Search Box

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

College girls vs. strippers

A young soldier recently explained to me the difference between the way he presents himself to the two different types of women he meets.

When any of these women ask what he does, he tells them the truth, which is that he was on active duty until recently, and spent a year in Afghanistan. If they press, he might volunteer that he was in the infantry and went on a couple of raids.

They're all curious as to whether he killed anybody, and after a few drinks they'll generally ask. With college girls he just says he's not sure, and that in a firefight, it's not always easy to tell. (In fact he didn't kill anyone.) This seems to get their juices flowing.

With strippers, he plays it differently. When they ask, he replies, "Two confirmed."

College girls want a little excitement, but not too much. Strippers want a killer.

Evidently these tailored answers work.

I happened to overhear a conversation between this young man and a liberal woman recently. He's not liberal, but he does know how to use their language.  He told her, "What I want to do is have all kinds of exotic sex with as many young women as possible. That's just the way I'm constructed, and I don't think you should discriminate against me because of my sexuality."

It was an interesting angle, one I hadn't heard before. In a way, it made sense.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd never thought of this before, but I guess he's right. The cleverest way of making something seem acceptable is to convey it in the language your listeners would use. Peppering your sentences with "discrimination", "constructed", "feminist", "equality", "human rights", "fairness" and so on would probably work on liberals, whatever the idea presented (at least, if the liberal didn't think too hard about what you're actually saying).

And, yes, liberals do love their social constructs. Take gender, for example: liberals talk about gender being a social construct as though it were scientific fact, when that idea is actually no more factual than creationism. Here's a way to mess with their heads: the idea of the social construct is itself a social construct. Since social constructionists view social constructs as invalid, their theories invalidate themselves.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
You're absolutely right, using that language would make their heads spin. And since liberals as a rule don't think too deeply -- or at least critically -- about anything, you may have them bamboozled.

I like your idea about social constructs, I will use that the next time I get the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of strippers (and sociopaths), I've found the following blog to be kind of an interesting insight into the mind and personal life of one stripper/socio (as she describes herself) combo: http://thesadsociopath.blogspot.com/?zx=8403e3a468031c8e

Anonymous said...

He sounds like a smart, clever individual, knowing how to effectively communicate with the person that he's interacting with (he knows his "audience").

-birdie

John Craig said...

Anon --
I read the first page of posts on that link, and while it was interesting to hear rings from the perspective of a stripper, there wasn't much in there that radiated sociopathy. She just sounded like a regular, if slightly narcissistic, working girl.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
He actually is quite clever. I get the impression he starts with a viewpoint of extreme chauvinism, but he does seem to get his way.

(If he "tailored" his answers anymore, I might suspect sociopathy, but I think he's mostly being playful.)

Anonymous said...

when I was in college in the 80s the leftists the terminology used to describe ones sexual orientation was "sexual preference".

My leftists professors did not like my argument that prostitution should be legalized because my sexual preference was to pay for sex with cash to eliminate the complications of a relationship and it was easier to get a threesome if I paid for it.

the feminists in the class were outraged. it was too easy to get the feminists riled up back then

John Craig said...

Anon --
Ha! Good for you for giving your opinion in class like that; when I was in college I was far too cowed to have dared speak up like that. (Plus, my political positions hadn't yet been formed at that age.)

I'm a little surprised that the feminists have always ben so adamantly against prostitution. In a way, it "empowers" women, is an economic opportunity for them, and if it was legalized it would eliminate the role of sleazy pimps. Plus wherever it's legalized the incidence of disease is lowered.

The feminists are still fairly easy to get riled up, by the way.

Anonymous said...

John, your son is a bad bad bad man. He's gonna burn in hell forever for this.

Shit, I wish i could get away with that kind of line in my country.

Oh, just fyi.
https://chronicle.com/article/How-Iowa-Flattened-Literature/144531/

The CIA really did destroy literature in America!!!

John Craig said...

Anon --
Ha! (I'm not admitting that the young soldier is my son, by the way; and I can't help but notice that you stay anonymous.)

Thanks, that was an interesting article. It is true, all writers are limited by what they have to say.

Steven said...

When I read this I just wonder how many strippers this cat dates and how he meets them all.

Also, I think I'd feel like it was wrong to present a false image to turn them on...they'd be deceived while having sex with you...not sure if this makes me neurotic or a non-sociopath.

John Craig said...

Steven --
He's wandered into a few clubs by himself when he's in a strange town and otherwise unoccupied.

He's gotten some phone numbers, but said he generally hasn't followed through, mostly because of circumstance.

I never lied to girls when I was young, though in retrospect it wouldn't have hurt to be a little dishonest occasionally. I'm both neurotic and a non-sociopath. The guy in this post is not a sociopath, but he's also definitely not neurotic. He's a big, strong guy who's also quick-witted, but his defining feature seems to be self-confidence.

Steven said...

Those books you wrote as Nick Casanova, do they recommend stuff like that? I don't know anything about them but I don't see how you have a Machiavellian guide without it involving dishonesty and manipulation, which sounds a bit sociopathic. I always meant to ask you about this. Again I know nothing about those books.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The first one, The Machiavallian's Guide to Womanizing, definitely recommends lying, but I wrote that back when I was 28, mostly for humorous effect (it contained some good advice, but also a lot of stuff that was just meant to be finn). I got it published when I was 40, and that was the least frustrating thing that ever happened to me in publishing. The other three books I just self-published, they are more serious and less humorously oriented (though i think they're still drily funny), they don't exactly recommend lying, it's more just what type of thing to say in what type of situation.