Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Thursday, September 8th 2011

8:04 PM

Freakonomics & The Ho Economy

Just getting in from the (new) gig, so please pardon the rather "rough" way this post might come off; still getting adjusted to the new schedule and all that. 

Some of you might have heard about the excellent book "Freakonomics", written by University of Chitown Wunderkind Steven Levitt and assisted by NYT scribe Steve Dubner. The book's been out for a minute now, followed up by a sequel, a blog and, I think, a flick(?) to boot. It does a great job of looking at a number of social phenomena through an Econ 101 lens. One of them, is with regard to the Ho Industry. From the recent post over at Steve Sailer's place, I quote:

"The fee for a trick varies with the type of sex act, and prostitutes seem to discriminate across clients in order to maximize profit. White men pay $8 to $9 more per trick than black customers, with Hispanic clients paying some amount in between. When bargaining, prostitutes will usually offer a price to a black customer but will make a white man throw out a number first. Repeat customers pay slightly less than new customers."

Not to be outdone, everyone's favorite Clever Little Silly weighed in on the matter:

"Via Steve Sailer I learned that white men are charged more by prostitutes than black men. Hispanics get charged a price in between what white men pay and what black men pay. I figure the prostitutes think the white men either have more money to pay for sex, or are more willing to pay money for sex."

Now - before anyone even fixes their mouth to protest, Imma just put it out there: this chica's so darned silly it'd be a sacrilege NOT to clown her. I mean, it's like shooting fish in a barrell - how can one go wrong? 

Jamila, the Clever Little Silly - the Gift that just keeps on giving...

Anyway, here's a bit more from Sista Big Chop:

"I once had a guy I was briefly dating offer me money for sex. I wanted a newer car and he offered to give me the extra $1,000 I needed for the down payment. I didn’t take the money–but through a twist of fate ended up with a better car than the one I had originally wanted. I also dumped the guy. He was just too creepy for me;  he was also friends with R. Kelly  and invited me to parties at Kelly’s house–an offer I never accepted."

*Raises eyebrow* - assuming of course that Ms. Jamila is telling the truth and not merely attempting to gas her readers' heads up, I think the very fact that she was associated, however briefly, with someone who rolled with R. "Golden Showers on a Virgin" Kelly, really tells you everything you need to know abut girlfriend, don't it? Anyway, there's more:

"What really surprised me though were the number of friends I had who told me that if they had been offered the money they would have taken it. “Think about the times you’ve had sex and didn’t get paid,” they told me. Well, yeah, I must admit that I have had sex without a man leaving me a wad of cash on the nightstand, but I never felt like I had been cheated out of my money or services. Barring some very extenuating circumstances–like having to stave off starvation–I can’t imagine myself having sex just for money."

Oh, come on Little Sis, don't even front - after all, only a month or two back you were yapping with glee over the prospect of being a Rich White Man's plaything - right? Again, birds of a feather and all that - if one's friends get down the way Jamila's Sistafriends do, well, what does that say about Ms. Thang herself, hmm? 

OK, let's get the obvious stuff outta the way so we can get to the real deal - yea, in that White guys do tend to make a goodly bit more than do Brothas on average, it would make sense for Ms. Happy Hooker to charge Brad up over Bilal. That said though, here's the thing:

Anyone who's been in Sales for any length of time knows and knows well, that if you like someone, is a loyal customer, etc, et al, you can and will hook them up all. The. Time. Indeed, it's the folk you DON'T necessarily like, that you often hit in the head with an exhorbitant rate - am I wrong? 

Of course, what neither Sailer (nor his readers) or Jamila (or her readers) wants to note, is the simple fact that the reason why Brothas tend to catch a  break when Hooking up with Ho's is because...

The Ho's actually like the sex with Brothas better. 

It IS a fact, after all, that Brothas gets it in a heck of a lot more than do Whites or even Hispanic Men; they have more overall lifetime sexual partners, and then there's all those things that Women say about Brothas in the Bedroom - hey, 50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, right? Simply put, if you're a female and you want a good time in the sack, your chances of making that happen is better when a Brotha's the one you're doing it with. If you're an avowed HBDer - and both Sailer and Jamila are - one really need not explain all the rigamorole here. 

That brings us to something else - no one ever considers the possibility that Hos do what they do because they actually like it, at least in part. Sure, it's a dangerous job, but so is being a cop or a fireman, and we all know people, Men and Women both, who just love going after bad guys and running into towering infernos for a living. Why should we look on being a Professional Ho as being any different? 

Lots of Women get into "Sex Work" for many reasons other than money, and often, it has a lot to do with the fact that they get a headrush from having a sexual hold over a Man or group of Men. Nor is it something that is seen only among the desperate/poor ladies - as Jamila says herself, Hos can and often do come from the solidly middle classes and above (recall Heidi Fleiss, y'all?). Indeed, Chuck talked about this recently on his blog, and since he's White perhaps Jamila will listen to what he has to say about all that. 

Anyway, while we don't know for certain who the Hos were in Levitt/Duber's book along racial lines, what the above captions do say bears a striking resembalance to something I read online some years back (and if anyone out there can find it for me and post the link in the comments, I'll go back and add it in the original post ASAP) - it was a breakdown of just how much it would cost each Man, in racial terms, to date/mate with/otherwise marry a Sista. Actually, it was done with White, Asian and Hispanic Women, too. In just about every breakout, the "price" for Brothas wasn't that bad, and in some cases, was downright cheap; but in the case of White guys, they were going to have to go the Full Monty, ain't nothing going on but the rent. Can't recall where Asian dudes stood, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to be seriously packing a fat bank account, too. This should come as no big shock to any Brotha, because for all the sound and fury over "gold diggers" the truth is that the vast majority of Brothas ain't clocking six figures or better on the regular; the Women with them are there for reasons other than money, you can best believe that. If you ask me, I say it's because we Brothas, on balance and in aggregate when compared to other racial groups, just have more Natural Game. (Also, see my post on Niman Game) Personally, I've NEVER gotten a Ho, and have absolutely less-than-zero interest or desire to do so now, and this is coming from someone who's pulled Hired Guns before I know there was such a thing formally (spent one heck of a weekend with a serious Hottie that I gotta write a FR about - somebody remind me to do that). As I've often said, your best seductions should be when you've barely got a Grant in your wallet. I know that's always been the case for yours truly. 

Anyway, let me put it out there right now, that while I would never do the deed myself, I am not in any way averse to others partaking of the Hos out there - I think it's way past due that we just went on ahead and legalized it. In fact, I think we need a US Dept. of Tricks & Hos, and I can promise you, if Obama came out with such an announcement, he would win reelection in a landslide. 

There's more but I'll end here. Time for y'all to holla back.

Now adjourn your asses...

The Obsidian
45 comment(s).

Posted by La Reyna:

What Clever Little Silly needs to know that not only do white men have more money to pay for prostitutes than any other ethnicity, but are also very stingy when it comes to paying for Black prostitutes. It's a known fact that white men pay White, Asian, and Latina prostitutes than Black ones. I think it parallels the dating/marriage marketplace for women based upon race.

La Reyna
Thursday, September 8th 2011 @ 9:11 PM

Posted by doclove:

I think the black streetwalkers charge so much more to White and to a lesser extent Hispanic men because they can. Some prostitutes think too many black men will haggle too much for the price. I read this article and have some familiarity with the neighborhoods mentioned as I was born and raised in Chicago. They are predominately Black, and an outsider looking for trouble like prostitution or narcotics doesn't want any trouble from the "natives",. The "natives" so to speak are Black. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but a different theory such as mine could explain this. For a differing view about how many prostitutes view Black men go to Maggie McNeill's website
Thursday, September 8th 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Posted by doclove:

I think prostitutes are all about getting paid the most they can from whomever they can. I'll be nice and throw some evidence for your theory too. I know you are not a fan of Roosh over at www.rooshv.com for his dark arts of the GAME. However, he states that American men have the best game in the world and Black American men are more a reason for that success than White American men. He states that White Irish, British and Austrailains are strong contenders nipping at our American heels though. My opinion is that these White British men especially adapted really fast, faster than anyone including American Black men and are still evoloving at a fast rate, and they don't tolerate women's nonsense when they don't have to even more so then Black American men. It doesn't matter if they have GAME or not, and outside of Britain, Women have some respect of British men even if they hate them. My opinion is that White American men are moving in the same direction. Austrailians are very cocky, and the Irish are very funny. Irishmen seem to do well at picking up Black women around the world, better than other White men and giving Black men competition. I've seen the British lads in action, and spoken with them too. The British, Austrailians and Irish too often get too drunk and screw up their chances with women, and they don't seem to care too much either even less than American men of any race. Their attitude is there are more fish in the sea and they have a very strong frame. Right or wrong, these are my opinions. Roosh's article can be found at
Thursday, September 8th 2011 @ 11:43 PM

Posted by G.L.Piggy:

Well this is one of your sillier posts.

You leveled these arguments yet provide nothing even close to proof to back them up other than your own personal biases and beliefs. So, as the saying goes, Links or GTFO!

Blacks being poorer than whites, on average, prostitutes, in the aggregate, would set a lower price point for black customers in hopes of attracting marginal revenue. Too high a price point for a black customer, no revenue at all.

Your argument would have more validity if you said it this way: since it is true that blacks tend to have more partners and greater access to vagina than whites, perhaps prostitutes are more inelastic for blacks than for whites. If blacks have more options, as you assert, then they'd be less willing to pay as much for prostitutes as whites with fewer options.
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 3:35 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

Thx for the maggie mcneil link i think ill address what she said in a seperate post so stay tuned.

Ill look into the roosh post asap.

Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 5:14 AM

Posted by Constantine:

Black people are about to become slaves again and these fools are bragging about being loved by prostitutes who will have sex with anyone for money. Watch him pull up some old ass article to prove that Blacks are middle class or completely misinterpret what the article says. Do what I tell you monkey and you get a banana, if you don't, well this "Carny Craka" will lash that whip on your Black ass and any of you other monkey's on here who want some, come get it!

Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 10:33 AM

Posted by doclove:

I look forward to hearing whatever you have to say about Maggie McNiell, Roosh or others. The comments at her article are extremely informative too.

I personally believe that there are genetic and cultural differences between Blacks and Whites or for that matter between Blacks and any other race. I believe that each race is geneticly and culturally different.That said the reason why Blacks are stuggling more today than any other race on most things is because of Matriarchy and Misandry. After the American Civil War and before the Vietnam War(1864-1964), Blacks were catching up to Whites because of a stronger Patriarchy among them despite their disadvantages to other races. Patriarchy was the key to Black success, and I don't know how far they would have gotten, but it would be better for them right now. Blacks have really been the canaries in the coalmines not only for the USA, but worldwide. I, a White man, truly detest what our ruling elite have done to Blacks despite aknowledging our un-politically correct genetic differences because no matter how much i have raged about what i regard as stupidity, ignorance and visciousness in the Black community, I recognize them as human beings first, and their race second. St. Thomas Aquinas spoke the truth," All humans are created equal in liberty, but are unequal in other endowments."

There's a link and article which is very informative too. I agree with him that you can not have civilization without sane rational and compassionate wise Patriarchy. Matriarchy doesn't work well and neither does misandry which American Blacks experience more than American Whites or any other race for that matter. Here's the link:
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 3:34 PM

Posted by doclove:

For anyone thinking I'm being too kind on Blacks or too harsh on feminism, cultural marxism or what or ruling elite have done, i say you don't know me very well. I assure you I'm very politically incorrect on race, gender and marxism. I've made comments over at http://www.inmalafide.com and http://www.thespear-head.com too. I still think matriarchy, misandry and the feminism spawned by cultural marxism has done more to damage the Blacks than their own genetics. I don't think genetics is helping Blacks either. If Blacks had sane, rational wise and compassionate Patriarchy they would be better off. Most Blacks and even HBD or racial supremicists never recognize this. Now i don't deny that genetics would still hurt them in IQ, but with the patriarchy and lack of misandry would erase at least 51% of Blacks problems. There comes a time to recognize what the problem is, how it might be solved, and that Blacks are just as human as anyone else whatever is better or worse about them. Don't get me wrong, I won't tolerate anyone's nonsense whatever their race or gender if i don't have to do so. I expect to be treated the same.
You may want to check out Fred Reed's blog. He has almost 500 articles. He's written about feminism, race, war, IQ etc. His views are very similar to mine. I'm not surprised. He was a Police Reporter in Black neighborhoods, and i taught in black neighborhoods. He is a Vietnam Veteran and I'm a Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran. He's White and so am I. All his articles are good reads and you can spend only God knows how many hours reading them. You may be most interested in the articles numbered 445, 478, 480, 486 and 489 which are recent. Here's the link:
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 4:33 PM

Posted by Franklin:

So is Constantine a troll? A simple white person who actually believes he's being both intelligent AND witty? Or a hilarious combination of both?


Fred seems so familiar to me for some reason, but I can't put my finger on it. Do you know if he is/was a poster on another site, because his writing style seems very familiar. Where he doesn't comeone out and SAY that he hates blacks, because that's what people expect. He just looks at studies/scenarios from only one angle (the one that he can base his theories around) while cleverly projecting his own deep seeded dislike for blacks, in bits and pieces. Sort of what Jared Taylor does, and what other new age "Polhite Supremacists" who are "solely interested in scientific truth" do.
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 7:32 PM

Posted by Franklin:

Err...I meant

"Where he is someone who doesn't come out and SAY..." etc...
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 7:37 PM

Posted by Constantine:

You monkeys are hilarious. You spend your time getting mad at me, you need to be mad at yourselves because it looks like you all will be working in the fields soon after Obama is finished. Or maybe they will use the Latino's instead!



"In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median net worth for black households had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the institute."

Read it and weep, if you even have a shred of reading comprehension. A monkey that you voted for is destroying you, and you're worried about me? Dumb monkey please.
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 8:11 PM

Posted by Franklin:

Commenting on what you say isn't "getting mad". But I guess a response "period" is what an "attention seeking simpleton" such as yourself was looking for, so you could go off on another hilarious tangent. One that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Looks like white simpletons have trouble staying on topic, and are prone to being distracted easily. But hey, someone is finally paying attention to you now, as you proudly had a chance to (eagerly) demonstrate your ability to copy-n-paste!
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 9:21 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
@ Obsidian
Fred Reed's website was posted by me above so if you want to know what he thinks just go to his website. He like Jared Taylor may be right or may be wrong, and then again so may I. I doubt he is a polite racist covering up for himself. That's an accusation you need better and more proof to back up. Even if it is true that he is a racist, where is your proof. It's a bad idea to cry wolf too many times, and eventually at best you will be ignored. If the truth or what he thinks is the truth is racist to you, then so be it. There has to be some standard other than my feelings are hurt. For example, I had to swallow hard when Obsidian claimed in aggregate, White men have less game than Black men, but I let my hurt feelings go and quietly admitted he's right. IQ like GAME may change in certain populations or may not. Who knows if they will, when they will or why? I see nothing about Fred Reed to call him uncompassionate nor unrealistic towards Blacks. He's honest or at least more honest than most of the liars you hear. So am I.
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 9:36 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
@ Obsidian
I think that White British and Irish men have more GAME than American White men too. I think That these same British and Irish Men give American Black Men a run for the money(pussy) as far as GAME is concerned. They may not be as good at initial attraction nor at initiating with women as American Black men provided the American Black men don't scare the Women away, but they are better at the developing Comfort phase. They are also better at getting South Asian, East Asian and Middle Eastern women too because it's easier for these women to justify leaving their own men for White men than Black Men which is not fair and seems racist to me, but it's life the way it really is. I'm an American White man. As I said before, I'll try to be polite, but also as honest as I can too. In fact, I often err in being too honest
Friday, September 9th 2011 @ 9:48 PM

Posted by Franklin:

@ Doclove

It's no coincidence that white men have an easy time getting South Asian, East Asian, and Middle Eastern women, when you point out that those three groups are ALL notorious for associating white skin with high status and an automatically easy life. I doubt that it has anything to do with those white men having any sort of "game" whatsoever. Especially when you glance at Hindu culture. Where Hindu parents frown upon (and are almost hostile towards) the idea of their daughters dating, and tend to have an "all or nothing" (marriage or nothing) approach to partnerships.

And I only think that you call Fred Reed "honest", because you agree with what he says and share the same opinions. I'll have to read more of his heavily opinionated posts that are said with such confidence that he touts them as "common sense" and facts, before I give my final judgement. Especially since I'm not 100% sure if he's the forums poster I'm thinking of.
Saturday, September 10th 2011 @ 1:37 AM

Posted by Franklin:

*Empirical (what the...?)
Saturday, September 10th 2011 @ 1:56 AM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
@ Re: Obsidian(not directed at you, but
you may want to read this)
Failure to deal with actual human nature, rather than sentimentalized versions of it, can only lead to failure, resentment, neuroses, and backlash. The same could be said of gender or race. The same could be said of human, gender and racial aptitudes. Obsidian and I agree that IQ isn't the only determining factor of whether one will be a success in life or not. I believe that there is a preponderance of true evidence but not a beyond the shadow of doubt evidence that not only is average White and average Black IQs different, but it is genetically based. Noone can change his race or genetics, but he can change the choices he makes. Blacks were doing better when they made better choices, and were catching up to Whites despite lower IQ and racist laws and conventions directed at them by Whites. American Blacks would have narrowed the gap and kept it more narrow under Patriarchy than the Matriarchy we have now. If I am proven wrong on genetic IQ, I will breathe a sigh of relief. Even Fred Reed senses that American Blacks were better off and less criminally inlined before 1964 than they are now in post 491. He does beleive that Blacks have lower IQ, but that at one time there was less differences between Blacks and Whites in the USA. The reason for American Black decline is their wallowing in the MATRIARCHY to a much greater extent than American Whites. Most problems in the American Black community would go away if they returned to the Patriarchy before 1964. Blacks anywhere in the world can lead civilized lives and do most of whatever Whites do, but they must stop blaming Whites for their failures, get rid of the Matriarchy and readopt the Patriarchy if they as a group want to be successful. It's not an accident that Blacks were catching up to Whites in the early 20th century despite the handicaps put on them by Whites and that they are failing now despite the handicaps being remove
Saturday, September 10th 2011 @ 1:33 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
The only fundamental thing Sailer and Taylor disagree on is racial ethno-nationalism. Sailer prefers to restore the the USA and still has hopes that it will be restored to its former glory. Taylor sees no hope in this. When countries are wealthy and well run, you can ignore the racial, ethnic and religious differences. When they are poor and badly run, these differences have strong tendencies to blow up in disaster. I ought to know as I lived it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their racial animosities had nothing to do with American Whites and American Blacks. Yet they divided into their different ethnicities and religious views then attacked one another. The religious and racial diversity was less than the USA. Ethnic tensions are really racial tensions while religious tensions usually aren't racial tensions. I hate how different groups turn on eachother, but I recognize reality and deal with reality, not a sentimentalized version of it like you. Even if every White person were to disappear today, racism would not go away. If anything is true it would either stay the same or get worse. If you think any other racial group will be nicer to Blacks than Whites despite White Assinine behavior to Blacks now and in the forseeable future, you are wrong. If you disbelieve me watch the recent video of the Gergetown University Hoyas playing the Chinse National Basketball team or a Spike channel episode about the television series "Gangland" about the Hispanic Gang MS-13.
Saturday, September 10th 2011 @ 1:57 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
I'm a Gentile White. I admit that Northeast Asians and European Jews have IQs which are on average higher than Gentile Whites, and that there is a preponderance of evidence which does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is genetic. IQ measures more of how well one will do in school or academicaly than anything else. There are some careers in which being academicly gifted is a must and many others in which it isn't. There was a time in which Blacks has a lower divorce rate and lower bastardy rate than Whites in the USA, and the crime rate of Blacks was the same as Whites. IQ had nothing to do with these. Lower divorce rates and bastardy rates among Blacks are no longer true, and are higher now. You can blame the divorce laws, the welfare, and in the 1960's to the government handing out money to single mothers and not married mothers as they did before that. Government sponsored Matriarchy is what destroyed the American Blacks. Yet I never hear you say anything about it nor the fact that American Blacks were improving and catching up to Whites under a more Patriarchical system and were overall better off despite the overt racism especially institutionalized racism directed against them as well as the lower IQ. Now little racism and no institutionalized racism is directed against them and Blacks are becoming more illiterate, more criminal etc. Yet you say nothing about this.
Even Liberals will agree with Taylor that Black IQ is lower, Blacks are more likely to be criminal, Blacks are more likely to do poorly in school, use narcotics, divorce, have highers percentage of bastards etc. Liberals will blame society. Taylor blames genetics. IQ seems to be geneticly based for the most part to me too. Almost everything else is due to Content of Character which when the Blacks had it even under more trying circumstances were doing better than now. Having a lower or higher IQ doesn't make one a better or worse person, only content of character does.
Saturday, September 10th 2011 @ 11:43 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
I guess you never heard of the Biafra Republic War in Nigeria in the 1970s when many Igbo people tried to seperate from Nigeria and failed. Brazil is still wealthy in comparison to many other countries and well run too. Most people most of the time even of diverse backgrounds get along because most don't like the idea of being in a war no matter how much hatred or frustration they have with another. It's only when things boil over that things get interesting, frightening and deadly. What you've stated is almost like saying all criminals do not spend the majority of their waking hours planning for or committing crime---Well, NO KIDDING!!!LOL!!!
Brazil is wealthier and better run than most other countries and this can explain why people of diverse backgrounds get along there. Asian Americans get along because they gave up on the old country to some degree, they are closely related amd they want to get along often out of necessity, and so they GASP get along.

A person can like an individual of a different group and hate the group he is in and vice versa. I see it all the time. Don't you?
I too have travelled to many countries and a few continents for decades. When a country is well run, wealthy, has a propoganda capaign telling people to get along and uses enough coercion to make sure they get along, then people get along. What happens when one or any combination of these things break down. It spells disaster. In a diverse country it usually means more disaster than a homgenous country. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
There is no pessimism or strawman here on my part. You on the other hand seem to be delusional in your over-optimism and providing more strawman arguements than me. I'm realistic. I don't like what I believe, but hard headed pragmatism and realism usually helps me in the long run. It will do so for others too. You may not believe in reality, but reality believes in you, and it's best if you conform to reality and make it work for you
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 12:15 AM

Posted by doclove:

@ Franklin
You can not change reality nor human nature. Noone can. You can adapt to reality and make it work for you. I would prefer if people of diverse backgrounds got along better, but it doesn't mean they will. Usually good fences make good neighbors.
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 12:20 AM

Posted by Franklin:

@ Doclove

The only reason I haven't mentioned those things, is because that's irrelevant to what this topic is about. It's about Black Men having more game than white men. Which I pointed out, but you chose not to comment on. I wasn't the one to come into this thread because my feelings were hurt, and attempt to corral/deflect the conversation with a "But We're Still Racially Superior, because Blacks Have Problems with X!" derailment in a typical white male, ego soothing, manner. That was YOU making an attempt at a reprisal, via Strawman and Red Herrings.

It seems as if you have an emotional investment in this whole thing (which is something that you accuse others of being guilty of), and despite your (feigned) neutrality when it comes to races, your speech, beliefs, and actions clearly state otherwise. Which is always revealed as time goes on, no matter how hard "Polhite Supremacists" try to hide it. That's why your entire Sailor/Taylor-esque movement is a sham. Because it's not about truth, it's about you taking a different approach to convince others that you're racially superior. But this time it's through eloquent language and polite terms, because your previous tactics failed and you know the entire world is watching you with a magnifying lense.

But I would go deeper into this, but I won't because it's irrelevant. So once again, stick to the topic at hand, or don't bother responding back.
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 12:30 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

You know i have to agree w/frank here-while the comments/conversation is interesting to read and take in it has very little to nothing to do w/the actual topic of the post itself. I take all this to mean that those who so opined really dont have a legit counter argument to make.

The facts are clear: black men have more sex partners on average than white and other racial groups of men in the usa. What white men from the uk or elsewhere in the eu is irrelevant. Discussions about the black community and its problems real or perceived are irrelevant. Who black folk vote for is irrelevant. And while i appreciate ms mcneils observations ultimately they too are irrelevant for a host of reasons that i intend to address soon. But what ill just comment on now is the fact that hers was a deeply personal account whereas levitts was more academic and data driven. Iow, even if what ms mcneil says is true for her it still doesnt account for what levitt said above-that hos charge white men more.

Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 10:52 AM

Posted by Constantine:

Black men have more sex partners, more illegitimate children, more STD's, and no money. That's the real reason why Black men pay less, they even need assistance to buy prostitutes! So Obsidian, how much a month do you pay in child support? How many baby mama's you have? How many half siblings do you have? Inquiring minds would like to know!
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 7:08 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Lol. The way you go at all this one can just imagine you being all worked up in a lather. One also has to wonder why you go out of your way to register all this stuff-if we black folk are so screwed up and youre not whats the deal with you spending your valuable time here?

As for your ho comments: in order for what you say to work they would have to avoid black men altogether. This is what maggie mcneil was saying on her blog and it makes sense from an econ pov. You go where the money is-if you can make more money with white clients why would you mess around with black ones at all? Yet thats not what levitt seems to be saying (have you read the book?).

Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 8:02 PM

Posted by Constantine:

Don't flatter yourself, I come here on my free time because it's entertaining to read the dumb ass stuff you post.

Prostitutes are in the business of making money. Sure there is more money to be made with non-Black guys but when Black men seek services, they won't turn them down. If you charge too much, they will leave, it's better to get some money than no money, but it's not meant for you to understand.

Now say something dumb so I can laugh at you, stop trying to act like you are intelligent and sheeit, nahmean?
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 8:13 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Again youre not making any sense nor am i surprised that you didnt answer whether youve actually read freakonomics. Hmm.

Per your argument it is in the econ best interests for hos to focus on maximizing profits-that means doing what ms mcneil said and bypassing brothas altogether since white johns pay more right? Perhaps youve heard of ms mcneil? Her blog is an interesting read.

Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 8:34 PM

Posted by Constantine:

No I haven't read that book, I have more important things to read.

You can't understand a word I said, I basically explained it twice and G.L. Piggy explained it as well before me. It's not meant for you to understand because you probably never held a job in the private sector where some money is better than no money because you have to produce. Oh no, it has to be because ho's like Black dick the best! You fool, if that was the case then they would be sleeping with you for free.

Black men frequent prostitutes just like all the other men do, most men that use prostitutes are married, so they have women just like Black guys do. So if non-Black men have wives and they use hookers, what makes them different from Black men that use hookers? Oh, I know...


And the fact they are broke so hookers have to charge less to make money? You really are as dumb as I thought you are.
Sunday, September 11th 2011 @ 8:47 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Now youre starting to make me think youre a woman by the way you argue lol. First you admit that you dont know what youre talking about and are arrogant about it. Then you proceed to personally attack me w/dumb shit you think you know but dont. Finally you dont make any sense at all because by your own argument its not in the econ best interests of hos to do business w/brothas. I think this is a great time for you to say good night "constantine"...

Monday, September 12th 2011 @ 5:48 AM

Posted by La Reyna:


Your comments reeked of racism and envy. You have too much time on your hands to make sweeping generalizations about Blacks, esp. Black men.

You admit that you don't read Freakonomics, didn't you? Just because Black and Brown men have more game than others doesn't mean they're obsess with sexuality. It's just a part of life like everyting else. If anything, IT IS YOU who is obsessed with Black sexuality because you envy Black men period.

La Reyna
Monday, September 12th 2011 @ 12:31 PM

Posted by Obsidian:


"You're a little bitch Obsidian. You get your ass whipped on your own blog and you try and block me? LMAO!"

O: Hardly; you haven't read the book upon which this entire post is based (Freakonomics), nor have you actually addressed the points made therein; all you've done is sully the place with your diatribes and vitriol, and I don't have to accept that into my house. So, you're banned.

I suspect I know who this really is, and if that's so, then I also suspect that you'll spend a goodly bit more of your time trying to post here; I would kindly suggest to everyone else to please ignore and disregard your inane comments, and as soon as time permits in my somewhat hectic and busy realworld schedule these days, I'll simply delete your offending comments and ban the IP addresses you send them from. Feel free to comment as much as you like; my Delete Button knows no bounds.

Say good night - again - "Constantine"...

Monday, September 12th 2011 @ 6:00 PM

Posted by TooTallJones:

"The fee for a trick varies with the type of sex act, and prostitutes seem to discriminate across clients in order to maximize profit. White men pay $8 to $9 more per trick than black customers, with Hispanic clients paying some amount in between. When bargaining, prostitutes will usually offer a price to a black customer but will make a white man throw out a number first."

^^ANd the ho's are perfectly right- basic economics- charge what the traffic will bear, based on customer preferences and profile. Walmart has "price points" for certain items- knowing the mix of sales they will get at the "premium" level versus the "economy" level. HOs are using sensible economics. And it could be too that white customers are more demanding or freakish, and thus pay more. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think either than streetwalkers prefer sex with the brothers. Maggie McNeill suggest quite the opposite. If she is correct, lower prices may be charged during low volume periods, or by lower-end prostitutes who must move down to a lesser esteemed black clientele. THe high end black athletes, entertainers and professionals will have no problem hooking a premium white ho but for the rest- the down-market is what is left.

Doclove sez:
I personally believe that there are genetic and cultural differences between Blacks and Whites or for that matter between Blacks and any other race.

^^ HDB bullsh11t, which is debunked here:
Thursday, September 15th 2011 @ 6:13 PM

Posted by doclove:

Now that we are speaking of both prostitution and GAME, something needs to be said here. PUSSY is NOT FREE!!! You either pay with resources--finacially---with money or you pay with your GAME skills. You may pay with both to one degree or another, but you still pay. As Maagie McNeill, former call girl, once said, prostitution is usually a cheaper way to get sex than any other way. I'm not saying that I completely agree with her. However, many men pay prostitutes not because they are unable to have both wife and a mistress, but because they don't want to get caught cheating and they don't want to invest the time into a mistress. It's the old Charlie Sheen saying," I don't pay prostitutes for sex, I pay for them to go away." Whether you are able to pay with money or GAME is a different story.
Friday, September 23rd 2011 @ 11:03 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

You've mad some interesting points! Let's address them one by one.

First, I don't agree with you or Ms. McNeil - Game has proven to be far and away more cost-effective from the standpoint of securing sex from Women, be that on a short term or long term basis. Of course, Ms. McNeil has an interest in making the case in the manner that she does, and for what it's worth I don't knock her for it; but just about any Man here and elsewhere who's studied and actually practiced Game can tell you Doc, that it's the cheapest route to go toward getting laid. I'll have more to say about this in due course. Stay tuned.

Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 12:45 PM

Posted by doclove:

If a man knows how to use game adequately enough, then it is the cheapest route. However, if he doesn't and the potential for him screwing up and being harmed in some way from his lack of game skills, then prostitution will be the cheapest or at least the most effective and efficient and least harmful route especially if it were decriminalized and legalized.. Not every man can be good at learning GAME as you yourself once said long ago. I agree with you that if you have GAME you're better off Gaming women than going to prostitutes, but not every man does nor can he have an adequate amount of it. That's one of the reasons I support her in her quest for decriminalizing and legalizing prostitution. Decriminalizing and legalizing prostitution is good for the prostitutes and the majority of men even if such men do not become prostitute customers or Johns.

I also do so because as Science Fiction writer and U.S. Navy veteran, Robert Heinlein, once said" The miltary is like prostitution, not so bad the higher ranked you are, but not so good the lower ranked you are." As an U.S. Army veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, I laughed at his quote and thoroughly agreed. Although I never have been a sex worker e.g. prostitute or stripper etc., I sympathize for them for this reason. There's much truth in what Heinlein said. I know Maggie McNeill has a dog in the fight, but besides Susan Walsh over at Hooking Up Smart, you would be hard pressed to find a woman as good or better at understanding men's plight and sympathyzing for men in the current Sexual Market Place. I think Susan Walsh is better at this for a few reasons. Susan is a mother of boys and girls for one. Susan is less sympathetic to Feminism for two although Maggie's not very sympathetic to the current fenimism either. Maggie has a dog in the fight concerning prostitution for three. There may be other reasons as well.

Even RooshV is against the shaming of men who don't have GAME or go to prostitutes. He had an articl
Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:21 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Sure, all things being equal, prostitution would indeed be a cheaper route to sex for many Men; the problem of course, is as you've said yourself, that prostitution in the USA is NOT legal (Nevada excepted of course), and I for one don't see it being so on the horizon anytime soon, even though I wholeheartedly support the decriminalization of prostitution - but not necessarily for the same reasons that you've noted above. My thing is simply that it is a waste of time and resources for law enforcement to be going after "sin tax" type "crimes", such as drug use or going to hoes. It just makes good sense to legalize these and related things, regulate and tax them accordingly and to ensure that the public is protected. We've done this with alcohol, and we can do it here as well.

More in a sec...

Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:29 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

As for Ms. McNeil, I would agree with you that Women in her line of work tend to have a much better understanding of the sexual psychology of Men than the vast majority of Women out there - notable exceptions like Ms. Walsh notwithstanding. My problems with Ms. McNeil's comments, the ones that you linked to above upthread, is that she suffers from the same kind of myopia that far too many Whites suffer from when it comes to Black folk - she has a kind of black and white view of Black people, in this case Black Men - either they're all raceless Poindexters or Pookie and Ray-Ray gangbangers, LOL. What her comments says to me is that her exposure to Black folk are very limited, and hey, she has every right to limit her business to whomever she wants. But what she said was not very well informed.

Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:39 PM

Posted by doclove:

Even RooshV is against the shaming of men who don't have GAME or go to prostitutes and has said so in a previous article within the past week. Although I think men should try to learn GAME, not every man can adequately learn enough and you yourself long ago said so. It seems that legalizing and decriminalizing prostitution is the best way to go for the prostitutes and most men even if they never become prostitute customers or JOHNS because at least it gives them options. It would certainly reduce the tension if prostitution were decriminalized, legalized and make it safer in every way for the prostiutes and the johns. We don't need anymore George Sodini of Pittspurgh, PA,USA , Major Nidal Hassan of FT.Hood Texas or Ander Behring Breivik of Norway Sexual Omega men exploding into violence which is all the current SMP is creating. Roissy had articles with the past two weeks about how many women dig jerks even murderous ones such as Breivik who is now being sent love letters by teenage girls and young women, and I'm afraid he's right. He also had an article about how it's difficult if not impossible to leave the women better than you found them, and I'm afraid he's right here too. On average most Men and women are not designed to have too many sex partners and then be ready for a Long Term Relationship(LTR) especially in regards to it being lifelong or marriage. It seems to be even more damaging to women as their emotions are more connected to sex while for men their instinct is more connected to sex on average. I believe even Susan Walsh and RosshV would agree with me and Roissy on that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for minimizing the damage if you do decide to GAME and always believe in harm reduction and being ethical and moral too. I like you have three younger sisters too, and don't want them to suffer because of the current Sexual Market Place. I do have some sympathy for women because of this. I mostly if not entirely agree with you and just wanted to clarify my p
Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:42 PM

Posted by doclove:

With the above posts, I just wanted to clarify my position. I'm all for men learning GAME, but if they can not or will not, then some form of relief needs to be found. That's why I'm for decriminalizing and legalizing prostitution. It probabaly won't happen, but having more angry men who will do horrifying acts of violence will be the result for as much as I don't want to see this anymore. I mostly if not entirely agree with you, Obsidian.
Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:49 PM

Posted by doclove:

@ Obsidian
I thoroughly agree with your reasons for legalizing prostitution. It's a waste of resources to fight it. You can outlaw human behavior, but not change it. It's better to do like we did with removing Prohibition against alcohol with regards to prostitution. St. Augustine of Hippo, which is in modern day Algeria and St.Thomas Aquinas born in Italy and other early Christian and Catholic thinkers thought that although prostitution was morally wrong, it should never be made illegal because human behavior is impossible to change, lust would be everywhere without it, and most men would treat most women worse and as whores or human garbage without it. All of this has come to pass in our current SMP.
Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 4:58 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

I'd like to see this post of Roosh's. Do you have a link?

Saturday, October 1st 2011 @ 5:41 PM

Posted by doclove:

Roosh has been the most positive blogger I've seen who has said any man can learn GAME if he genuinely learns it, and practices long and hard enough. He regards men not getting their sexual needs met as unhealthy. Here's his link about not shaming men who go to get foreign women for girfriends or wives and also about not shaming men who go to prostitutes.
Monday, October 3rd 2011 @ 2:47 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

I have strong areas of disagreemenr w/roosh (check the archives for more on this point) but on this issue he and i are shoulder to shoulder. Couldnt agree w/him more. In the end its all about a man getting his needs met and raising his happiness level. If he cant get that done here, or if he can only do so while paying for it (prostitutes) more power to him.

This thread has about five blogpost ideas lol. If all goes well ill be back on the job this coming weekend.

Thursday, October 6th 2011 @ 6:38 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

Silly wabbit, tricks are for kids! Now, say goodnight-again...

Thursday, October 6th 2011 @ 6:40 AM

Posted by doclove:

I know you have disagreements with Roosh, and one of the reasons is because he in your opinion tends to the dark side concerning Game. I disagree with him that every man or most men can learn a sufficient amount of Game to get their sexual and romantic relationship needs met. Even his buddy, Roissy, disagrees with him on this one. However, I agree with you that how a man get's his needs and happiness met sexually with a consenting adult is nobody else's business. If there ever was a reason to make prostitutiom illegal and criminalize it, that time has long past. As I may have said above with legalized prostitution, there is less venereal disease and less negative effects for whores and johns. Making it criminal harms the whores and johns more. At least where it is legal, and it looks like where it is illegal, prostitutes have less venereal diseases on average than non-prostitute women of the same age group. More men than ever need sexual relief, and prostitution seems to be the best way out for them. I truly believe it might improve women's behavior towards men too because a man would no longer need them for sex and he wouldn't tolerate poor behavior. For those men who Game women, it would indirectly make life easier on them too.
Monday, October 10th 2011 @ 2:11 PM