You brought your homely wife into it, not me. You are the one that said her parents had to pay you to screw her, not me. Like I said before, I understand why you are so bitter now and I still feel sorry for you. No apologies were needed, but I will accept it nonetheless.
How much weed is a blowjob worth?
- Thread starter hiluxphantom
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
as you can see, i am only being paid to screw my wife if you accept bricktop's "john logic", a logic which i fully reject.
this may help you:
this may help you as well:
best of luck in life.
BTs' logic beats the logic of a bitter old man like yours any day. The topic was blowjobs, not homely wives. Maybe you should use that phonics thing yourself. I realize that you can't help yourself though.as you can see, i am only being paid to screw my wife if you accept bricktop's "john logic", a logic which i fully reject.
this may help you:
this may help you as well:
best of luck in life.
Also you can keep your homely wifes' puss cream. Her parents may need it to lube you again, lol.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
bitter old man? i'm 28, you rube.
so, i assume you also have to pay women to suck you dick?
i wouldn't be surprised.
potpimp
Sector 5 Moderator
Very well said, along with your previous post too. I finally saw the movie that had your EVIL namesake.
GREAT movie!! Feed the pikey to the pigs!Damn son. You got that bitter in only 28 years ? Just like you I buy the flowers etc so yes I pay for it, lol. Difference is I get head for the asking while you only get the "nookie" if you "rub her back".
If you don't like head or can't get it why are you in this thread ?
silent1966
Member
depends on where your at ,eastside 3 bucks lol
silent1966
Member
- depends on where your at ,eastside 3 bucks lol
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Have you seen the other? Lock, Stock &2 Smoking Barrels? I recommend. cnVery well said, along with your previous post too. I finally saw the movie that had your EVIL namesake.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...the slow-mo shot through the garden was awesome. You could almost feel the fan leaves lightly slapping your face.
potpimp
Sector 5 Moderator
I haven't but I'll get it. The wife is gone for a month and I've got nothing to do but play and smoke.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You do know, PJ, that you can't post nakedidity? cn
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
That's silly. I mean you have to be 18 to join this forum, and it's about a (mostly) illegal activity. Whatever though, I edited my post. Follow the link for fun.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my wife bought me dinner tonight. then she banged me. guess that makes ME a whore now. i feel so dirty.
and i am not your "son". unlike you, my father is literate.
for your edification, you may be mistaking bitterness with impatience in the face of an illiterate troll.
potpimp
Sector 5 Moderator
No, seriously, nudity is against the forum rules. As a moderator I'm asking you to please remove it before the admin does.
You are the troll in this case. The only reason you even came to this thread was to try and troll Bricktop. Over and over we see you posting non relevant BS just to start an arguement with him. Too bad your father did not pass down some of that literacy to you. Can he spell "blow job"? Here you are again telling us about how you got "banged". Poor little guy is still too shy to ask her for a BJ? Maybe you are afraid the cash cow will walk away? No one gives a shit that you are a bought bitter man. For the last time >The topic is BJ's. Now go open up that hooked on phonics and learn how to read boy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you had a point?
reading back on this thread, it seemed like your whole point was simply to insult me.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Can't remember if I responded to this thread or not, but I have three comments.
-First of all, its pretty simple. Both blow-jobs and weed are commodities; each has a particular value in a given market. The weed will vary in cost depending on where you are located and how good it is. The blow jobs will also vary in cost depending on where you are, whose giving it, and lets face it. . .how ugly you are! So, you can just do the math. If the particular BJ in question is worth $100, and your weed is worth $400/oz, well, that's a quarter ounce BJ! Yeah, there is a little more complexity to it than that, but really, not that much more. Its a simple exchange of goods for a service. Remember, you can always trade the weed for cash, then use the cash for a BJ.
-Second, how much weed would *I* give for a BJ? Answer, I've never traded cash or drugs for sex, and I'm simply not a consumer of "retail" BJs. Since that's just not a transaction I'm going to participate in, my answer is "zero". Could there EVER be a situation where I might do this? Maybe. . .though I can't think of any realistic one and don't want to speculate.
-Now the more interesting bit, on Brick-Tops' comment that you always pay for sex. Again, with the caveat that I think consenting adults *should* be allowed to trade money for sex, if they so choose, my response is that his comment is pretty typical of what consumers of prostitution say: "Since all I want is the sex, I might as well just pay for that". Usually this kind of thing is coming from a man who is divorced or has some other history of failed relationships with women, and that's part of the mindset here.
Fair enough, and again, if trading cash for sex makes you happy, good for you. But how does this mentality apply to individuals who want. . .and get. . .more out of a relationship than just sex? Love, companionship, trust, raising a family unit, intimacy. . .these are basic human desires, and how do they fall into the "You're just paying for sex indirectly" scheme? Here's an example.
I was involved in a relationship with a woman for several years when I was in school. She had a well paying job, and as a student, I was typically broke. She had her place, I had my place, and there was simply no mathematical way I could have put more money into that relationship than she did. So since her cash output was higher than mine, is it fair to say she was paying ME for sex? I was just a "kept man"?
If I paid for dinner, and then we had sex, she was the whore, but if she paid for dinner and then we had sex, I was the whore? What if we split the tab 50-50 and then we had sex? Where we BOTH whores, or were neither one of us whores that night?
My current SO has her own job. Sure, I earn a lot more money than she does, and yes, I'm paying most of the bills. But would she walk out on me if I lost my job? I know she wouldn't. She'd pick up the slack to the best of her ability, and no, she wouldn't deny me sex. Would she then be paying ME for sex? (And why is it that I keep ending up a gigolo in these situations?
).
Answer, none of the above, and in my opinion this is a ridiculously shallow way of looking at any human relationship that has something OTHER than sex involved. Of course, EVERY relationship has costs, and necessarily SOMEONE is going to pick up those costs. By mathematical probability, its pretty likely (if not an outright necessity) that the costs won't be perfectly evenly divided, and therefore one party will be "paying" more. But I still don't see how its fair to equate unequal financial contributions as paying for sex, especially if the sex would still happen regardless of who was bearing the dollar costs!
Also, as a matter of pure economics, if you're living with someone there is an economy of scale. . .since you're sharing rent, food, electricity, insurance, and many other household costs, each one of you can potentially live at a LOWER cost than doing it by yourself. Sharing household labor and expenses means that the standard of living goes up for the BOTH of you. So in that case, what is the "cost" of the sex? If you're looking at this as a purely financial transaction, the sex is "FREE". Not only doesn't it cost you anything out of pocket, being in a relationship like that saves you money on net!
Bottom line, I believe its possible to have sex with someone without paying for it, directly OR indirectly.
No, in reality plenty of relationships don't work that way, but certainly at least some of them do!
-First of all, its pretty simple. Both blow-jobs and weed are commodities; each has a particular value in a given market. The weed will vary in cost depending on where you are located and how good it is. The blow jobs will also vary in cost depending on where you are, whose giving it, and lets face it. . .how ugly you are! So, you can just do the math. If the particular BJ in question is worth $100, and your weed is worth $400/oz, well, that's a quarter ounce BJ! Yeah, there is a little more complexity to it than that, but really, not that much more. Its a simple exchange of goods for a service. Remember, you can always trade the weed for cash, then use the cash for a BJ.
-Second, how much weed would *I* give for a BJ? Answer, I've never traded cash or drugs for sex, and I'm simply not a consumer of "retail" BJs. Since that's just not a transaction I'm going to participate in, my answer is "zero". Could there EVER be a situation where I might do this? Maybe. . .though I can't think of any realistic one and don't want to speculate.
-Now the more interesting bit, on Brick-Tops' comment that you always pay for sex. Again, with the caveat that I think consenting adults *should* be allowed to trade money for sex, if they so choose, my response is that his comment is pretty typical of what consumers of prostitution say: "Since all I want is the sex, I might as well just pay for that". Usually this kind of thing is coming from a man who is divorced or has some other history of failed relationships with women, and that's part of the mindset here.
Fair enough, and again, if trading cash for sex makes you happy, good for you. But how does this mentality apply to individuals who want. . .and get. . .more out of a relationship than just sex? Love, companionship, trust, raising a family unit, intimacy. . .these are basic human desires, and how do they fall into the "You're just paying for sex indirectly" scheme? Here's an example.
I was involved in a relationship with a woman for several years when I was in school. She had a well paying job, and as a student, I was typically broke. She had her place, I had my place, and there was simply no mathematical way I could have put more money into that relationship than she did. So since her cash output was higher than mine, is it fair to say she was paying ME for sex? I was just a "kept man"?
If I paid for dinner, and then we had sex, she was the whore, but if she paid for dinner and then we had sex, I was the whore? What if we split the tab 50-50 and then we had sex? Where we BOTH whores, or were neither one of us whores that night?
My current SO has her own job. Sure, I earn a lot more money than she does, and yes, I'm paying most of the bills. But would she walk out on me if I lost my job? I know she wouldn't. She'd pick up the slack to the best of her ability, and no, she wouldn't deny me sex. Would she then be paying ME for sex? (And why is it that I keep ending up a gigolo in these situations?
).Answer, none of the above, and in my opinion this is a ridiculously shallow way of looking at any human relationship that has something OTHER than sex involved. Of course, EVERY relationship has costs, and necessarily SOMEONE is going to pick up those costs. By mathematical probability, its pretty likely (if not an outright necessity) that the costs won't be perfectly evenly divided, and therefore one party will be "paying" more. But I still don't see how its fair to equate unequal financial contributions as paying for sex, especially if the sex would still happen regardless of who was bearing the dollar costs!
Also, as a matter of pure economics, if you're living with someone there is an economy of scale. . .since you're sharing rent, food, electricity, insurance, and many other household costs, each one of you can potentially live at a LOWER cost than doing it by yourself. Sharing household labor and expenses means that the standard of living goes up for the BOTH of you. So in that case, what is the "cost" of the sex? If you're looking at this as a purely financial transaction, the sex is "FREE". Not only doesn't it cost you anything out of pocket, being in a relationship like that saves you money on net!
Bottom line, I believe its possible to have sex with someone without paying for it, directly OR indirectly.
No, in reality plenty of relationships don't work that way, but certainly at least some of them do!