@Guarod

How can I hire escorts safely and learn from them?

I’m 27, male AND a virgin - so I’m not getting younger. How did this happen? That’s for me to know and for everyone else not to.

For literally FOUR YEARS I’ve been trying to date the normal way. I never made it to the bedroom even once because even at 23, women bailed when they learnt I was still a virgin. My reputation spread across town and now I’m basically known as “the loser virgin guy who tries his luck with all the women.” Needless to say, I’ve been mocked every week for these four years. There’s no coming back from that here, so I’m forced to move.

I’d rather not have another four years like this in my new state. So I’m thinking of hiring escorts in some place where it is legal. How can I do it safely without worrying too much about diseases? I’m mostly worried about hepatitis and all the ones that can bypass condoms.

I’ve had some CUTE women into me until they learned I was a virgin, so I know now I have to take extreme measures. I’m not dead yet, so I still have time to start a family and all that. I’m just taking a shortcut to get up to speed. I ask again, HOW TO AVOID STD’S?

Consider investing into a reliable ready reference you can pick up and study to better prepare yourself for engaging the opposite sex. I'd suggest that you get yourself a copy of Doc Love's "The System: The Dating Dictionary". Doc Love, who until his passing was also known as Tom Hodges, wrote a weekly advice column that's archive is mirrored on several mens focused sites and a podcast. His media is a bit pricey, but it's a solid foundation a guy can branch out from in RP aware circles. I'd suggest you review his advice column to decide if his view on dating and relationships is aligned with what you aspire for yourself. To save yourself a search, give this scribed link a gander to find out if his book is something you'd like to add to your library. It should also be available on libgen.

@Durek_The_Bald

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain. It will be necessarily schematic, but here goes.

There is evidence from neurobiology that women and men are indeed different. It's qualitative, it's not that men are more of this or that. What it basically comes down to is that women process things differently, and have a real problem discerning thoughts from emotions and themselves from others. Therein comes the "connectedness" of the female collective.

The whole of humanist philosophy supposed an agentic individual, a core self. Women lack that. In that regard, recent feminist literature is quite revealing: they don't talk about a "self" at all, they talk about a "relational being". At the same time, they do away with being altogether, equating "doing" with "being". A performative existence is the highest a woman can do. Of course they don't put it that way, that would put them in disadvantage. No, they posit that everyone is performative. Lacking a core in their psyche themselves they suppose that there is not one there in others. (That's a typical psychopathic trait, btw).

What it comes down to is that women lack the notion of notions itself. You can't put them down. They are ethereal beings living in a cloud, or something. "You can't trust them for anything", as Esther Vilar concluded.

A snapshot of a particular woman or of women in general, can tell otherwise, but that's because it is a snapshot. See them in motion, see them shape-shift.

It's no wonder, then, that they fail to take responsibility. This is another basic tenet of humanism.

So, humanism was based on a male view of humans. It respects the human being, provided it's a full human being - while making concessions for our unlucky fellow-humams born with inferior mental qualities. It just, at some point, made the assumption that women fully participate in its perception of humanity. That's explicitly not what early humanists thought (e.g. Kant, and it can go back to older philosophers).

Now, regarding the discussion about children, custody etc... it's not about traditionalism vs feminism. I believe that men should take full custody by default, as was the case a century ago. But drawing the political implications of my arguments about female nature is not the point: we are as far from puting them in practice as humanity has ever been. Humanity will rather self-destruct than acknowledge each other's humanity.

I propose this line of thinking, which is imo scientifically sound, as a way to navigate today's dynamics: Arguments with your wife, with your female coworkers, women you game, etc. It's a philosophical device in order to survive in today's misandry. And it is protective of the children: it highlights the absolute necessity of a father in their life, and the grave danger they are in, in his absence.

Again, these are probably too many words but not nearly enough, I don't know if this makes any sense to you.