Paying for Companionship: Can Men Profit Too?

Brian Flanagan (Tom Cruise) is a bartender in Chicago, and Doug Coughlin (Bryan Brown) is his mentor, and Doug teaches Brian the ins and outs of pursuing women who are wealthy in the 1988 romantic drama, Cocktail

There is a popular saying that has been maintained for centuries that the “oldest profession in the world” is men paying women for their sexual companionship. To this day, prostitution is illegal in many cities across the globe, and particularly here in the United States. Only in the state of Nevada, in many cities and counties, is prostitution legal.

Do men really pay women for SEX? Or … Do men pay women to skip right to the sex?

I remember years ago, I was reading Playboy magazine that featured an interview with a top Hollywood actor (I have an idea of who it was, but since I am not 100% sure, I will not name anyone). This actor said something interesting. He said (paraphrasing a bit), “Most men do not really pay street prostitutes or professional Call Girls for sex. This is a common misnomer by the general public. What married men pay for is privacy and discretion. Basically, these men pay these women to keep quiet about their sex-on-the-side after the sex is over.  Even unmarried men do not really ‘pay for sex.’ What they pay for is the opportunity to engage in sexual relations with a woman without having to take her to dinner, without having to spend an hour or two talking about shit that they don’t really care about, and to avoid feeling obligated to ‘cuddle’ after the sex is over. These are the things that most clients of prostitutes and Call Girls are really paying women for.

Ever since my college days, I have listened to a number of women complain about men ‘using them just for sex.’ No argument from me. I know many men – including myself – whose singular motivation for conversing with women and socializing with women is to ultimately seduce them into having sex.  What separates men of high integrity from those with low integrity would be those who lie to women about their true desires, interests, and intentions and those who are upfront and straightforwardly honest with women regarding their true desires, interests, and intentions.

This is what led to me exhibiting what I now refer to as Mode One behavior. When a man verbally communicates to a woman in an upfront, specific, and straightforwardly honest manner that his top priority for talking to her is to ultimately have sex with her (either within the context of a long-term monogamous relationship, long-term non-monogamous relationship, short-term monogamous relationship, or short-term non-monogamous relationship), I would categorize that man’s interpersonal communication style as Mode One.  A Mode Two style of verbal communication with women is one that is more cautious, vague, and ambiguous (i.e., “beat-around-the-bush”), and a Mode Three style of verbal communication with women is one that is blatantly dishonest, disingenuous, and/or misleading.  I also have one more ‘mode’ … a Mode Four style of verbal communication with women, that is highlighted with undertones of anger, bitterness, resentment, and even hatefulness toward women.

“If all a man wants from me is sex, then he is going to have to pay for it.”  Well, what about women who only want NON-SEXUAL companionship from men?

Many women have maintained the attitude, “Well, if sex is the only thing a man wants from me … then he is going to have to pay for it!” Okay, fine. Here is the thing though: What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Speaking of my books, one of the reasons why I published The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly is to point out that many women ‘use’ men just like men ‘use’ women. The main difference is when women use men … it is usually not for their sexual companionship (the truth is, most men LOVE to be ‘used’ by women just for sex). Women more frequently use men for their NON-SEXUAL attention and companion, in addition to using men for their financial generosity and access to their material possessions.

One thing I have told male friends and clients for years is that men should place just as much value on their non-sexual, non-physical, purely platonic companionship as most women place on their sexual and romantic companionship. “Wait a minute Alan . . . are you saying that women should pay men for their platonic attention and companionship?” You’re damn right I am. As Gordon Gekko (Actor Michael Douglas) once said in the movie Wall Street, “Anything of value worth having is worth paying for.”

Recently, a good friend and up-and-coming podcast host, Mumia ‘Obsidian’ Ali and I were discussing this subject on his podcast program, along with a popular YouTube personality who provides a lot of opinion and commentary who goes by the name ‘Blackgnosticspeaks.’

At one point during the discussion, Blackgnosticspeaks offered the entertaining comment, “No man should allow himself to become so Beta that he essentially becomes a woman’s ‘bitch.’ But … if you’re going to allow yourself to become a woman’s bitch … then make her pay you for it.”

Speaking of the term ‘bitch,’ this is why many men use this term in the same manner that many women refer to men as ‘dogs.’  Both terms are viewed by each gender as being valid, despite being disparaging.  The labels go something like this:

A man who misleads women into believing that he is just as interested in that woman’s NON-SEXUAL companionship as he is in that woman’s sexual companionship … when in reality, this man really just wants access to that woman’s sexual companionship ONLY = what many women refer to as a ‘dog.’  (Personally, I simply refer to these men as ‘Lying Womanizers’)

A woman who misleads men into believing that she is just as interested in that man’s SEXUAL companionship as she is in that man’s non-sexual companionship … when in reality, this woman really just wants access to that man’s non-sexual companionship ONLY = what many men refer to as a ‘bitch.’  (Personally, I simply refer to these women as ‘Manipulative Timewasters’)

Now in fairness, there are many women who genuinely enjoy being nothing more than a man’s casual sex lover (or in more blunt slang terms, his “fuck buddy”). These women will not seek to obligate their designated male lovers to spend any significant amount of money on them in exchange for their non-monogamous sexual companionship. The social detriment for many of these women is that inevitably, they will be labeled as ‘sluts’ by other women and even many of the men who are familiar with them and their personal sex habits.

Similarly, there are many men who genuinely enjoy being nothing more than a woman’s purely platonic friend (a common nickname for men of this nature would be a woman’s ‘play brother’ or ‘male girlfriend’). Many of these men will even offer their female platonic friends free meals and other monetary favors and materialistic gifts. The social detriment for many of these men is that at some point, these men will be labeled as a ‘Beta male’, a ‘chump,’ and/or a ‘sucker’ by other men, and even a few of the women behind their backs.

Is it inappropriate or incredibly audacious for a man to charge a woman money for his platonic companionship?

Obsidian pointed out to me that there is a man in Japan known as ‘The King of Hosts’ who earns as much as $50,000 per month selling his non-sexual companionship to interested female buyers. In doing some research, there are also some men in cities like New York and Los Angeles who sell their platonic companionship to women for a nice fee.

There are also men who earn money for their sexual companionship (these men are known as Gigolos or Male Erotic Escorts), but as mentioned … prostitution – for men and women – is illegal in 49 of the nation’s 50 states. It is not illegal though for a man or woman to sell their non-sexual companionship to an interested party.

Matter of fact, in my latest book, The Beta Male Revolution: Why Many Men Have Totally Lost Interest in Marriage in Today’s Society, I mention that this is how many women who are ‘Sugar Babies’ avoid being labeled as a prostitute or professional Call Girl. What Sugar Babies do is charge men for their non-sexual companionship … and then, at their discretion, they allow their Sugar Daddies to have sex with them for free (usually as a ‘reward’ for the Sugar Daddy paying some of their bills and expenses, or buying them an expensive gift; The Sugar Daddy never gives the Sugar Baby money directly in exchange for sex).  Many men also have ‘Sugar Mamas’ who pay for a lot of their living expenses in exchange for dependable sexual and non-sexual companionship.  I had a couple of Sugar Mamas myself while in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

I remember in 2012, while a member of a social ‘meetup‘ group in Chicago that was full of African-American professionals, I ended up causing a small degree of controversy while engaged in an internet message board debate with one of the female organizers of this particular meetup group.

When you are a member of a meetup group, what happens is, the group will sponsor a number of social events per week and per month, and if you are interested in attending one or more of these planned events, you would click on an ‘R.S.V.P.’ link to submit your interest in attending that particular event. As to be expected, many times, a number of meetup group members who would click on the R.S.V.P. (indicating that they would be attending that particular event) would end up not actually showing up for the event.  One of the female organizers became angry about this, and she began venting her frustrations on the meetup group’s discussion forum.  In her rant, she made it a point to emphasize that the primary culprits who were the most guilty of “R.S.V.P. no-show flakes” were the male members much more so than the female members.

I agreed with her criticism of members flaking out after submitting an R.S.V.P., but I also included this comment:  “Single heterosexual men have no interest in sharing women’s company 2-3 times per week, every week, in a purely platonic manner.  Speaking for most men … if we see that there is very little if any chance of us connecting with a woman romantically or sexually, then our interest in sharing a woman’s company on a regular or semi-regular basis diminishes significantly.”

The organizer did not care for that comment at all, and neither did a sizeable percentage of the group’s female members, so a heated debate ensued. Then later, in response to another female member, I boldly declared, “I do not allow women to hang out with me on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis in a purely platonic manner for free. If a woman wants my platonic attention and companionship daily or weekly, then she is going to have to pay me for that. By the hour, by the day, or by the week.” Some women responded as if they thought I was attempting to be facetious, but I was actually being very serious.  Women’s platonic-companionship-only has never been appealing to me.  Like, EVER.  Occasionally (e.g., 3-6 times per year)?  Sure.  Regularly (e.g., 2-3 times per week or 6-10 times per month or more)?  Never.  Ever.  The only exception for me would be a woman who I am working with on some career-related project or other business-related project.

Many men I know share this same attitude of mine. This is what I refer to in my book, The Beta Male Revolution as a ‘Total Alpha male(In my book, I divide all men into the categories of Total Alpha male, an Alpha male with a few Beta traits & tendencies, a Beta male with a few Alpha traits & tendencies, and Total Beta male).  Alpha male types frown on the idea of engaging in a series of platonic-friends-only type interactions with women. They see no upside to such social interactions. Conversely, men who possess a more ‘Beta’ nature are the men who do not necessarily have a problem with allowing themselves to become a number of women’s ‘play brother’ or ‘male girlfriend.’  More power to the Betas, if that is their choice.

In closing, I say this once again to my male and female followers:

  • If you are a man, and you know you only want to spend time with a woman primarily or exclusively for her sexual companionship, do not give in to the temptation of lying to her and/or misleading her into believing that you value both her sexual AND non-sexual companionship equally. Have the cajones to be upfront, specific, and straightforward with that woman about your true desires, interests, and intentions. Again, I refer to this as exhibiting Mode One Behavior.  Realistically, most (deceitful and manipulative) men will never take heed to this advice because they are too profoundly afraid of being abruptly rejected by a woman and/or too deeply afraid of being harshly criticized and insulted by women for being ‘shallow.’
  • If you are a woman, and you know deep-down that you only want to spend time with a man for his non-sexual companionship only, do not give in to your manipulative tendencies and mislead that man into believing that you strongly desire that man’s romantic and sexual companionship in addition to his non-sexual companionship. Be bold and courageous and make it clear upfront: “I am only looking for platonic companionship from you. Nothing more.”  Realistically, most (manipulative) women will never take heed to this advice because they know they would get blatantly ignored indefinitely by the vast majority of men who they seek to exploit and manipulate.
  • Finally, if you are a man who is reasonably popular with women … and many of the women you know are constantly urging you to spend a considerable amount of time with them platonically for the sake of flattering them, entertaining them, providing them with enjoyable social companionship, and being willing to listen to them vent about their problems, disappointments, and frustrations with other men … then you need to seriously consider CHARGING THESE WOMEN $$$ for your time, attention, and platonic companionship. If your platonic attention and companionship are in such high demand that you have women literally competing with each other for it, then you need to begin thinking in entrepreneurial terms.

Never sell yourself short fellas.

Coaching and Consultations with Alan Roger Currie

When I engage in a Skype consultation and/or Telephone consultation with a new male client … or I engage in a One-on-One / Face-to-Face Dating Coaching Session with a new male client … here is my general process of what I emphasize:

Priority #1:  Helping men overcome their fear of rejection, their fear of being criticized by women, their fear of being insulted by women, and their fear of being ‘disliked’ and/or indefinitely ignored by women.

End result:  My male client will be able to approach women with a higher degree of confidence and initiate a conversation with a woman with no profound fears and/or egotistical insecurities

Priority #2:  Helping men overcome their invalid beliefs about women and dating, and weed out all of their ‘faulty social programming’ that causes them to engage in way too much unproductive ‘trivial small talk’ with women. 

End result:  My male client will feel more comfortable expressing his true romantic and/or sexual desires, interests, and intentions to women in an upfront, unapologetic, highly self-assured, specific, and straightforwardly honest manner.

Priority #3:  Helping men prepare for some of the common ‘objections’ and ‘justifications for resistance’ that many women will throw at them when they exhibit Mode One Behavior.

End result:  My male client will be able to feel prepared for any type of ‘resistance’ and any type of ‘ball busting and/or shit tests’ that women will throw his way during a first conversation.

Priority #4:  Helping men distinguish between a ‘Reciprocator’ and a ‘Manipulative Timewaster,’ distinguish between a ‘Rejecter’ and a ‘Wholesome Pretender,’ and differentiate between a ‘Wholesome Pretender’ and a ‘Manipulative Timewaster.’

End result:  My male client will be able to quickly and effectively identify a Reciprocator, a Rejecter, a Wholesome Pretender, and a Manipulative Timewaster based on their verbal reactions, their facial expressions and overall body language, and the woman’s attempts to ‘size them up’ as being either an ‘Alpha’ male or a ‘Beta’ male.

Priority #5:  Helping men transform from being a ‘Total Beta Male’ and a ‘Beta Male with a small percentage of Alpha traits’ into becoming more of either a ‘Total Alpha Male’ or an ‘Alpha Male with a small percentage of Beta traits.’

End result:  My male client will be able to engage in sexual relations with women without spending a significant amount of money on women, or without necessarily feeling obligated to offer a woman a promise or guarantee of long-term monogamy.

Anyone who is interested in engaging in a Skype consultation (U.S. or international), a Telephone consultation (U.S. only), or a One-on-One / Face-to-Face Dating Coaching Session with me can CLICK HERE.