Nov 192012

In the aftermath of super storm Sandy, there have been plenty of cases of women trading sex for gas.  (Craigslist has facilitated this and documents that this is actually happening.)

Most people think that this is a situation unique to the aftermath of a major natural disaster.  I disagree because I think we will see more of this in the future.  It’s not because of natural disasters or civilization collapsing.  It’s because female employment will collapse.  Many women are directly employed by government, employed by quasi-governmental entities like universities, or employed because of government policies (i.e. affirmative action).  These women aren’t doing any real work.  With the fiscal cliff potentially arriving or just the money running out for government in general, these women’s jobs are in jeopardy. The government (and private businesses) will be not be able to afford to keep women who contribute nothing to productivity.

What is going to happen to these women?  They will lose their jobs and not be able to find another one because jobs like HVAC, climbing to the top of 1700 foot tall transmission towers to repair them, and rebuilding after natural disasters require someone to do real work which means only men will do them.  Government welfare won’t be much of an option since the same financial problems that killed their jobs will also prevent sufficient welfare spending for them.  That leaves prostitution as these women’s only option, a lot of it will probably involve barter (i.e. trading sex for gas).

  8 Responses to “Trading Sex For Gas”

  1. I really, really hope this is the case but I’m afraid the status quo in government is going to continue propping up the female jobs and punishing private businesses that don’t.

  2. Just remember to secretly record all dealings when buying your hour of fun, just in case she tries to squeeze a little more gas money out of you…

    • That, but also BEFORE the “festivities”, make sure she “sexts” you, incl. coochie pix, with VERY EXPLICIT and nasty details of exactly what she’s offering. Then back it ALL up to the cloud. “Amateurs” can be the most problematic, but “documentation” will reduce probability of FRA to 0.

      Yes, guys are wise to prevent STDs and pregnancies (real and otherwise), but a False Rape Allegation has the potential to mess you up even worse. Pre-empt that most vile weapon of the femi-Komms. (Remember, “rape” usually means “my live-in BF found out I traded gash for gas, and I had to save face”. [roll]

  3. My buddy was just down in Miami; he reports that women would hit on you, per normal, in the club, only to ask for $200 for sex. It reminds of the case in Eastern Europe that Roosh mentioned, only these women aren’t targetting trourists (presumably – maybe they could tell, but i doubt it).

  4. Gas for A$$ was the right title for this blogpost..

  5. I see three examples of men offering gas in return for sex. I see exactly zero documented, or even reasonably inferred, cases of women trading sex for gas.

    The market price of a thing isn’t the first *asking* price you happen to hear about. Some fool can ask for the moon if he wants. That doesn’t mean anybody’s actually paying it. Sure, they may be. I’m certainly not convinced they aren’t. But that article doesn’t give me any reason to believe they are.

    Just because feminists and other lefties make shit up and believe it without evidence, doesn’t mean we have to.

  6. (Excerpt from “Can a Government Run Out of Money? Part 1, from Business Insider:

    “Can a sovereign government run out of money? No. Indeed, a sovereign government neither has nor does not have money. The money government uses to spend is created as it spends. That might sound bizarre or even dangerous. But, in fact, on that score it is not so different from any other spender.

    Look at it this way. As economists who adopt the (French-Italian) “Circuit” approach have long argued, when a firm wants to spend it approaches a bank. The bank accepts the firm’s IOU (called a loan on the bank’s balance sheet) and creates its own IOU (in the form of a demand deposit). From the firm’s perspective, the loan is its debt and the demand deposit is its asset. The bank “intermediates” because its IOU (the demand deposit) is more widely accepted in payment than is the firm’s IOU. Of course, the firm is not going to hold the demand deposit since the whole object of borrowing was to spend. The demand deposit will then get shifted to the seller. Now, it is of course possible for the firm to finance its spending by using a sales receipt—a credit to its demand deposit and matched by a debit to the seller’s account. But at the aggregate level, all the demand deposits were created as the accounting offset to loans. In other words, sales receipts in the form of demand deposits required some previous bank loan.

    At the aggregate level, bank “money” is created and therefore equal to bank loans—that is where bank money comes from. Can the bank “run out of money”? No. It creates the money when it makes a loan; and the purpose of this activity is to finance some kind of spending—on goods, services or assets. Can this money creation be “excessive” in the sense of causing prices to rise? Yes. Can it be “speculative” in the sense that it helps to fuel an asset price bubble? Yes. Can it be “foolish” in the sense that the borrower defaults and the bank ends up holding a worthless IOU? Yes. Can bank lending and thus money creation be constrained by government regulations and supervision? Yes. Finally, can—and should—the bank exercise self-restraint? Yes. So, just because we say the bank can always create money “out of thin air” by making a loan and creating a demand deposit that does not mean that it should lend “until the cows come home”, or that it does not face regulatory or self-imposed constraints. Ultimately, good banking practice requires good underwriting—to ensure it does not end up with too many trashy IOUs; and from the macro perspective, government wants to limit bank “money creation” to finance spending in order to prevent inflationary conditions in markets for goods, services and assets.

    Almost everything that has been said above about the finance of the spending of a private firm applies to a government. Government spending occurs simultaneously with a credit to a private bank account—that is to a demand deposit at a bank. The offsetting liability on the government’s books is a credit to the bank’s reserves at the central bank (which is the “private” bank’s asset). The government cannot “run out of money” because the “money” is created when it spends.”


    (Quoted from CNBC, “Can the Treasury Department really Run Out of Money?:

    “The White House insists the U.S. government will not be able to stay current on all of its obligations as of Aug. 2 unless the debt ceiling is raised.

    But can the government of the United States ever really run out of money?

    …When the government writes a check, it goes to whomever is getting paid. The payee then deposits it in its own bank account. The bank then submits it to the Federal Reserve for clearing.

    So far, that’s just pretty much the same thing that happens when anyone else writes a check. Except for something very strange—the Obama administration seems to be insisting the Federal Reserve would not allow the U.S. Treasury Department to overdraw its account.

    …In truth, the Obama administration is either fibbing or misunderstanding the financial system. The United States almost certainly enjoys unlimited overdraft protection from the Federal Reserve because there is almost zero chance the Federal Reserve would ever bounce a check written by the U.S. government.

    Think about it. The check comes into the Federal Reserve. It looks at the U.S. government balance and discovers that we’re at zero. What does the Federal Reserve do?

    I’m pretty sure the Federal Reserve would go ahead and credit the bank submitting the check with the deposit to account for the fund transfer.

    …Notice that this would do something very odd. It would give the U.S. Treasury Department control of the money supply—something usually credited to the Fed. But by writing checks on an empty bank account, the Treasury would be inflating the money supply. It would be printing money to pay its bills, more or less. Monetizing its obligations, rather than borrowing or taxing to pay them.

    In order to keep inflation under control, the Fed would have to intervene to soak up the extra dollars by selling securities.

    So the Treasury cannot actually run out of money. It can only run out if it decides—that is, if Secretary Geithner and President Barack Obama choose—to stop writing checks sufficient to pay all of our obligations.”


    I doubt that this cycle can continue eternally, but it can continue for quite a while.

    Even in 2013, with the financial issues mentioned above going on, the government still endorses feminism.

    The government will most likely ALWAYS endorse feminism. And here is why:

    (Quoted from “Why Governments Love Feminism” by ‘Angry Harry’:

    “First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions – literally millions – of people nowadays have a vested interest – a vested interest that is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people operate.

    To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society – a somewhat idealised society – wherein the women are happy to spend their days being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace – wherever this might be.

    And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

    In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

    And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

    What’s in it for government?

    How can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

    On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

    Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund ‘more government’.

    However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

    And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

    Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way…

    …In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively, they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120 years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)”

    Feminism is the government’s resource-extraction machine, they’re not going to give it up. If the situation you predict is what women end up in, then the only person who gets the female vote will be the person who successfully remedies or prevents that situation; and with all of the power that the government has and is gaining, I’m pretty sure that they will. Because no one in government can afford to lose the female vote, since they are so dependent upon it. This is a big part of why the government is so concerned with pleasing women and making sure they get everything they want. It doesn’t look like that’s going to change very soon.
    Central governments have grown more than 100x over the last century, not shrunk. How much of this is due to women constantly handing them more power? A lot. And I don’t think they’re going to jeopardize that any time soon. The withdrawal of female support would result in the withdrawal of feminism, which would result in the government’s power decreasing. The government keeps the support of women by taking care of anything that inconveniences them, at whatever cost.

    At some point, it appears that this system will indeed collapse, but probably not in the manner you described, because what you described would probably cause a lot of problems for the government (see above paragraph), and they will do whatever is in their power (and they have a ton of power) to prevent it. This happening on a very large scale simply does not sound realistic when you know how much of a vested interest the government has in making sure that the needs of women are always met, and they have an almost infinite supply of power.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: