> >stripper
> >> much, but I would hire an old, fat or ugly woman without a second thought).
> >
> >Would you hire an old fat or ugly woman who was less qualified than a
> >pretty woman?
Nope. I believe in merit.
> >Oh that's right... pretty women are NEVER qualified to
> >do anything other than go-go dance.
It's not my fault they choose to profit from their beauty rather than fight the
injustice.
If women make that choice, I have every right to point out that it's an
unethical one.
> >> All well and good, but I dropped out of college with a 4.0 GPA. I needed
> >money
> >> for school too, and so did many others. Now if you got a degree because of
> >> your sexuality, than that is what is rewarded in this society (pretty women
> >> also get higher grades). Your "achievement" then is playing to a corrupt
> >> system, not being inherently smarter or more skilled.
> >
> >More whining from a lazy slug who is jealous of someone who actually
> >earned a degree through hard work.
It's not work when the government practically mandates that someone be hired
because they are female, or if the woman is pretty and the loser boss wants to
fuck her.
If women are going to take unfair help, they have to accept being thought
meritless. If they don't like that, let them work to eliminate these unfair
biases so no one can accuse them of profiting from them.
> >> >"Stripping" is a job, like any other. At the time, I considered myself a
> >kind
> >> >of
> >> >erotic athelete, and spent as much time in the gym working out or
> >practicing
> >> >my
> >> >routines, as I did dancing in the club.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, not every stripper takes her job so seriously. You'd think
> >> dance lessons would be the first thing they buy with their tips.
> >
> >Guys don't pay go-go dancers for their dancing skills dumb ass.
Many do. The better dancers always get the bigger tips.
> >> >Male atheletes have the field and
> >> >court
> >> >upon which to perform. I had the stage. I did not use drugs, drank only
> >> >occasionally, nor was I any more promiscuous than the average college
> >girl.
> >>
> >> Yet you still chose to fuck some men for some reason. It is also not
> >likely
> >> you'd ever give an accurate accounting of what it took for those men to get
> >you
> >> into bed, even if you thought you were giving one.
> >
> >Pretty women are not allowed to have a sex life unless they have Ray's
> >permission. And you thought your DAD was strict!
Your comprehension skills appear to be lacking.
> >> >I
> >> >also managed to maintain a 3.50 GPA.
> >>
> >> The beauty premium also applies to grades.
> >
> >Again, pretty women are too dumb to have actually EARNED what they
> >worked for.
More like neurologists and behavior scientists have documented the beauty
premium, and that it would logically apply to pretty women.
Again, if the pretty women don't like it, they should work to eliminate the
bias rather than WHINE to the men who would point it out.
> >> >And I have met girls, even in the more
> >> >exclusive clubs, who were very messed up. But I also know a half-dozen
> >young
> >> >women, like myself, who merely used the clubs as a vehicle to further
> >their
> >> >education and careers.
> >>
> >> A vehicle not open to the masses. Thus, a form of privilege and wealth.
> >
> >More whining and pouting. Some people were born to rich families or
> >have other advantages, deal with it. It isn't a crime to use whatever
> >advantages that one may have been born with. You sound like you
> >somehow expect to have life handed to you on a silver platter because
> >some others were born with advantages.
I expect those who profit from those advantages not to go around preaching
equality and merit when they don't get ahead on those bases.
If you want to argue that we should have privileges for people who don't earn
them, go ahead. My claim is that these women don't get ahead on merit, nothing
more, nothing less. I have substantial evidence to support my claim.
Women who want MY approval have to earn it on MY terms. If they don't like
those terms, they are not obligated to try to gain my approval. If they don't
like what I say, that's just too damn bad.
The women enjoy all the benefits of their "privilege" and that should be
sufficient. They just aren't going to be perceived as having earned anything
they have. If they don't like that perception, too damn bad. They can work to
eliminate the injustice if they feel it is hurting their rep.
After all, why would a woman want two things to exist that she is claiming she
has NOT benefitted from?
Has affirmative action failed so badly that it doesn't help individual women
now? Is the woman pretty or not? If she's pretty, then she's benefitted from
it, and if she hasn't benefitted from it, by definition, she's not pretty.
> >> Young, attractive women usually will. That just proves that guys want to
> >fuck
> >> you. Says absolutely nothing more about you than that.
> >
> >So guys want to fuck her. Where's the crime?
No crime. I was saying that a woman who thinks that a man wanting to fuck her
is a sign of anything else is wrong.
> >> >You may return to the normal silliness of this group.
> >>
> >> We can assume, then, that if women don't take any of these methods
> >seriously,
> >> that there's nothing in need of change, correct?
> >>
> >> That there is no problem, that women choose right, choose willingly, and
> >are
> >> happy with what they choose and how it turns out, correct?
> >
> >Or better yet, maybe she should join a convent so she will never have
> >sex, in order to please Ray.
Once again you miss the point of my posting.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
ex-d...@no-email.com
says...
>>
>>As with Mr. Gordon, who seems to desire and despise "strippers" at the same
>>time. This creates a kind of emotive/cognitive dissonance.
>
>You miss the point. I don't despise women or strippers. I do despise CHEATERS
>or women who try to attribute their success to merit when it's obvious that
>they aren't getting ahead on that basis.
A couple of quick comments before I go:
"Cheaters" is an ambiguous term. Your assertion is, essentially, that no
attractive woman ever achieves anything on the basis of ability - so you have
created for me a "no win" situation based on your own circular reasoning.
I do not intend to play that game with you.
>Ever wonder why so many teen girls have EATING DISORDERS? They aren't stupid;
>they know who the good jobs and the rich men go to: the THIN.
The secret to thinness, or, more appropriately, FITNESS, is maintaining a high
metabolic rate through frequent exercise and a sensible diet - not starvation.
Fitness comes from acquiring sound habits.
>>If he feels that ASF methods are so reprehensible, why does he post here in
>>the
>>first place?
>
>You are missing my point, lady. Here are these men reporting sexual success
>with women that claim the methods don't work.
You, apparently, take their claims more seriously than I do.
>Someone's lying, and since the men's results are reproducible, it would appear
>that would be the women, who seem to want to publicly disown the idea of the
>methods working while the women continue to make them work.
I've never said that some of their methods don't work.
>Even beneath your "not me" denials if we scratch underneath the surface, we
>could find that you in fact are rewarding these methods, only your mind has
>glossed over the key ingredients to what seduced you.
Since you don't know me, and since I haven't discussed any of that here, your
conclusions are entirely speculative (possibly based on preconceived notions),
and most likely meant to provoke me into making some kind of predictable
response.
Again, I do not intend to discuss things on your terms.
>>Speaking as a female, my opinion is that SOME ASF methods actually make
>>perfect
>>sense.
>
>Which ones? Say, how do you feel about "MLTR?"
Multiple Long Term Relationships are a matter of personal choice. What other
people choose to do is their business - not mine. Why is it that you are
bothered by what other people choose to do?
>>In this, as in all things, the intent will dictate whether or not
>>those
>>"methods" are abusive.
>
>The intent by the men is to try to get laid by as many hot women as possible.
>Ray Gordon
How unethical.
A Modern Caveman
>>time. This creates a kind of emotive/cognitive dissonance.
>
>The "desire" part no doubt arises from the undulating tits and asses, while
>the
>"despise" part manifests itself quite clearly with his message that it is a
>better idea for a attractive young woman to use her vital 20's years dancing
>for him, as opposed to building an educational and occupational skillset that
>will provide finianical security for a lifetime.
Wrong again.
I have said that women who get ahead in corporate America because of how they
look don't earn their money.
The "skills" you speak of are secondary to how these women LOOK. That's not
merit. Some Americans believe in MERIT.
>>If he feels that ASF methods are so reprehensible, why does he post here in
>>the
>>first place?
>
>Gimmie a "T"...Gimmie an "R"....Gimmie an "O"...
And you're here solving world hunger?
>>Speaking as a female, my opinion is that SOME ASF methods actually make
>>perfect
>>sense. In this, as in all things, the intent will dictate whether or not
>>those
>>"methods" are abusive.
>
>Ooh...common sense. You can't post here. For me, ASF has been very helpful
>in
>coming up with certain things to say in certain situations, although I won't
>be
>using any NLP hypnosis or approaching 20 women a day. It's mostly useful in
>developing the right attitude and ridding oneself of the AFC mindset that can
>be so detrimental in the pursuit of one's romantic goals, be they to sleep
>with
>20 different woman a month or to find one woman for a monogamous LTR.
The men who sleep with 20 women in a month don't settle down at the end of the
rainbow.
Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
Limited time only!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
ex-d...@no-email.com
says...
>Dear lady,
>
>Do not believe what you read on the internet, and whatever you do, don't go
>around republishing it.
>
>People get SUED for that.
I am truly sorry. Perhaps it is best if I do not communicate with you at all.
It isn't necessary for me to read any further.
plonk!
A Modern Caveman
>>around republishing it.
>>
>>People get SUED for that.
>
>I am truly sorry. Perhaps it is best if I do not communicate with you at all.
>It isn't necessary for me to read any further.
>
>plonk!
Fine.
Ask Newsranger if I sent them a letter asking them to preserve your identity
for future retrieval via subpoena.
Never mind, I'll just do what I have to do. You can "ignore" all the process
you want.
You defame someone, there's a price to pay for that.
Good day.
James King
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > The PUA can't admit that he lacks the skill to get a stripper
> > > > > at her club, so he instead puts her down as trash that isn't
> > > > > worthy of being seduced.
> > > > That's exactly what you do every day in this newsgroup with your
> > > > "only sluts respond to asf methods" argument.
> > > And sluts are what does respond to them: women who are easy to
> > > fool, and who put out easily.
> > > Who told you that strippers put out easily?
> > My personal experience as a DJ in several strip clubs over a three
> > year span of time would indicate that strippers do put out more
> > easily.
> Sure, the slutty ones!
Your answer begs the question.
The strip club has a much more highly sexually charged atmosphere.
People who engage in stripping typically have a more open opinion of
sexuality. This results in a larger percentage engaging in sex on a
casual basis than say, the Bob Jones University "Collegiates for
Christ" weekly rally every Tuesday Night. (I've purposefully
exaggerated the examples.)
My work was largely in the blue-collar clubs, but I did work a couple
of white-collar gentleman's clubs as a substitute, and there *is* a
difference between the two. In my opinion, the white collar clubs
treated the women simply as scenery. There was very little conversation
between the dancers and the customers, and very little dancing. There
was infrequent tipping, but all the dancers seemed content, so I'm
guessing the tipping was much larger, OR that the club had set up an
hourly wage for the dancers that made up for the lack of income doing
tableside or champagne room dances. Management kept me in the DJ booth
the days I substituted, and I never got to meet any of the dancers
until after my shift was over. I was given a playlist and patter
scripts to read.
That was a far easier job in my opinion than the blue-collar clubs,
where my booth was right next to the dressing room, and I created close
friendships with the dancers.
The blue-collar clubs seemed to have women more actively engaged in
forming friendships and relationships with clients.
James King
--
The Shadow Radio Theater
http://www.shadowradio.org
Frog
>
> Paul Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Jesus, all I can say after reading this, is why does Ray
>> wonder why people hate him? If I was the target of the
>> stuff he wrote in this article, I'd probably be looking
>> to chase him with a baseball bat!
>
> somehow MATTERS if he doesn't approve of what someone says.
More of your "I'm a coward, and I would run from you in the
real world, if I ever saw you in public" evasion. Like it
somehow matters to anyone what you say.
> You seem like a sad soul who seems to think bullying me is
> his ticket to belonging.
You definitely are a cowardly liar, a braggart, and a seriously
mentally ill individual, who spews hate, social frustration,
and disgruntled venom on everyone who points out just how full
of garbage your posts are. You are unable to separate reality
from fantasy. You don't belong, and never will. And that is
the sad, but historic reality.
> That is about the biggest mistake you could possibly make.
Go ahead, Barratry Boy. Take him on. You wouldn't last thirty
seconds in court, or anywhere else. And you know it. And we
know it. And you know we know it.
> You are best dealt with via the judicial system, and you
> will be.
Intimidation with Litigation via Interstate Lines of Electronic
Communications. A Federal offense.
> As you seem to like to say, these are problems you are
> bringing on yourself, without help.
And nobody knows this better than you do.
> You are hereby instructed not to address me or make
> references to committing violence against me.
HAhahahahaha. Like you honestly think that this would stop
someone from demonstrating their Constitutional Right to
voice their opinions. It has never stopped you from doing
exactly what you want others to stop doing.
How's your little exercise in Legal futility going these days?
--
A quote from "Ray Gordon"
(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the
following website: http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site
contains many lies about me, but as a defender of free speech
I fully support its right to exist.
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ: http://www.ray-gordon.com
Everything you need to know about Usenet's biggest NewsLoon!
BACK by POPULAR DEMAND! For an UNlimited time!
20,000+ Satisfied Visitors, 1 Disgruntled Malcontent.
Frog
>
>
>>> But listen to the idiot who talks the way he does. Doesn't
>>> that tell you something about him?
>>
>> This from the man who wanted mother's to watch as their children
>> get beaten by him with, of all things, a baseball bat.
>
> That is a defamatory lie. People get sued for telling lies
> like that.
How are you going to prove that it is a lie? Are you relying on your
having nuked that particular post from Google to support your claim
that it was never posted by you? Do you think that because that post
of YOURS cannot be found in the Google Archive means that it no longer
exists? What are you going to say when 5 or 10 UNRELATED people bring
their personal archives to a court, (IF it ever gets that far) to show
that you did indeed post it? Wait, we know what you'll say. You'll say
that it is a conspiracy, that they're all forged, and that it has been
made up to defame you.
Well, here is the post, you moron:
-----
Subject: Re: List of LIBEL PER SE Against Ray
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:29:24 -0400
From: The Seduction Library <le____seductio...@juno.com>
Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
Some Chick Writes:
> <--------Please show ONE threatening or harassing comment made.
> You need ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not some fantasy. God help you in court.
Oh please, allow me!
__________________________
Sample #1:
Done Medaling DM: All in time for Sydney...
Done Medaling DM: Thanks for giving me your addy btw
Done Medaling DM: "American Doll"
Done Medaling DM: Bye
__________________________
<--------Yes, it's much easier to SERVE someone with a legal complaint
when you have their address. You weren't giving yours out, were you?
Sample #2:
CYouIn2000: Bitch
CYouIn2000: If it were legal, I'd set you on fire with Gasoline and
strike a match.
__________________________
<------"If it were legal" is now a threat? I don't have to contest
whether or not I said it, since the speech is not illegal. Does the
conversation change at all if you add the CONTEXT where I say "I
have to sue you in court because taking physical revenge is not
legal?" Did you mention that your friends were harassing me on a
daily basis, or that death threats were being posted against me? It's
easy to forget one side of a story.
Sample #3:
CYouIn2001: If it were legal, I'd inject you with HIV+ blood. Go
report that.
__________________________
<----------"If it were legal?" If it were legal, I'd do a lot of
things. What about Dave (your old Mafia buddy), posting PUBLICLY
that I was a "dead man?" Or do you remember a screen name called
"Kill the hag?" Or Dave's repeated references in chats to my MOTHER
as a "hag?" That sounds like a threat. Oh, you remember that chat
with FIFTEEN witnesses in it who witnessed a friend of yours threaten
to hunt me down and KILL me? I have a pile of ACTUAL death threats,
some coming from YOUR friends, which would shed a very different
light on this. Not that any of this proves that I am a child molester.
Sample #4:
CYouIn2001: If it were legal, I'd shut that mouth of yours up with
a baseball bat across it
__________________________
<------Is saying "If it were legal" a threat? What if you and 20
others were harassing me constantly, warning me to "shut up about
Bela or face the consequences?" You think you haven't left a paper
trail? Not that any of this proves I'm a child molester.....
Sample #5:
CYouIn2001: You deserve to watch your daughters have their skulls
crushed with a baseball bat to shut up your mouth, CUNT. But this
is a civilized society that protects even cunts like you...
__________________________
<---------This is a threat? People have been telling me I deserve
far worse than even that. The reference to the civilized society
means that I respect its laws. Even in a BEST case scenario, you
couldn't do a thing with this. Nothing you have posted so far is
even REMOTELY illegal. On the other hand, there's those threats
from Dave that aren't going to make you look very good. Do you
remember what caused him to lose his AOL? You cheered him on
initially. Think you have nothing to answer for? How about you
being a former gymnast at Bela's camp who knows him and has a
rather obvious motive for taking his side?
Sample #6:
CYouIn2001: You're lucky I'm ethical or you and your prized gymnast
would be in wheelchairs
CYouIn2001: Dominique has no friends other than herself
GymnGDoll: so little you know...
CYouIn2001: Wrong
CYouIn2001: Dominique uses people because it is what she was taught
to do
GymnGDoll: that little fantasy world again
CYouIn2001: If it were legal I'd wipe that grin off your face with a baseball bat
GymnGDoll: is the wallpaper in there nice?
CYouIn2001: Better yet if it were legal I'd let you watch Beth become
a quadraplegic
_________________________
<----------Harsh words, for sure, but you imposed yourself in my
life, interfered with a journalistic investigation, and provoked me
to the high heavens. Anyone can present one side of a story and make
the other look bad. Sadly, however, there are no threats in what you
post so regardless of what I said, you don't have a thing.
Sample #7:
Done Medaling DM: Okay I'll just post every day that she's a
criminal again and give you the credit for it
_________________________
<-------Who was "Domi" in the Gymn Mafia? Not "Dom" who was listed
separately, but "Domi?" Just wondering.
Ray, what I don't think you understand is that EVERYONE is recording
EVERYTHING you say in a PowerTools log format that doesn't allow
you to change the logs. You can deny all you want that the logs are
forged,but all it takes is a PowerTools representative to shoot you
down. Any smart lawyer would have told you to shut up LONG ago. You
are digging your own grave, and not with any average old shovel,
either. Whether you realize it or not, ALL of this information is
going to the parties you are "suing", and will continue to be
forwarded to them until the day you are laughed out of court.
<-----------How is anything you posted relevant to proving that I
am a child molester? Do you understand the concept of IRRELEVANCE?
If I had done anything illegal, you could have taken action by now.
Two years ago you were bragging that this was imminent, and you are
the one continuing any conflict with me by posting. And say what you
want about Powertools, but AOL records are not accurate. Even with
accurate logs, there is no way to paint an accurate PICTURE of what
goes on. For example, you can play little miss innocent, but what
if you have friends who are using phished accounts IMing me at the
same time making threats on your behalf? What if AOL had an existing
bias against me because I knew things they didn't want me to know?
If you knew how badly your credibility, your friends' credibiilty,
and AOL's credibility could be attacked, you'd understand why you
are not a concern to me. Then of course there is the issue of the
VIRUS threats against my computer, some of which were posted, which
is a FEDERAL CRIME. Then there are the hackers, which have attacked
more than just me and who have left a bit of a paper trail. But
these are third-string resorts. Your entire game is about to be
blown out of the water so badly I couldn't even begin to describe
it. All you do when you try to poison those I sue is make it worse
for THEM.
See, Ray seems to think that by putting "if it were legal" into his
threats, they are not legally actionable. Involved parties have been
informed by the police that they ARE actionable...one girl was even
urged to seek a TRO. What he fails to understand is that PERCEIVED
threats are also actionable. You are SO screwed, Ray...SO screwed.
<-----No, PERCEIVED threats are NOT actionable. Even actual threats
are not always actionable if it can be determined that someone was
just mouthing off. But was there an ACTUAL threat in what you posted?
I don't know if you doctored those logs are not, but IMs are not
difficult to doctor, and even with Powertools, there is such a thing
called REVERSE ENGINEERING which can be used to alter individual
versions of a program. This is why USENET and websites will be used
to decide this case. Anyone can whine to the police with a one-sided
story and get temporary sympathy. The courts exist so that more
informed decisions can be made.
Your motive since day one has been to discredit what I write about
child abuse in gymnastics. Did you know that because of your crusade,
in my defense I will be able to enter anything USAG-related into
evidence? Let's start with Bela and his gymnasts for the past 20
years. Then let Dominique tell all the details of what it was like
to train there. Then we can move on to CGA and what happened with
that coach who left a few years ago. Finally, we can move on to that
e-mail I was sent by a young girl, which proves one of two things:
1. Another elite gymnast is being abused more seriously than
Dominique;
OR
2. Someone with ties to your group thought it would be cute to try
to mislead me and in doing so defamed said gymnast.
Now if 2) is true, you'll find that trying to defraud a journalist
is actionable, and if 1) is true you'll find that obtaining that
e-mail was illegal. Take your pick. I guess USAG is eager to see
all this brought to light. So am I. Maybe I should repost the
"stolen" mail in question? Would you like that? I think people
should see all the evidence....or maybe I should save that for court.
The Seduction Library
All The Knowledge Of A Seminar, For The Price Of Two Books
http://www.cybersheet.com/fox/index.html
-----
You really believe that nuking Google will save you?
And don't bother. We'll say it for you.
TOOK HIS BREATH AWAY...