What DO you think

MaxWig

Fizzlesque wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. After I'd posted I realised I probably should have added another question: how would you feel if you met a woman you liked and she told you she had, in the past, paid male escorts to have sex with her?

Would you find it off-putting? Forget, for a moment, the reasons why she did this, just that she did it.

I'm asking this because it's closer to the reverse of the topic we've been discussing than my previous question was, although, I am interested in people's answers to that question too.

I've been surprised by how vociferously those of us who wouldn't want to date a man who visits prostitutes have been lambasted, so it got me wondering about men's attitude to being the boyfriend of a woman who had paid men to sleep with her in the past. Male escorts, who, presumably, would be expected to be proficient in the art of bringing her to orgasm, every time.

The reason I preferred a regular f*** buddy to one night stands, during my 13 years of being single (still ongoing but I no longer engage in meaningless hook-ups) was because I was more likely to be guaranteed an orgasm.

I would hate to pay someone to have sex with me - but the guaranteed orgasm sounds like fun.

Absolutely not. At least I think not. I imagine it would be refreshing.

I would much rather that, than a woman who thought anything about sex was morally questionable.

If anything, the trouble might be that I'd be intimidated by her confidence in her sexuality. But I'm sure I could get over that, provided she was as interested in my orgasm as her own

Fizzlesque

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I'd probably think something along the lines of: "Damn, she's a confident woman. We can experiment and explore our sexuality":D Honestly, if she was confident enough to go to a male escort, then she'd be confident enough to tell me what she likes.

Ironically, if a man told me that I would feel slightly disgusted, and have fairly disgusting imagery of him sweating atop a woman. And I'd have doubts whether or not she was forced into it. Strangely, I wouldn't be afraid that the man was forced into it.

Not whataboutery, just answering the questions honestly, and showing my own rather sexist thoughts.

Funny, isn't it - a woman visiting a male escort is confident, in your eyes, and when men visit female escorts the total opposite (as in, no confidence) is often cited as part of the reason.

Pug160

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How many men are visiting prostitutes because they don't want to hurt another girls feelings?! Come on, let's be honest here, neither of us have evidence to support it either way and I 100% agree there are different reasons for paying for sex, but I doubt the one you've outlined is one. At least not a significant reason. Most men that use prostitutes would be men who don't attract women themselves, who are older, married and unhappy with their sex lives, men with disabilities etc.

The average 20/30 something year old who has no problem pulling in the pub but doesn't like the annoying text afterwards that he's just a player are not going to fork out a few hundred quid to have no questions asked sex. Unless it's for fetish reasons.
.

Well we don't know. Sometimes reality can surprise us. It could be a significant minority. It's plausible at least, especially for men who have a bit of cash to throw around. If it's a ''player'' he probably won't care about how he's perceived - that I agree with. Men like that think it's fair game to go out and have casual sex - and there's nothing wrong with that. Other men may see it as a lot of work for very little reward and a lot of emotional hassle into the bargain.

I've known a lot of 'scene' players over the years, and to be quite honest I don't see how these guys are in any way morally superior than a man who pays for it. I know there are all sorts of different situations, but I think some women should be a little bit more understanding about this issue. At least we're talking about it on here in a civilised way, and I'm sure it has made some people think at least.

People quite often like jumping to conclusions and often insinuate that we're only ever thinking primitively and selfishly. I remember telling a guy at work that I was thinking about going to Prague for a long weekend and he immediately smiled and implied I was going there because of the prostitution. The funny thing is, I didn't even realise at the time that Prague was infamous for that, I liked the sound of it primarily because it had great scenery and very good beer that was also cheap. My point is that we quite often think the worst of people instead of opening our minds and giving the benefit of the doubt . I'm probably as guilty as anybody else though. I guess we should all try a bit harder.

Daisy78

I have no problem with prostitution per say. If a guy feels the need to visit one for whatever reasons then he should have the right to do so. Just like i have the right to not get into a relationship with a man who has been with one. Non negotiable as far as im concerned. And that would apply two, three or ten years into a relationship. ...he would be packing his bags. My standards are higher than that.

Legs.Eleven

Spannend wrote: »

How many men can have no problem hooking up with stunning women at the drop of a hat? They may be good at hooking up with normal everyday women, but maybe they want to sample something they only see in porn movies.

Gives me the creeps when men use words like "sample" and another favourite of mine from this thread or the other one "try out the local delicacies". Bleugh! These are humans you're talking about here, not tapas or sample cheese cubes in the supermarket.



The world is full of women with varying levels of adventurousness. It's not impossible to find someone who's into the same stuff as you (speaking from experience here) and with the added bonus that they actually want to be there and aren't just going through the motions for a few quid. Normal, everyday woman =/= missionary position.

username123

vitani wrote: »

Let them at it, so. But they better not turn around and act hard done by when some of those 'normal, everyday women' choose not to get into a relationship with them because of it.

I think generally speaking, similar value and morality systems - particularly surrounding sexual matters, make for more successful relationships.

clairefontaine

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

As I said, you don't have to pay for it and you have the added bonus of the other person wanting to be there. Win win.

Yes but there no threat to your family, like an unwanted pregnancy, there confidentiality, and no one getting attached. Rules are clear. I think that's what people are paying for.

cloudatlas

What about the pleasure of the woman prostituting herself? Is it possible to enjoy having several clients a week or does that render sex boring and mechanical? What are the psychological impacts of being instrumentalised constantly? Men complain that we ask these questions but why don't they want to ask them that is the bigger question?

Legs.Eleven

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but there no threat to your family, like an unwanted pregnancy, there confidentiality, and no one getting attached. Rules are clear. I think that's what people are paying for.

I understand the varying reasons behind availing of the services of a prostitute but I'm specifically talking about what I find off putting about it. All these factors doesn't make a man attractive in my eyes.

clairefontaine

Spannend wrote: »

That's very understandable. A man who pays for sex sends a signal to women that he is unatteactive so women in many cases can't help but feel "creeped out". It's a woman's genes way of protecting themselves from annihilation.

Also a man who pays for sex, doesn't have the implicit validation from other women behind him, that women often like to see.

augusta24

My eyes have been well and truly opened... I had no idea that escorts were so commonly available across this country. I know I know.... I sound so naive. I knew prostitiution and brothels etc were regular, but these "escorts" who advertise online and seem to work for themselves is a total new concept to me. I've been reading the reviews and threads on the website they all use to advertise.... I feel so sick reading what men are saying. The women may claim to be just selling a service like any but I don't think I'll ever fully believe that to be honest. That website is just awful the way punters write reviews on the women! You can clearly see one guy has over 250 reviews written on different women! And likewise many women have 200 reviews written about them! When you see it in numbers like that it just makes me feel a little ill! I really don't see the attraction for either party.
Similarly the threads on their forum makes me feel ill too...one for men to talk about how they lie to their wives when using the escorts... Clearly a regular thing so!

Legs.Eleven

augusta24 wrote: »

My eyes have been well and truly opened... I had no idea that escorts were so commonly available across this country. I know I know.... I sound so naive. I knew prostitiution and brothels etc were regular, but these "escorts" who advertise online and seem to work for themselves is a total new concept to me. I've been reading the reviews and threads on the website they all use to advertise.... I feel so sick reading what men are saying. The women may claim to be just selling a service like any but I don't think I'll ever fully believe that to be honest. That website is just awful the way punters write reviews on the women! You can clearly see one guy has over 250 reviews written on different women! And likewise many women have 200 reviews written about them! When you see it in numbers like that it just makes me feel a little ill! I really don't see the attraction for either party.
Similarly the threads on their forum makes me feel ill too...one for men to talk about how they lie to their wives when using the escorts... Clearly a regular thing so!

You wouldn't think they were discussing human beings, would you? Like reading food reviews. I'm seeing a theme here.

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

Also a man who pays for sex, doesn't have the implicit validation from other women behind him, that women often like to see.

Can you elaborate on that?

You mean that in visiting a prostitute he is doing something that the women in his life would disapprove of?

I don't want to derail the other thread so I'll leave this here.

I wouldn't consider a relationship with a man who visited prostitutes. Note I don't refer it it as 'using' prostitutes, which makes it sound worse and is actually closer to the reality.

Any man who visits a prostitute takes a chance, however large or small is in dispute, that the woman is there against her will and is acting under some form of coercion. She may be trafficked, she may be broke, she may be bullied, she may be there because her sense of self worth sees no better life than rimming some old man who likes the idea of having paid a woman, and thus feels entitled to humiliate her. He takes a chance that she's not internally heaving with revulsion at what she's consented to do, and he doesn't care. He takes a chance that the encounter he's bought isn't tantamount to rape, it might be a tiny risk or a substantial one, but he still considers it a risk worth taking.

I'm always charmed at the number of men who'll vehemently defend a womans right to sell sex, but I wouldn't knowingly touch one of the buyers with a bargepole.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

I don't want to derail the other thread so I'll leave this here.

I wouldn't consider a relationship with a man who visited prostitutes. Note I don't refer it it as 'using' prostitutes, which makes it sound worse and is actually closer to the reality.

Any man who visits a prostitute takes a chance, however large or small is in dispute, that the woman is there against her will and is acting under some form of coercion. She may be trafficked, she may be broke, she may be bullied, she may be there because her sense of self worth sees no better life than rimming some old man who likes the idea of having paid a woman, and thus feels entitled to humiliate her. He takes a chance that she's not internally heaving with revulsion at what she's consented to do, and he doesn't care. He takes a chance that the encounter he's bought isn't tantamount to rape, it might be a tiny risk or a substantial one, but he still considers it a risk worth taking.

I'm always charmed at the number of men who'll vehemently defend a womans right to sell sex, but I wouldn't knowingly touch one of the buyers with a bargepole.

I suggest you implement a vetting procedure, as you might be surprised who has visited them.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

I suggest you implement a vetting procedure, as you might be surprised who has visited them.

I said knowingly.

I'm aware that people can have hidden lives and are capable of deceit and self-delusion. The threads on prostitution illuminate that perfectly.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

Any man who visits a prostitute takes a chance, however large or small is in dispute, that the woman is there against her will and is acting under some form of coercion. She may be trafficked, she may be broke, she may be bullied, she may be there because her sense of self worth sees no better life than rimming some old man who likes the idea of having paid a woman, and thus feels entitled to humiliate her. He takes a chance that she's not internally heaving with revulsion at what she's consented to do, and he doesn't care. He takes a chance that the encounter he's bought isn't tantamount to rape, it might be a tiny risk or a substantial one, but he still considers it a risk worth taking.

By that logic, and I'm not being facetious, so please don't take it as such, but by that logic a man takes a risk every time he sleeps with a woman that she is not engaging with him for the 'wrong' reasons'.

Maybe her self-esteem is such that she is just doing whatever she thinks the other person wants in order to derive some sense of connection.
She decides half way through a sexual encounter that she has made a mistake, but says nothing because her self-worth is such that she feels she can't.

Do posters feel the same about other 'sexual services' like dominatrix((s) never could get the plural). Or are there certain acts that these feelings apply more readily to?

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

By that logic, and I'm not being facetious, so please don't take it as such, but by that logic a man takes a risk every time he sleeps with a woman that she is not engaging with him for the 'wrong' reasons'.

Maybe her self-esteem is such that she is just doing whatever she thinks the other person wants in order to derive some sense of connection.
She decides half way through a sexual encounter that she has made a mistake, but says nothing because her self-worth is such that she feels she can't.

Do posters feel the same about other 'sexual services' like dominatrix((s) never could get the plural). Or are there certain acts that these feelings apply more readily to?

The difference is payment. Paying for the use of another persons body for sex introduces another level of commodification and potential dehumanisation.

I feel pretty much the same about services offered by dominatrice, although I haven't given it much thought, perhaps I might alter my view if I did.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

The difference is payment. Paying for the use of another persons body for sex introduces another level of commodification and potential dehumanisation.

I feel pretty much the same about services offered by dominatrice, although I haven't given it much thought, perhaps I might alter my view if I did.

I will leave the issue of payment aside, as I think we differ sufficiently on that matter that it might be better to agree to disagree.

Regarding 'other service', the reason I bring them up is that very often the client is paying to occupy a role of submission. In the instances I have come across, there is no real 'use' (to use a crass term) of the dominatrice's body, other than to inflict humiliation or mild pain on the client.

So either your other points hold true, or they do not. And I'm not saying I know the answer.

However, even while paying to be the submissive, or humiliated subject, the client, it could be argued maintains the power role in the sense that they bring the cash. However, my observation (limited to media) of the industry is that dominatrices are perceived to be far less coerced/manipulated etc..

For me, the debate on prostitution centres not on concern for the individual prostitute, but on 'what sex is', and who should control/define it

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

For me, the debate on prostitution centres not on concern for the individual prostitute, but on 'what sex is', and who should control/define it

Any debate on prostitution that doesn't have the prostitutes welfare at it's centre isn't a debate I'm interested in having.

MaxWig

Candie wrote: »

Any debate on prostitution that doesn't have the prostitutes welfare at it's centre isn't a debate I'm interested in having.

I think you misread my post.

I agree that the prostitute and their welfare 'should' be the primary concern.

I just don't hear that.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

I think you misread my post.

I agree that the prostitute and their welfare 'should' be the primary concern.

I just don't hear that.

I don't think you're listening Max.