Categories
creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA sexual exploitation

A creepy expat in Southeast Asia explains why money = tits and how this makes exploiting poor women for sex ok

The sexiest man alive?
The sexiest man alive?

Over on Random Xpat Rantings the terrible excuse for a human being who calls himself Xplat sets forth an intriguing proposition: for men in search of sexy times, having money is the equivalent of a woman having tits.

In other words, it’s not absolutely necessary for a man to have big bucks to garner the attention of the opposite sex, just as it’s not absolutely necessary for a woman to have something in the tit department in order to garner the attention of men, but it helps. A lot.

Oh, by the way, the title of the post in which he sets forth this theory is “ALL women are inherently gold diggers down to their pussy juice.”

Let’s let him explain, in his own icky way:

Women know their value. They know they can trade their value for their benefit. In [South-East Asia] this is not a dirty little secret. It’s not even an open secret. It’s just a fact of life. Money is part of the equation, blatantly and openly. …

Money-and-power-and-social-status is exactly equal to breasts. It can be a cause of sexual attraction in and of itself, and can maintain a relationship when there is nothing else being offered.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure when someone is literally interested in nothing about you except your money, you’re not actually in a “relationship” with that person.

Women aren’t men with vaginas. Their sexual attraction triggers are different. It’s not just that they fuck for food. Not JUST a matter of pragmatic sales of a service. Actual attraction is ALSO involved.

I like big bucks and I cannot lie?

Now, of course Xsplat here is challenging the common PUA gospel that men shouldn’t rely on money to win over their “targets” but rather on being cool and caddish and, you know, going to places where there’s a good chance a lot of the women will be pretty drunk.

Manospherians hampsterbate about this with a zillion “ya buts”. Ya, but you don’t NEED money. Yup, and girls don’t NEED tits.

Having tits is better and more attractive anyway, and girls with tits can get more and better quality men.

Having money is better in exactly the same way. You don’t see many flat chested Penthouse centerfolds, nor are there many broke romance novel heros.

Well, I don’t know much about romance novels, but from what I hear there’s a shitload of slash fiction about two dudes named Sam and Dean who basically live out of their car.

It’s not the case that SOME girls are gold diggers.

It’s just a matter of all the gold diggers mining for gold in different ways.

And of course all of this turns out to be a justification for Xplat’s own use of his relative wealth, as a western expat living in Southeast Asia, to exploit impoverished women for sex.

For me sex is about ecstatic intimacy. Money helps to get more intimacy with a greater percentage of girls, and higher quality girls. I choose to allow egoic esteem to include finances. Money is not cheating. Money helps to skin the cat. Money is not separate from my fantastic ethereal self. Money is part of what I am; part and parcel of what I am to a woman.

That’s got to be one of the creepiest and most delusional excuses for sexual exploitation I think I’ve ever run across in the three years of doing this blog.

583 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
belledame222
belledame222
8 years ago

So, I was telling a friend about the ten-way trainwreck that is Me Me, and she remembered him from ancient days of Internet yore (2005, to be precise), with this entry. I thought it was…telling. Any more recent former colleagues spelunk the archives and find stuff like this? “Cleansing fire behind my eyes.”

http://maymay.net/blog/2005/03/02/cleansing-fire-behind-my-eyes/#comments

belledame222
belledame222
8 years ago

I’m just curious where the whole YOU ARE ALL BASTARD PEOPLE AND I WILL DESTROY YOU, OTHER PROMINENT KINKSTERS thing is coming from.

I only met him the one time, but based on following his online and reported offline hijinks on and off over the past few years, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he’s basically saying he’s not going to be IGNORED, Dan.

belledame222
belledame222
8 years ago

For a start, he also appears to be angry at all of Burning Man, “social justice activists,” “the sex positive community,” not to mention capitalism (of course), and, on occasion, the entire world which can go burn, not necessarily in that order.

belledame222
belledame222
8 years ago

“They,” excuse me.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

@ belle

Yeah, it feels like his issue with the BSDM community is personal, which is why I keep wondering what exactly happened. He seems toxic enough to provoke conflict in just about any social circle.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I deal with my dislike of Burning Man by not attending. Maybe he should try that.

belledame222
belledame222
8 years ago

Well, more recently we learn one of the ways in which capitalism has affronted them: by asking for a “commitment,” and offering to pay by the hour instead of just trading them a car (which the employer would have to buy, with money, but never mind). Something.

http://maymay DOT net/blog/2013/06/14/i-quit-because-capitalism/

Bina
8 years ago

Welp, judging by the sidebar on his blog, I’d say mental issues out the wazoo are a definite factor. So too is a rather massive ego. Not a good combo…

1 22 23 24
%d bloggers like this: