Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Savage Love Letter of the Day


That is, until you fall into an SPD sting....

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 12:37 PM

You could always let him know that Denver sucks. He needs to know that.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Wrong. Denver is great. A little small, but great anyway.

Posted by PdxRitchie | January 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Lordy, wait until gay men hear about this hooking up for sex over the internet!

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 21, 2008 1:01 PM

I thought Mistress Matisse said in a recent column that the whole "meeting people" thing was not typically done (or at least, not done by her or anyone she knows). I wonder how common it is for a hooker to meet for coffee beforehand, as this guy is suggesting...

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 1:03 PM

@5: Maybe it's a Denver thing. Though I was also surprised when Matisse said she didn't do it - I would have thought that a pre-contract meeting would be as important for hookers and doms as it is for caterers, decorators, DJs, etc. Plus the added bonus for the woman of being able to rule out (some of) the creeps.

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 1:12 PM

it sounds so awesome! if only all women were whores, what a perfect world it would be.

Posted by max solomon | January 21, 2008 1:21 PM

@7: What an exponentially more wonderful world it would be, max, if you'd just go ahead and fuck yourself :)

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM

@7, my ex-boyfriend must live in the most perfect of worlds, then.

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM

@7: I'll agree that things would be better with more professionals, but a world without any volunteers in it would eventually fall apart.

Posted by saxfanatic | January 21, 2008 1:35 PM

@7, (and 8, 9, 10)...Just include dinner, a movie, marriage, divorce (just about anything besides sex that happens between a man and a woman) and you're pretty close to your perfect world. Men all pay for it in one form or another.

Posted by banna | January 21, 2008 1:42 PM

@11: I make significantly more money than my boyfriend. We share equally. What now?

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 1:49 PM

I guess that's the one thing I'm starting to appreciate from this androgenous scientists lifestyle ... a lot less wear and tear on the heart, wallet, mind, and body. The lack of intamacy can wear you down ... but then there are people like my boss who remind you why you don't play desperate.

He went without ANY sort of relationship for the better part of a decade, if not more. Then met a woman (who was quite the very heavy non looker). Dated, fell in love, married, divorced and got taken to the fucking cleaners (about 200,000 worth in order to avoid alimony) all in a span of 3 and a MAYBE a half years. All the man wanted was an opportunity for companionship and perhaps have a family.

I'm not saying ALL stories are this way ... but I'm starting to believe they are more common than not. And the total cynic in me believes that if he just hired a protistute, he would have gotten someone prettier, nicer, and cheaper ...

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 1:51 PM
@11: I make significantly more money than my boyfriend. We share equally. What now?

Well, clearly, you suck at negotiation.

Posted by lol | January 21, 2008 1:52 PM

Having been through the whole marriage thing - including the divorce - I can definitely testify that hookers are a lot cheaper.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 21, 2008 1:53 PM

Ha, yeah, ditto Lauren. I make 3x what my partner makes. banna's time machine must have broken, rendering him unable to return to the 1950s.

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 1:55 PM

@14: Ha! Yeah, I should've gotten some domestic slavery out of the deal or something. I mean, come on--it's pretty unreasonable that two partnered people should actually treat each other as equals...

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 2:01 PM

@12, 16 No one ever said it was only a cash payment. Sounds like your sos' had to trade you their balls.

Posted by banna | January 21, 2008 2:04 PM

@1: Yup. Do these web sites tell you which ads are cops?

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 2:07 PM

@18: Please elaborate. What makes you think that my boyfriend's crotch isn't intact?

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 2:09 PM

I'm sure it's a box on your nightstand.

Posted by banna | January 21, 2008 2:12 PM

Funny ... the ironic thing is, I seem to know quite a few very very happy couples where the salary earners are the females. My father is one as a matter of fact. Step mom does very very well for herself. Maybe it's the fact that money is obviously NOT what drives the relationship and keeps them togethor. That they actually value each other for who they are.

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 2:14 PM

@21: So no rational points, then? Fair enough.

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 2:16 PM

Oh, the 1950s hilarity continues! Men pay for everything! Women who have opinions or make alot of money must be stealing the balls of their menfolk during the night! You kill me! Do go on!

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 2:16 PM

OR Matt, you make way too much sense. Your attitude about people valuing each other for who they is clearly from the modern era, and is not making me laugh.

More jokes about ball-busting women, please!

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 2:21 PM

@7: apparently, the sarcasm didn't come across too clearly for someone making significantly more than her BF, so i'll pretend you didn't tell me to fuck off.

Posted by max solomon | January 21, 2008 2:25 PM

@26: Eh, I figured it could go either way, but I couldn't resist the play on words. Thought the emoticon might make it clear that the statement was made in jest.

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 2:33 PM

@26 She just wanted to bust your balls a little.

Posted by banna | January 21, 2008 2:34 PM

Hey ... men get married expecting things to stay the same. Women get married to change everything.

As a guy, we may not always be the most loyal, the most affectionate, and the most sensitive. But we at least accept the person we are with for who they are not and don't try to change them ...

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 2:37 PM

All women are whores...

Dating is nothing more than a negotiation of price.

In this society, pussy is currency, and women know it.

Posted by ecce homo | January 21, 2008 2:43 PM

Anyone (male or female) with any wealth who gets married without getting a prenup is an idiot and deserves to get taken to the cleaners.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 21, 2008 2:44 PM



Posted by Reality Check | January 21, 2008 2:49 PM


I'll go one step further... any man who gets married in this day and age with the American marriage/divorce/alimony laws in place, is a FOOL.

Marriage does nothing for a man, except satisfy his parent's needs for the "perfect" story...

Marriage is a sham invented by women to ensure that they have Vaginamony available to them should things go south. Marriage does not protect the man in any fashion. Not being married at least protects men without children from getting screwed by some divorce lawyer and the state to "provide" for the barefoot needy woman he leaves behind. Has anyone ever heard of a man winning alimony in divorce court? Ever? I'm speaking of on going continuous payments that a woman has to pay a man for no longer being with him.

Sounds kinda funny no?

Posted by Reality Check | January 21, 2008 2:53 PM

@33 ...

As far as a man winning alimony ... that's Kevin Federline. Congratulations Kevin Federline ... you have made the male race proud ...uhm I guess ... I half joke about this. But you may think guy is kind of a douche by Darwin's standards, he wins! I mean, what the hell is modern man supposed to do with that?

As far as marriage being a sham designed by women. Actually it was designed by men, maybe we are recieving justice from the deal. By locking women in the closet until they are of age and exchanging them for property, a man can garantee that he and he alone was knocking his wife up.

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 3:01 PM

Hmm, interesting letter.

I worked as a dispatcher for a year for a top escort agency, then I worked as a freelancer for independent SPs (service providers) for another year, and this guy’s comments are very familiar… I used to write things like that all the time on the escort review boards while posing as satisfied customers.

In my two years working in the sex trade industry, I met and spent a lot of time with about 100 escorts, and while yes, a few of them were professionals or in school, none of them enjoyed being escorts, none of them enjoyed their customers, none of them EVER cummed, and none of them would ever meet a guy for a get-to-know you session, even for their regular rates.

They HATED selling their bodies for sex, and they passionately, violently hated their johns. They didn’t prefer older guys, because younger guys cummed faster, tipped better and looked better, the only three things they looked forward to from a session.

We used to sit around laughing about how their customers always thought they cummed: the girls hated conversation and hated DATY (dining at the ‘Y’), because having to pretend to enjoy their time with the guys made them feel more used than being used physically did.

They didn’t want conversation or cuddling; even when they advertised ‘GFE’ (Girlfriend Experience), they tried their best to get customers off and out the door as fast as possible, because they hated having to spend time pretending to like the guys and enjoy their company. They thought guys who wanted non-sexual and emotional intimacy were creepy (unless they were also marks who could be taken for big tips), and the girls often called me about guys like that and asked me never to book them again.

On numerous occasions I tried to find girls who’d fulfill a request from a guy to just come and sit on the sofa with him and talk, but they’d rather have taken $25 for a 15 minute blow job than have to spend an hour pretending to be interested in a john for $300.

While most of the girls were clean when they started hooking, almost none of them lasted a year without turning to drugs. Many times I met a new girl and thought, ‘She’s sensible, she’ll stay clean, she’s got goals and she’s just going to get in and out with as much cash as possible,’ but they always ended up meth or crack heads in the end.

Even after my experiences (which didn’t include being an SP myself), I fully support the free exchange of sex for money or other goods and services – but I have yet to meet one girl who didn’t hate doing it.

As for the letter writer? Well, I’ve probably bumped into him at PERB (Pacific Escort Review Boards). In fact, I probably used to work for him.

Posted by BadBadLeroyBrown | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM

Sorry ... I really need to proof better. Busting my ass in lab all weekend trying to graduate ... shit. but let's try again and then get coffee

But you may think guy is kind of a douche, BUT by Darwin's standards, he wins! I mean, what the hell is modern man supposed to do with that?

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 3:04 PM

Where I said 'looked better' above - I should have said 'smelled better'.

Posted by BadBadLeroyBrown | January 21, 2008 3:08 PM

Where did all the equally-partnered women who made more than their boyfriends go to in this discussion?

Posted by flate | January 21, 2008 3:13 PM

I can assure you that my balls are perfectly intact.

Posted by T-diddle-dawg-do | January 21, 2008 3:19 PM

Reality check,

I know two women who pay alimony to an ex. More guys do it, but it happens both ways. Happens more often to women who earn more money, oddly enough.

Posted by actuary | January 21, 2008 3:20 PM

@35: Wow... Thanks for those insights. The life of a prostitute always seemed so scary to me. Maybe 99% of your clients are just horny men, but what about the small percentage who hated women and were looking for someone to take those feelings out on, ala Jack the Ripper? I'm sure there are systems in place to protect the women to a certain extent, but there's no guarantee of protection.

When I was 17, I had a roommate who was a stripper. While I pulled long shifts serving tourists fried oysters, she worked 20 hours a week and still made more than me. I was really kinda jealous, until she started to come home crying. And until she started blowing *all* her money on... blow. Oh yeah, and then our landlord made her bathe naked for him because we were behind on rent. He never asked me to do anything like that, but I guess because she was a stripper she might as well have been a whore in his eyes. At that point I was thankful that I'd been too young to go in and apply for that "easy" money job.

@38: I've been thinking about 35's comments, and thanking T-diddle-dawg-do for being such an awesome specimen of man. (What wonderful balls he has, too. I'd protect them with my life.)

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 3:39 PM

@41: Did you make 39 join the discussion to say that?

Posted by addle my paddle | January 21, 2008 3:46 PM


On average, women are worse off financially after divorce than men, but, please, continue on with your whining.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 21, 2008 3:49 PM

@38... I've been busy at my job. Bringing home the bacon. So my partner can sit at home and eat bon-bons and watch soap operas all day. There better be a hot meal waiting for me when I get home, or that bastard's gonna get it.

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 3:54 PM

@43 everyone is worse off financially after a divorce. (except the lawyers)

Posted by banna | January 21, 2008 3:55 PM


I'm not so sure I buy that as much anymore. If there is children involved, then yes I would tend to agree. I would especially agree that they aren't financially independent, which may not be the same thing.

But there are worse things than financial burdens when it comes to a divorce. Most notably when the parents litteraly try to eject each others influences out of their childrens lives ... and with the way the laws are designed the mother damn near always wins.

My friends boyfriend can't do anything about the fact that her boyfriend's psychotic x-wife let's his son drive around with psychotic x-wife's rommate. Who by the way has a suspended liscence, multiple DWIs and wanted in the state of Washington for some felony.

Thank you Nebraska (and most states in this country) for saying men are better suited for paying child support than being care providers.

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 4:06 PM

@42: Actually, I hesitated to send him the link when he asked for it. He's a fairly private person and I was worried that me talking about his balls on a public forum might have made him uncomfortable. Guess not.

Posted by Lauren | January 21, 2008 4:09 PM


I'm talking about statistics from a study published last year. Whether you "buy" into it isn't really an issue.

There are plenty of mothers who don't like the company that their ex-husbands keep. They generally can't do anything about it either. Additionally, virtually all fathers who ask for joint custody get it. The trick is to let the judge know that you want it and to state your case for it.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 21, 2008 4:23 PM

I'd also like to observe that it's those men who have nothing to offer women who accuse all women of being whores, and who can't get any attention from women without payment for services rendered.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 21, 2008 4:25 PM

She actually threatened to take away my lunch money if I didn't comment and say that I had balls, but I sure that smart folks like you have already guessed the sad eunuch truth.

Posted by T-diddle-dawg-do | January 21, 2008 4:25 PM

@49 So the only people who accuse women of quid pro quo are the ones who aren't offering anything in trade?

Posted by dojo | January 21, 2008 4:27 PM



Posted by max solomon | January 21, 2008 4:39 PM

Or, to put it another way, @51... If you have no redeeming qualities as a person, and all you have to offer is your money, you're probably only going to attract women who care about your money.

Posted by Julie | January 21, 2008 4:41 PM

@53 That doesn't narrow it down at all.

Posted by dojo | January 21, 2008 4:46 PM

joint custody and father's rights can get a little weird in hick states. Oregon happens to one of them surprisingly. Oregon I think has a joint custody with a but ... the but is that there is a primary care provider who makes all decissions at the end of the day. Family law just sucks in general, and the courts these days are getting CLOGGED with broken families that even further fragmented when jobs drive them to far away states.

In my friends boyfriends case, he was seeking to get his child out of a very dangerous situation. To which the judge, who may have been sympathetic, had to adhere to archaic presedents. The x-wife is a fricken psycho ... who has contacted ME, told me she was pregnant with my friend's boyfriends baby (miracle pregnancy since she had a historectomy) to try to break up my friends relationship!

As far as alimony goes ... I have no clue how much my step dad pays in alimony to "maintain the previous standard of living" ... but damn. But I don't expect that to be the norm either.

I'm not going to say all women are malicious ass holes and are simply out for our money. But as far as male rights ...

I guess as a male, don't be niave, you're amount of rights are minimal, and you are still expected to pay ... and be careful who you share a bed with. Avoid the self centered commitment hungry women who are in love with the "ideal relationship" and not the person who you happen to be.

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Boo hoo! Relationships take work, buddy. When a guy gets married and expects a mommy (someone to cook and clean for him) plus sex, that isn't going to make for a lasting relationship these days. The sad fucking thing is that women are still socialized that they can change men and make them grow up into that equal partner, instead of realizing that if he's fucking infantile when they get married, he isn't going to change.

Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 21, 2008 5:15 PM

I think marriage and divorce paid pretty well for K-Fed, at Brittney's expense.

Posted by Mahtli69 | January 21, 2008 5:22 PM

@56 ...

Thank you very much! I couldn't agree with you more. There are some guys that cook and clean just fine on our own ... and why the hell not. Time for fun when the chores are done. Besides I'm a better cook anyways.

Posted by OR Matt | January 21, 2008 5:23 PM

@15 is right. I can cook and clean myself, thanks. Why on earth would I get married? Just to experience the miserable, resentment-filled, utterly sexless hell that most of my married friends live in? If and when I can't get laid for free - or when it just doesn't seem worth the effort - I'd be better off with hookers.

Posted by whatever | January 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Sounds like everybody here's pretty stoked about getting married. I can tell that you're all just waiting for the opportunity.

Posted by Greg | January 21, 2008 9:32 PM

I've been happily married for over fifteen years, have mindtoastingly good sex maybe once a week (less than I would like, but more than I would if I were single).

It takes a lot of work. Inga and I saw a marriage counselor for while there- after kid #2 we weren't paying each other a lot of attention. But in the end it all worked out.

Sorry I don't have any misogynistic rants to add to this thread. Thought I would add one data point in the otherwise empty "married, monogamous, and happy" column.

Posted by Big Sven | January 21, 2008 10:21 PM

I'll add to the slog post derailment...there's a few women on the deadbeat list on the child support websites and if you want to test a guy's machoism, try leaving him with the kids and move out of state. Money doesn't mean anything when there's kids involved, he'd LOVE her to make more money in that case.

Posted by myXisMrMom | January 22, 2008 12:59 AM

Thanks for reminding me how blindly women-hating many men are. As a lesbian I forget about that. I am now re-scared to death of men. How am I to know when I have an inocuous interaction whether or not it's with a man who is a reasonable human or a hate-filled time bomb (and yes, that's how a number of you sound.) Oh right - I can't know in advance! And you're still bigger and stronger than I am. How many of these statistics have you created? I know, I know: It doesn't matter, because as you've made clear, those bitches had that shit coming. At least your balls are secure.

Now go ahead and tell me all about how hate and violence aren't related. I'll especially enjoy the part where you do end up blaming the women anyway.

Posted by greendyke | January 22, 2008 5:14 AM

Right 63, because if anyone has an opinion about the way men are mistreated in the courts or how women use sex as currency, they must automatically be physically abusive, because any opinion that differs from your is automatically hateful.

Posted by flin | January 22, 2008 6:10 AM

@64: Did you miss the part where all women were whores? I find that to be pretty hateful--if you don't, it's probably because you are a man and the comments weren't directed at your gender.

Apologies in advance if you're actually a woman and just happen to love being objectified/belittled. It's not my kink, but hey, no judgment.

Posted by Lauren | January 22, 2008 7:46 AM
Thanks for reminding me how blindly women-hating many men are. As a lesbian I forget about that. I am now re-scared to death of men.

Oh, get the fuck over it. If you can read a desire to assault/rape/whatever into what's been said here, you'll read it into anything, just because that's clearly what you're looking to hear.

Posted by waaaah | January 22, 2008 9:58 AM

waaaah@66, if you think that having an antagonist attitude towards women isn't related to violence against women, then you are a fucking retard.

Posted by Big Sven | January 22, 2008 10:56 AM

Big Sven @61... you're not alone, though we don't have 15 years yet. We're happy and have a shitload of fun together. Marriage isn't all misery and resentment, though, obviously it's not all rainbows and kittens either.

Posted by Julie | January 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).