Question for MEN only about hookers, really better than "civilian" women?

[You'reasian]

I'm not commenting on whether visiting a prostitute is wrong or immoral.

What I have a problem with is the rationale, rearing its head in parts of this thread, that men go to prostitutes because "civilian" women are too much "hassle. To me, there's an element of not wanting to take full responsibility for a decision in that line of reasoning.

 

Do we have a profile of a typical male who visits these women? Is there a typical profile?

 

As stated by the OP, "civillian" women do the exact same things that prostitutes do, and sometimes with even more pride about it.

 

The difference? I suppose that doing it with the prostitute has a well-defined relationship with clear cut expectations. Lets not forget women can get with male prostitutes as well, although its not nearly as popular.

 

Something controversial: Is a male saving money by visiting a prostitute? At what expense?

 

Is it more expensive for a male to peruse bars, clubs and such singles places on cover charges, drinks, time etc. if his goal is the same?

[Stockalone]

Really? I wonder how many men - and medical professionals - would agree with you on this. Is sex really as necessary as food and sleep, for a man to survive??

 

It is not necessary to survive, but I would describe the absence of sex and intimacy (I miss being loved as much as the sex) as being on bread and water.

 

Still better than the alternative though, at least for me. A ONS or paying a hooker would not be better for me. That would create other problems.

 

But I understand why many, probably most men would rather have casual sex (be it ONS's or even a hooker).

[Trialbyfire]

A ONS is not enough. The odds of the sex itself being good are low. Been there done that. I have yet to have an enjoyable ONS experience. The hooker knows my likes and wants. The sex is personalized and catered to me.

So...it's all about me, no?

 

Anyways, overall, my point of contention is that the hooker-john relationship isn't just about getting off, which you've stated. What all the other elements are, is up to the individual whether they're fully willing to admit or see, what causes them to traffic with hookers. That's your right and choice to admit/see clearly/deny.

[fral945]

So...it's all about me, no?

 

Anyways, overall, my point of contention is that the hooker-john relationship isn't just about getting off, which you've stated. What all the other elements are, is up to the individual whether they're fully willing to admit or see, what causes them to traffic with hookers. That's your right and choice to admit/see clearly/deny.

 

Yes, it's a selfish need. And your problem with that is........?

 

In my case there are a number of factors. But yea, I agree with your premise it's not just about getting off. If it was about getting off for men porn would have put hookers out of business a long time ago. Obviously it hasn't.

[Woggle]

I'm not commenting on whether visiting a prostitute is wrong or immoral.

What I have a problem with is the rationale, rearing its head in parts of this thread, that men go to prostitutes because "civilian" women are too much "hassle. To me, there's an element of not wanting to take full responsibility for a decision in that line of reasoning.

 

If a man wants to get his rocks off he wants as little responsibility as possible. What is wrong with that?

[Trialbyfire]

If a man wants to get his rocks off he wants as little responsibility as possible. What is wrong with that?

Woggle, you don't even like women. If anything you can't stand women in general. How does that make you the poster boy for your average guy?

[Woggle]

Woggle, you don't even like women. If anything you can't stand women in general. How does that make you the poster boy for your average guy?

 

I would call it mosre mistrust than dislike but I do feel that I say what most men feel but are afraid to say. The need to please and cowtow to women that e xists in most men just absent in me but it doesn't mean I hate them.

[Trialbyfire]

I would call it mosre mistrust than dislike but I do feel that I say what most men feel but are afraid to say. The need to please and cowtow to women that e xists in most men just absent in me but it doesn't mean I hate them.

I won't deny there's a percentage of men who feel the way you do. I will vehemently deny that every man feels the way you do, hence why there's men who won't use hookers, for whatever their reasons, be it hygienic, discerning, whatever.

[Woggle]

I won't deny there's a percentage of men who feel the way you do. I will vehemently deny that every man feels the way you do, hence why there's men who won't use hookers, for whatever their reasons, be it hygienic, discerning, whatever.

 

Most men who have actually dealt with women feel the way I do though most men wake up and realize the truth at a much older age than me.

[Trialbyfire]

Most men who have actually dealt with women feel the way I do though most men wake up and realize the truth at a much older age than me.

Whatever Woggle. You're welcome to believe that grass is red too and so am I!

[You'reasian]

Even when you are in a relationship, sometimes you want to have the kind of hand-holding truly intimate sex that poems are written about, and sometime you just want ho holds barred f***. So the latter doesn't "count", eh? (And don't tell me that this is guy's point of view: I have female friends who have actually complained that their men are getting a little too emotional during sex for their taste!)

 

And if said women is a "civillian", I would imagine that there is a women of the night that would probably appreciate that, respective of what she normally has to do?

 

I don't know - I'm only guessing?

[fral945]

Trail,

 

Since you are a woman, maybe you can answer this for me (and maybe this deserves another thread itself).

 

How do you as a woman deal with you sexual urges, need for physical intimacy, etc. when not in a committed relationship? I'm assuming it works differently for women, that's why I ask. I'd like to understand the female perspective here.

[Trialbyfire]

Yes, frla, it would be off-topic. Do start another thread if you want to discuss that!

[Taramere]

i guess some of the "civilian" women are mad that their "military" sisters will give it up just for a few bucks and undercut the "civilian" womens power & control base...

 

i could see that being quite disconcerting for the civilians

 

Swings and roundabouts. This board is littered with examples of women getting emotionally entangled in FWB situations. Getting badly burned by them. I find that a lot more disconcerting than the notion of women like Lizzie getting paid for her FWB liaisons and all parties being very clear about what the situation is. The exchange of cash for "benefits" would be a fairer deal for a lot of women....and a clear message. "You're being paid to not fall in love with me."

 

But what if men want women to fall in love with them? What if, regardless of whether or not they love the woman back, and regardless of the "hassle" involved, they need a bit of that nurturing lurve to tell them that they're something special? And if in order to make them feel genuinely special, it has to be real rather than something they handed a few measly bucks over to a woman to get her to fake?

 

The answer there would seem to be "more cash for benefits, please - and lots of it." Cash for sex and added cash if you don't want me to switch off emotionally. If you want me to fall head over heels for you, that will come at a special premium."

 

Think where it could lead? All women would be entitled to charge a minimum rate for sex. Women who fell in love, declared their love and got ditched later on could potentially sue for back-payments inclusive of special premium rates later on, provided they could provide relevant evidence. Hearing the words "I love you" would fill men with a new kind of terror. "Let's film us having sex..." would seem less like a fun, kinky thing to do and more of a smart business move.

 

Contracts would be required. "The parties agree to not become emotionally attached." "The parties agree that some level of emotional attachment may occur, but that this will not extend into full blown love."

 

I'd go back into the legal profession and make a killing. People on this board could get jobs helping to draft legislation that defines where emotional attachment begins, and where it transforms into love.

 

Now that sounds like real power. Never mind all this "treat me nice and I'll blow you later" rubbish.

[movingonandon]

I would call it mosre mistrust than dislike but I do feel that I say what most men feel but are afraid to say. The need to please and cowtow to women that e xists in most men just absent in me but it doesn't mean I hate them.

 

Surprisingly, I disagree with this. I have NO *general* 'complaints' about the conventional men-women interactions. But, sometimes i just don't want to deal with them. All aspects of public life (not just intimate relationships) are based on conventions, protocols, rituals, and I appreciate the opportunity to step out of this zone and interact with women in a lot more straightforward manner. Similarly, if I'm upset about something, I appreciate the opportunity to vent about it anonimously on the internet. Does this mean that I am likely to beat the **** out of the offender? Of course not. Does the fact that I enjoy paintball mean that I am likely to start killing people on the streets? Of course not. Etc.

[OpenBook]

:lmao: Taramere I love the way you think!!

[Taramere]

:lmao: Taramere I love the way you think!!

 

Thank you, OB. In that case, we'll be business partners in this exciting new venture. I've a feeling my former employer would also be interested.

[movingonandon]

Swings and roundabouts. This board is littered with examples of women getting emotionally entangled in FWB situations. Getting badly burned by them. I find that a lot more disconcerting than the notion of women like Lizzie getting paid for her FWB liaisons and all parties being very clear about what the situation is. The exchange of cash for "benefits" would be a fairer deal for a lot of women....and a clear message. "You're being paid to not fall in love with me."

 

But what if men want women to fall in love with them? What if, regardless of whether or not they love the woman back, and regardless of the "hassle" involved, they need a bit of that nurturing lurve to tell them that they're something special? And if in order to make them feel genuinely special, it has to be real rather than something they handed a few measly bucks over to a woman to get her to fake?

 

The answer there would seem to be "more cash for benefits, please - and lots of it." Cash for sex and added cash if you don't want me to switch off emotionally. If you want me to fall head over heels for you, that will come at a special premium."

 

Think where it could lead? All women would be entitled to charge a minimum rate for sex. Women who fell in love, declared their love and got ditched later on could potentially sue for back-payments inclusive of special premium rates later on, provided they could provide relevant evidence. Hearing the words "I love you" would fill men with a new kind of terror. "Let's film us having sex..." would seem less like a fun, kinky thing to do and more of a smart business move.

 

Contracts would be required. "The parties agree to not become emotionally attached." "The parties agree that some level of emotional attachment may occur, but that this will not extend into full blown love."

 

I'd go back into the legal profession and make a killing. People on this board could get jobs helping to draft legislation that defines where emotional attachment begins, and where it transforms into love.

 

Now that sounds like real power. Never mind all this "treat me nice and I'll blow you later" rubbish.

 

great post...

I want to point out that although we typically associate sex with love, to some extent this is self-decieving. The reason sex is so heavily regulated in any society is precisely because it involves power and exchanges that, unless regulated, will, yes, lead to chaos.

 

We associate romantic love with marriage, however, this is a very new idea for the humans. For the most part of the human history, the primary function of marriage has been to guide inheritance rights, and minimise conflicts in resource allocation... Exciting, eh?

 

Although thankfully these days we are not so chained by such intrusive social controls, there's no denying that "legitimate" sexual relations do involve implicit or explicit exchanges. Such as "i will have sex with you, but not unless you prove that you're willing to stick around and take care of the offspring", or "i will be faithful to you, but only if you're faithful too and stick around to take care of the kids we created"; etc., etc., etc.,

 

Oversimplification, of course, but unfortunately we are not as free as we pretend to be. The fact that we don't think about these constraints when we fall in love does not mean that they do not exist, nor that men (or women) are evil and constantly try to out-play each other. It just means that there is no such thing as sex with no consequences. Hookers bring us as close to this as possible...

 

 

So ask yourself - are your views on sexuality determined by your own morals, or are they determined by prevailing norms of what is normal?

[SushiX]

i guess some of the "civilian" women are mad that their "military" sisters will give it up just for a few bucks and undercut the "civilian" womens power & control base...

 

i could see that being quite disconcerting for the civilians

 

lol I agree. Almost every woman I know find disgust in men who had a prostitute before. They think we use them, degrade them and control them. But haven't women been doing this to men for ages?

 

Sometimes our "civilian" women don't satisfy our needs so we must go to the "military ones" Drama free, hassle free, heartache free. Simple as that.

 

FACT: Prostitution will never go away, deal with it ladies.

[Lizzie60]

I honestly think that a lot of women feel threaten by escorts.. they know they can't compete with them on a sexual level.. so they are demeaning them.. I am not talking about thrashy street walkers who do it for their addiction (no one would be jealous of them.. in fact I have pity for them)... I'm talking about high end escorts.. the ones that are attractive, nice body, classy, etc...

 

We all know that successful politicians, actors, businessmen are going to escorts to fulfill a need.. or for whatever reasons they have (the reason is not important ) they do... and will always will..

 

It's easy to make fun or demean people we feel threatened by.

[movingonandon]

I honestly think that a lot of women feel threaten by escorts.. they know they can't compete with them on a sexual level.. so they are demeaning them.. I am not talking about thrashy street walkers who do it for their addiction (no one would be jealous of them.. in fact I have pity for them)... I'm talking about high end escorts.. the ones that are attractive, nice body, classy, etc...

 

We all know that successful politicians, actors, businessmen are going to escorts to fulfill a need.. or for whatever reasons they have (the reason is not important ) they do... and will always will..

 

It's easy to make fun or demean people we feel threatened by.

 

Basically, if you have to insult others' choices to defend your own... then are they really your choices?

[Trialbyfire]

Overall, I don't personally care if women don't respect themselves enough to spread'em for every Tom, Dick or Henrietta. This is their choice in life. It doesn't mean that I have to respect these women for their choices or for that matter, have respect for men who bang'em, enough to want to date them.

 

That's a fact of life, so deal with it!

[movingonandon]

Overall, I don't personally care if women don't respect themselves enough to spread'em for every Tom, Dick or Henrietta. This is their choice in life. It doesn't mean that I have to respect these women for their choices or for that matter, have respect for men who bang'em, enough to want to date them.

 

That's a fact of life, so deal with it!

 

Better, but still slightly / subtly judgemental --> why do you assume that prostitutes don't respect themselves? Some of them probably don't, some of them have perfectly healthy self-esteem - just like all girls that are not prostitutes

 

This does not mean that the profession does not have negative psychological consequences - it might, i don't know. But it's not fair to assume upfront that there is something inherently wrong with these girls (be it lack of self-respect, troubled background, etc., etc., etc.,)

 

And nobody is forcing you to date guys that've seen hookers. How will you ever know for sure though ? And if you can't, why not just work with the real time evidence of what kind of person they are?

[Trialbyfire]

It's 100% judgemental, of which I'm not in the least bit apologetic.

[OpenBook]

Thank you, OB. In that case, we'll be business partners in this exciting new venture. I've a feeling my former employer would also be interested.

 

I'm in! We'll be rich in no time.