Sugar-Daddying for Romance.

[Shemp]

If you create a hierarchy of high to low class prostitutes, the one who gets paid $3000 a night might outrank the $200 prostitute. The crack addict who takes $1 would be lower. Where would the one who does it for free fall on the scale?

IMO, the real hierarchy is based on depth of the relationship, not pay rate. That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again. By outrank, I mean the longer term relationship is ultimately more satisfying. Toilet stall quickie is like junk food: tastes good at first, leaves a nasty aftertaste, repeated indulgence typically leads to health problems (including mental health problems in the case of junk sex).

[Shemp]

I'm not sure if I addressed this previously, but one very important rule in sugar daddying is don't arrange to pay more than you can afford. Either you will resent the woman for breaking your budget, and this resentment will ruin the relationship, or you will be forced to renegotiate the price down, which is always unpleasant. So if you are really poor, you can't be a sugar daddy. Build big muscles like those male beauty pageant guys (aka bodybuilders) and then offer your hunky body to well paid career women. If you are modest income, amount you can afford is likely to be so low as to make you look ridiculous (like $40/week in Europe, as one forum member suggested), and thus backfire on you. This should be obvious, but a lot of men lack common sense about everything connected with women, so everything has to be spelled out to them in excruciating detail.

What if you offer a respectable amount but the woman wants more? Next her. Don't fall prey to oneitis.

Another obvious point is that sugar baby should be much poorer than daddy. It's idiotic to offer to long-term sponsor a women richer than yourself. However, nothing wrong with paying for one off meets with a professional escort who is richer.

[publicduende]

That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again.

The above assumption is difficult to make. We're still talking about something based on a transaction, which can be terminated at short notice by either party. Let's say you can only afford $1,000 for 5 sexual encounters a month. Then your sugar babe expands her network and meets a younger, wealthier man who can give her $2,000 a month, plus designer stuff, and doesn't even expect sex multiple times a month.

So far her schedule or desire permit, she might still be able to give you her time of the day (or the night). The moment she can't or doesn't want to anymore, you're pushed out of her list. She will start making excuses, stop returning your calls, etc.

Emotional connection may or may not be there, like there is likely some emotional connection between a prostitute and an habitual customer. Point is: if it is ultimately driven by money, it will start and end because of money.

IMHO, no matter how much lipstick we put on this particular pig, it's still a pig. I personally prefer a relationship with a girl who might not be a stunner, model-type, but has some real stuff in common with me, wants to spend lots of quality time with me and won't tie her company or sex (quality or quantity) to a specific amount of money, or financial support. True, there's a lot of materialistic and ungrateful bitches out there, but those ones I wouldn't even consider as sugar babies...

Maybe I am not 60 yet. When I will be @Shemp's age, I will probably start deluding myself that I am still sexually attractive and the little money I receive from my pension can go a "looong way" in some impoverished African or Asian village (hopefully Ukraine will be first world proper by then).

[MrMan]

That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again.

The above assumption is difficult to make. We're still talking about something based on a transaction, which can be terminated at short notice by either party. Let's say you can only afford $1,000 for 5 sexual encounters a month. Then your sugar babe expands her network and meets a younger, wealthier man who can give her $2,000 a month, plus designer stuff, and doesn't even expect sex multiple times a month.

So far her schedule or desire permit, she might still be able to give you her time of the day (or the night). The moment she can't or doesn't want to anymore, you're pushed out of her list. She will start making excuses, stop returning your calls, etc.

Emotional connection may or may not be there, like there is likely some emotional connection between a prostitute and an habitual customer. Point is: if it is ultimately driven by money, it will start and end because of money.

IMHO, no matter how much lipstick we put on this particular pig, it's still a pig. I personally prefer a relationship with a girl who might not be a stunner, model-type, but has some real stuff in common with me, wants to spend lots of quality time with me and won't tie her company or sex (quality or quantity) to a specific amount of money, or financial support. True, there's a lot of materialistic and ungrateful bitches out there, but those ones I wouldn't even consider as sugar babies...

Maybe I am not 60 yet. When I will be @Shemp's age, I will probably start deluding myself that I am still sexually attractive and the little money I receive from my pension can go a "looong way" in some impoverished African or Asian village (hopefully Ukraine will be first world proper by then).

For the rates you mentioned, you could be married, too. Five encounters a month seems very low, abysmally low for a young man... for $1000 a month? Wow. I've had more sex in my 40's with a wife who loves and cares for me, and waaaaay more in my 20's. For a few years there, I'd get some kind of 'satisfaction' pretty much every day if one of us wasn't sick. That would be $6000 at your rates, maybe $10 or $12 grand in today's money worth a month.

If you marry a decent woman with good values and treat her well, don't do drugs and spend the baby's milk money, beat her, etc., then you can have the emotional connection without having to be concerned so much that she'll run off to a man with more money. You have to find a woman of noble character who has an aversion to divorce and adultery. They do exist, or they have a seed of it that matures as they do. In the west, there is more financial risk going this route. Those risks can be lower if you live in a country with a family law system that is not as harsh on men.

You also have the benefit of someone who cooks for you, cleans the house, helps raise the kids, can help you expand your social network (helpful if you live abroad and are married to a local wife), finds deals on stuff, calls ads to purchase a car or purchase or rent a home, negotiates to get 'local prices' if you are in an expat situation in her country, and all kinds of other stuff. And you can have clean, guilt-free sex, in a clean, guilt-free relationship on top of that. You can actually care for another person, not just enough to use her for a short time, but to make a commitment to her for life.

The older definition of 'prostitute' did not have so much to do with money changing hands. Dial it back a couple of hundred years ago and women who slept around or shacked up were prostitutes. Men who slept with them prostituted themselves with them. Men and women who sleep around for free are the cheapest whores.

[publicduende]

For the rates you mentioned, you could be married, too. Five encounters a month seems very low, abysmally low for a young man... for $1000 a month? Wow. I've had more sex in my 40's with a wife who loves and cares for me, and waaaaay more in my 20's. For a few years there, I'd get some kind of 'satisfaction' pretty much every day if one of us wasn't sick. That would be $6000 at your rates, maybe $10 or $12 grand in today's money worth a month.

Well, if according to @Shemp $40 a week, for a single encounter I presume, is ridiculously low even in a place like Ukraine, then I assume it something in the range of $150 to $250 a week would "get" you the kind of young, good looking and reasonably intelligent girl who makes the arrangement worthwhile.

For what I know about this world, and as @Shemp himself says, sugar daddying is often a way a man can use to reassert his sexual and financial superiority over a woman. In other words, a man who squanders thousands of dollars a month on a "college student" with big boobs is not only receiving that girl's services as per agreement, but also feeling empowered, in control of the relationship using the financial imbalance as leverage.

In reality, the transaction is quite balanced because the girl is also free to walk away the moment she finds a better transaction: more money for less sex, or a younger and more attractive daddy, etc. I am sure the better sugar babies are very good at giving their daddies a semblance of dedication and exclusivity, during the time they spend with them. Then once the new Gucci bag is in and their credit cards replenished, they're happy to dance the weekend away with their same-age friends, and maybe bed one or two.

Just like everything bought and sold, there is an intrinsic value (the penetrative sex versus money) and an edonic value to it. The latter being the perceived boost to a man's ego, or lifestyle. If a man wants to spend $1,000 or $2,000 a week in exchange for some good sex and a bit of make-pretend, he can be my guest.

I am, personally, unable to muster that "suspension of belief" needed to get more than the intrinsic value (the sex value) from such a transaction. In other words, after the deed, I would maybe cherish the memory of the sex but wonder if I could have spent those $2,000 on better stuff.

If you marry a decent woman with good values and treat her well, don't do drugs and spend the baby's milk money, beat her, etc., then you can have the emotional connection without having to be concerned so much that she'll run off to a man with more money. You have to find a woman of noble character who has an aversion to divorce and adultery. They do exist, or they have a seed of it that matures as they do. In the west, there is more financial risk going this route. Those risks can be lower if you live in a country with a family law system that is not as harsh on men.

You also have the benefit of someone who cooks for you, cleans the house, helps raise the kids, can help you expand your social network (helpful if you live abroad and are married to a local wife), finds deals on stuff, calls ads to purchase a car or purchase or rent a home, negotiates to get 'local prices' if you are in an expat situation in her country, and all kinds of other stuff. And you can have clean, guilt-free sex, in a clean, guilt-free relationship on top of that. You can actually care for another person, not just enough to use her for a short time, but to make a commitment to her for life.

Well, that's the "relationship nirvana" that many (all?) men look for and rarely find. Knowing your story a bit, you have been lucky to meet your wife in Indonesia, in a culture that even in 2021 (and more so when you met her) is more traditional and tends to value commitment, stability and (Heaven forbid!) devotion from both sides of the couple. You played your arbitrage windows well and got rewarded.

If it is of any relevance, I can testify on the quality of Indonesian Christians because I have been working with two of them, for several years now. They're not just humble and hard-working people, they are also honest. The way they explained it to me: in a country that still bombs churches every now and then, one doesn't choose to be a Christian lightly. It's a smaller community and a stronger belief. Their words.

In a different place and time, I also got my little gift of arbitrage. It took me quite a long time (almost 3 years and many misses) to find "her", yet I found her and I am happy. Ironically, I got plenty of sex for free for as long as I was looking for "her", and I could have continued, if I didn't see a long-term relationship as the endgame of it all.

Being cynical, my opinion is that sugar daddying is for men in their 50s who wants to hit way higher than their age and looks will afford them. Their egoes call for something that sounds more elegant and sophisticated than simple roadside or brother prostitution. They have far extra money to spend, compared to the average punter, so they target non-professional prostitutes with the lure of more cash and specific lifestyle boosters: designer clothes, travelling, fine dining, etc.

It's really identical to keeping a lover (or mistress, if already married), by another name.

The older definition of 'prostitute' did not have so much to do with money changing hands. Dial it back a couple of hundred years ago and women who slept around or shacked up were prostitutes. Men who slept with them prostituted themselves with them. Men and women who sleep around for free are the cheapest whores.

This might have been the definition then, but it's not the definition now. These are times of sexual empowerment and liberation. Girls are supposed, in fact encouraged, to sleep around to learn about men and themselves. I know you have a different opinion, but I don't see anything bad in a young woman having 2 or 3 boyfriends before maturing enough for a serious relationship and/or finding a partner suitable for that serious relationship.

The sleeping around with someone they give a damn about, e.g. a boyfriend or at least a date "with some potential", is OK as long as it's free. When money and/or gifts are exchanged as the primary, if not only, reason for the company or the sex, then the premise of a deeper interaction are thrown out of the window. If a girl really likes a man, she would probably want to sleep with him without the explicit promise of material compensation. If material compensation is a pre-requisite for sleeping with the man, there is at least reasonable doubt as to whether the attraction, the "connection" is even there.

[Shemp]

That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again.

The above assumption is difficult to make. We're still talking about something based on a transaction, which can be terminated at short notice by either party.

BTW the crude toilet stall example was used to get a reaction from @MrMan.

As for your point, I'm not going to continue arguing much more with a fool, but I will point out that ANY relationship can be terminated at short notice by either party. Even if divorce not easy, like in the Philippines, the woman can simply move out or stop having sex with her husband or she might turn into a bitch so that man has to move out to escape her. That's life, fool.

Money is attractive and only men without money say otherwise. But it is not overwhelmingly attractive. Fir example, @MrMan would probably be unwilling to suck another man's penis no matter how much money was offered. Or if he did consent out of desperation, he would be unable to hide his disgust. If the man paying wanted enthusiasm, then those ​signs of disgust would ruin the deal.

Same thing with sugar daddies and babies. If the girl doesn't give you want you want, such as unfaked enthusiasm, move on. Maybe my girl is faking pleasure during sex. If so, she's doing an outstanding job without a single screwup in 5 years since I've known her. Compare with every unpaid girlfriend I've ever had, some of whom had sex with me for years on end without receiving a penny, and yet none of them was as well-behaved and pleased me as much as this paid girlfriend. In fact, a lot of my unpaid girlfriends were annoying right from the start, but I was so desperate for sex with them that I put up with their shit nevertheless. Then when I broke up with them, at least two had nervous breakdowns. Maybe having sex for free and having a nervous breakdown when I dumped them proves they loved me for real. Big f***ing deal. I'll take what my current paid girlfriend is offering any day of the week over what those free girlfriends offered.

I called you a wimp in my previous post and you sound even wimpier now. A little bitch who is desperate for mommy's approval, hence obsessed with whether his mommy substitute girlfriend really loves him or not. Real men don't care that much about the woman's emotions, as long as she does what he wants, including showing enjoyment. Just as an animal will typically grow attached to an owner who treats it nice and feeds it, a woman will typically grow attached to a man who treats her nice and has regular quality sex with her. If the man is so far out of her league to make this impossible, then it will be hard for her to fake enjoyment for long, just as it would be hard for MrMan to convincingly fake enjoying sex with another man for long.

Of course, emotional attachment doesn't mean a woman's emotions are guaranteed to be stable. Likewise, a tiger in a zoo that genuinely likes its keeper can suddenly turn and kill the keeper for no apparent reason. Men in USA get hit by divorce all the time by wives who genuinely loved them when they were initially married, then her emotions suddenly changed later.

One reason I continue to participate in discussions like the present, is I am aware my girl could disappear at any time, so I need to be ready to replace her. I can't afford to let my mind once again be clouded by blue-pill thinking about sexual relationships, and debate keeps my mind sharp, though debate with fools like PD is probably not doing me much good. Stupidity can be contagious.

[publicduende]

That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again.

The above assumption is difficult to make. We're still talking about something based on a transaction, which can be terminated at short notice by either party.

BTW the crude toilet stall example was used to get a reaction from @MrMan.

As for your point, I'm not going to continue arguing much more with a fool, but I will point out that ANY relationship can be terminated at short notice by either party. Even if divorce not easy, like in the Philippines, the woman can simply move out or stop having sex with her husband or she might turn into a bitch so that man has to move out to escape her. That's life, fool.

Money is attractive and only men without money say otherwise. But it is not overwhelmingly attractive. Fir example, @MrMan would probably be unwilling to suck another man's penis no matter how much money was offered. Or if he did consent out of desperation, he would be unable to hide his disgust. If the man paying wanted enthusiasm, then those ​signs of disgust would ruin the deal.

Same thing with sugar daddies and babies. If the girl doesn't give you want you want, such as unfaked enthusiasm, move on. Maybe my girl is faking pleasure during sex. If so, she's doing an outstanding job without a single screwup in 5 years since I've known her. Compare with every unpaid girlfriend I've ever had, some of whom had sex with me for years on end without receiving a penny, and yet none of them was as well-behaved and pleased me as much as this paid girlfriend. In fact, a lot of my unpaid girlfriends were annoying right from the start, but I was so desperate for sex with them that I put up with their shit nevertheless. Then when I broke up with them, at least two had nervous breakdowns. Maybe having sex for free and having a nervous breakdown when I dumped them proves they loved me for real. Big f***ing deal. I'll take what my current paid girlfriend is offering any day of the week over what those free girlfriends offered.

I called you a wimp in my previous post and you sound even wimpier now. A little bitch who is desperate for mommy's approval, hence obsessed with whether his mommy substitute girlfriend really loves him or not. Real men don't care that much about the woman's emotions, as long as she does what he wants, including showing enjoyment. Just as an animal will typically grow attached to an owner who treats it nice and feeds it, a woman will typically grow attached to a man who treats her nice and has regular quality sex with her. If the man is so far out of her league to make this impossible, then it will be hard for her to fake enjoyment for long, just as it would be hard for MrMan to convincingly fake enjoying sex with another man for long.

Of course, emotional attachment doesn't mean a woman's emotions are guaranteed to be stable. Likewise, a tiger in a zoo that genuinely likes its keeper can suddenly turn and kill the keeper for no apparent reason. Men in USA get hit by divorce all the time by wives who genuinely loved them when they were initially married, then her emotions suddenly changed later.

One reason I continue to participate in discussions like the present, is I am aware my girl could disappear at any time, so I need to be ready to replace her. I can't afford to let my mind once again be clouded by blue-pill thinking about sexual relationships, and debate keeps my mind sharp, though debate with fools like PD is probably not doing me much good. Stupidity can be contagious.

The greater fool has spoken. Bravo

You have all the elements and symptoms of a deluded mind. I read some of the earlier exchanges between you, Contrarian Expatriate and Hypermak (who many say is my alter ego). You and CE have roughly the same opinion on sugar daddying but that didn't stop him from bitch-slapping you to silence. In a game of greater fools, I guess it was important to establish who is the 60-yo who thinks he's the most sexually attractive, wealthy and in control of their lives.

I find all of this pretty pathetic, actually. I prefer Winston and his delusions that Angeles City bar girls are excellent GF experience and great value for money. At least he never had to spend $1000 a week.

That you may have to think or replacing your girl, it strikes me as quite obvious. As a word of advice, there's no need to call whoever has a different opinion than yours, or doesn't entertain the same delusions, names.

One last thing: one can be red-pilled and have a satisfactory relationship with a woman. The red pill is not the sole cultural territory of conspiracy mad hatters, self-professed viveurs, and incels.

[MrMan]

BTW the crude toilet stall example was used to get a reaction from @MrMan.

I would not have commented on it if you hadn't mentioned my name.

Money is attractive and only men without money say otherwise. But it is not overwhelmingly attractive. Fir example, @MrMan would probably be unwilling to suck another man's penis no matter how much money was offered. Or if he did consent out of desperation, he would be unable to hide his disgust. If the man paying wanted enthusiasm, then those ​signs of disgust would ruin the deal.

I would rather die or maim someone. I'm generally pacifistic. But I wonder why your retain a place in your imagination for thoughts about me and homosexual scenarios. I'm taken and I am not into men.

Same thing with sugar daddies and babies. If the girl doesn't give you want you want, such as unfaked enthusiasm, move on. Maybe my girl is faking pleasure during sex. If so, she's doing an outstanding job without a single screwup in 5 years since I've known her. Compare with every unpaid girlfriend I've ever had, some of whom had sex with me for years on end without receiving a penny, and yet none of them was as well-behaved and pleased me as much as this paid girlfriend. In fact, a lot of my unpaid girlfriends were annoying right from the start, but I was so desperate for sex with them that I put up with their shit nevertheless. Then when I broke up with them, at least two had nervous breakdowns. Maybe having sex for free and having a nervous breakdown when I dumped them proves they loved me for real. Big f***ing deal. I'll take what my current paid girlfriend is offering any day of the week over what those free girlfriends offered.

A girlfriend getting some financial help from her boyfriend, with or without sex in the relationship, is not unheard of. In some countries, young women who are presumably virgins (or claim to be in overheard girl talk) might get some financial help from a boyfriend-- for example a female college students whose boyfriend had graduated already. Collectivist cultures tend to have different norms when it comes to giving and sharing, and in a marriage-oriented culture, a girlfriend is a potential fiance and a potential wife. One of my wife's cousins was in college and she and her former boyfriend had called each other 'mom' and 'dad', pretending like they were married and had a family. That sounds weird to me. (After we were married and had children, I called my wife 'mommy' to the kids when they were little. I think I say 'your mom.')

One reason I continue to participate in discussions like the present, is I am aware my girl could disappear at any time, so I need to be ready to replace her. I can't afford to let my mind once again be clouded by blue-pill thinking about sexual relationships, and debate keeps my mind sharp, though debate with fools like PD is probably not doing me much good. Stupidity can be contagious.

There are a lot of dangers here. Family is one of the things that makes life meaningful if you age. You could devote your life to feeding orphans and things like that and that could make life meaningful, but for most people, it is family. Having fake, artificial relationships and not caring about anyone can leave one emotionally unfulfilled. Let's say a 60-year-old man is never going to marry and he gets 5 or 8 years of sex and GFE from a paid girlfriend. Then he's 68. At some point, if he can't meet her needs, she's not going the honorable route about sex... she could have a partner on the side. She might hope to get him to marry her, but if he won't, then she may have bailing and trying to find a second or third tier husband who would go for a used woman, in the Philippines, that may mean a middle-aged or elderly expat. Or she can go for the higher paying sugar daddy. Whatever the scenario, being a sugar baby for a 60-year-old is not a good long-term plan for her. When he dies, she doesn't inherit. Marriage is better for that. She does not have the status of a married woman. She might grow to love her 60-year-old, but there are a lot of common-sense reasons to end such a situation. At some point, he gets to be so old that it becomes more and more of a chore for a woman to be with him. His 'sugar baby' may have to be a nurse who changes his diapers and gives him a sponge bath for health reasons rather than an actual sexual partner, and he is left with no one who really cares for him in his old age.

[Spencer]

That is, a sugar daddy-baby relationship that lasts decades and involves real emotional connection outranks a 10 minute blowjob in the nightclub toilet stall between a man and woman who just met and will never see each other again.

The above assumption is difficult to make. We're still talking about something based on a transaction, which can be terminated at short notice by either party.

BTW the crude toilet stall example was used to get a reaction from @MrMan.

As for your point, I'm not going to continue arguing much more with a fool, but I will point out that ANY relationship can be terminated at short notice by either party. Even if divorce not easy, like in the Philippines, the woman can simply move out or stop having sex with her husband or she might turn into a bitch so that man has to move out to escape her. That's life, fool.

Money is attractive and only men without money say otherwise. But it is not overwhelmingly attractive. Fir example, @MrMan would probably be unwilling to suck another man's penis no matter how much money was offered. Or if he did consent out of desperation, he would be unable to hide his disgust. If the man paying wanted enthusiasm, then those ​signs of disgust would ruin the deal.

Same thing with sugar daddies and babies. If the girl doesn't give you want you want, such as unfaked enthusiasm, move on. Maybe my girl is faking pleasure during sex. If so, she's doing an outstanding job without a single screwup in 5 years since I've known her. Compare with every unpaid girlfriend I've ever had, some of whom had sex with me for years on end without receiving a penny, and yet none of them was as well-behaved and pleased me as much as this paid girlfriend. In fact, a lot of my unpaid girlfriends were annoying right from the start, but I was so desperate for sex with them that I put up with their shit nevertheless. Then when I broke up with them, at least two had nervous breakdowns. Maybe having sex for free and having a nervous breakdown when I dumped them proves they loved me for real. Big f***ing deal. I'll take what my current paid girlfriend is offering any day of the week over what those free girlfriends offered.

I called you a wimp in my previous post and you sound even wimpier now. A little bitch who is desperate for mommy's approval, hence obsessed with whether his mommy substitute girlfriend really loves him or not. Real men don't care that much about the woman's emotions, as long as she does what he wants, including showing enjoyment. Just as an animal will typically grow attached to an owner who treats it nice and feeds it, a woman will typically grow attached to a man who treats her nice and has regular quality sex with her. If the man is so far out of her league to make this impossible, then it will be hard for her to fake enjoyment for long, just as it would be hard for MrMan to convincingly fake enjoying sex with another man for long.

Of course, emotional attachment doesn't mean a woman's emotions are guaranteed to be stable. Likewise, a tiger in a zoo that genuinely likes its keeper can suddenly turn and kill the keeper for no apparent reason. Men in USA get hit by divorce all the time by wives who genuinely loved them when they were initially married, then her emotions suddenly changed later.

One reason I continue to participate in discussions like the present, is I am aware my girl could disappear at any time, so I need to be ready to replace her. I can't afford to let my mind once again be clouded by blue-pill thinking about sexual relationships, and debate keeps my mind sharp, though debate with fools like PD is probably not doing me much good. Stupidity can be contagious.

The greater fool has spoken. Bravo

You have all the elements and symptoms of a deluded mind. I read some of the earlier exchanges between you, Contrarian Expatriate and Hypermak (who many say is my alter ego). You and CE have roughly the same opinion on sugar daddying but that didn't stop him from bitch-slapping you to silence. In a game of greater fools, I guess it was important to establish who is the 60-yo who thinks he's the most sexually attractive, wealthy and in control of their lives.

I find all of this pretty pathetic, actually. I prefer Winston and his delusions that Angeles City bar girls are excellent GF experience and great value for money. At least he never had to spend $1000 a week.

That you may have to think or replacing your girl, it strikes me as quite obvious. As a word of advice, there's no need to call whoever has a different opinion than yours, or doesn't entertain the same delusions, names.

One last thing: one can be red-pilled and have a satisfactory relationship with a woman. The red pill is not the sole cultural territory of conspiracy mad hatters, self-professed viveurs, and incels.

Alter ego mean you one and same

for normal poster if he like other poster then he make postings same period for suports so we see soooo mystry why o why when hyper here duende gone when duende here hyper gone

yet hyper go duende intmate condo as stranger man use same computer while never but ever dare meet any other aborder and make fake promising do vid call wit wiseton then flake out same like dumwit girly

hyper sucpupet = duende when much more young and positive for give self delusive way for vicarusly repeat back in da day lifing to navety younger times

also notice return of duende more slop wit english make smal mistaking of each post not like duende before 2020 so maybe cus elder aging or maybe cus want be more difrence to biter old duende pre mis c

if aborder take dive in older duende posts and look hyper posting than can see some repetion of same exact frasings even tho frasing not regular but rather be idiomatic signaturing of individal poster

hyperduende only exusing is say philipin have 10000s italanman live london for years that only diversry tacticing for not mater an iota nationalty or locate rather what mater is writ style and aperance on forum timing and atitude for hyper same poltics of duende same atitude on each individal poster same atitude on wiseton euro dream also same one up man always get last word and on and on

old duende and hyper both love da dramas and femnist idolgys but new post covid duende more relax more slop maybe cus hapy for final goten phlipin dreamgirl after dump aged out colonbia wife

duende in decade 5 more near decade 6 than decade 4 for mean in da hi 40s whilst macfiction try rewinding clocks to be lo decade 4 for funys and for suport duende egomania same suport self

shemp intuition empath for read between lines acheving truting to call out duende