"Visiting escorts can save a marriage"

Czarcasm

UCDVet wrote: »

I never understood why sex was such a big deal.

I'm married. I like lots of stuff. So does my wife. Some stuff we both like, some stuff we disagree on. She likes books and movies that I don't like, and vice-versa....we have lots of different hobbies (and lots of shared ones too). I don't mind if she does something she likes with other people.

I don't see why sex should be any different.

If I were actually to take your merely academic argument seriously, I'd be thinking how shìt sex must be for you that you'll settle for being the cuckolded husband comparing having sex to reading books. Quite frankly, you're definitely doing it wrong (but I think tbh you're only using yourself to make a poor academic argument).

And 'sex' isn't just one thing....there is a huge assortment of sexual activities that are made better or worse depending on your preferences. It's IMPOSSIBLE for one person to be able to do 'everything'. A lot of people have preferences that change over-time or that, occasionally, like something different. Even if a marriage isn't 'sexless' that doesn't mean it's perfect. If I'm not tall, dark and handsome, I can't fulfill a desire my wife might have for a tall, dark and handsome man anymore than a baseball bat can be a tennis racket or a computer can be a hammock. No matter how many ways you cook it, a carrot is still a carrot and maybe I want pizza tonight....

You can do incredible things with a carrot that you'll never be able to do with a pizza! A carrot is never just a carrot with a little imagination!

With everything else, we're totally reasonable about things. If you want a fancy dinner, you can just pay someone to cook it and bring it to you. I'm not a good cook....but I don't care if my wife goes out to dinner. I'm not a great musician....but I don't care if my wife listens to professionals. I'm not a great doctor....but if my wife is sick, I'd rather she visit a professional who knows what he or she is doing. If my wife wants to play softball and I don't, I don't care if she plays softball with other people.

I honestly don't get why people treat sex differently.

If you don't get why people treat sex differently to softball, then you're really not the open minded intellectual you think you are.

UCDVet

SV wrote: »

It involves insertion or receiving of body parts and other bodily fluids. It's always going to be pretty intimate.

It doesn't have to.

Strip clubs, are certainly sexual but don't require any actual touching. Same with video/pictures/audio/text pornography. These are HUGE industries.

There are lots of sexual activities/fetishes that don't require touching or insertion either. Some people just want to watch someone else have sex or be watched. Really, there is no end to what people are into, but if you can imagine it....SOMEONE.....is really into it.

It certainly doesn't have to involve bodily fluids if you practice safe sex.

UCDVet

Czarcasm wrote: »

If I were actually to take your merely academic argument seriously, I'd be thinking how shìt sex must be for you that you'll settle for being the cuckolded husband comparing having sex to reading books. Quite frankly, you're definitely doing it wrong (but I think tbh you're only using yourself to make a poor academic argument).





You can do incredible things with a carrot that you'll never be able to do with a pizza! A carrot is never just a carrot with a little imagination!





If you don't get why people treat sex differently to softball, then you're really not the open minded intellectual you think you are.

Your biases are pretty clear in your assumptions here. Someone with a different opinion that you must be BAD at sex or NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING. Clearly, anyone who knew as much as you do; would clearly agree with you.

If I say I am tired of eating carrots, you'll just imply that I don't know how to properly cook carrots....

My favorite food is pizza. I could eat a lot of pizza, but sometimes I want ice cream. I don't always want ice cream though. I want pizza most of the time, but sometimes ice cream; in a world where pizza IS NOT ice cream.

That doesn't mean the pizza is bad. That doesn't mean I don't know how to properly eat pizza or that I'm not 'man enough' to always eat pizza. I'm just a normal person who can admit that sometimes I like different things. And, I'll repay your favour and say - IF *YOU* CAN'T APPRECIATE MORE THAN ONE FOOD; YOU MUST HAVE SOME PRETTY BAD TASTE BUDS!

catallus

UCDVet wrote: »

Your biases are pretty clear in your assumptions here. Someone with a different opinion that you must be BAD at sex or NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING. Clearly, anyone who knew as much as you do; would clearly agree with you.

If I say I am tired of eating carrots, you'll just imply that I don't know how to properly cook carrots....

My favorite food is pizza. I could eat a lot of pizza, but sometimes I want ice cream. I don't always want ice cream though. I want pizza most of the time, but sometimes ice cream; in a world where pizza IS NOT ice cream.

That doesn't mean the pizza is bad. That doesn't mean I don't know how to properly eat pizza or that I'm not 'man enough' to always eat pizza. I'm just a normal person who can admit that sometimes I like different things.

Yes, but if you said you're tired of eating pussy then can't you see that we'd have to call the men with the white coats? Seriously?

Gambas

UCDVet wrote: »

Then how do you explain the existence of....

Casual sex
Strip clubs
Pornography
Sex workers


These things exist. And they are REALLY popular. Clearly *some* people feel that sex isn't such a private and intimate thing to be shared with your soulmate.

The existence of any of the above does not mean that sex is like cooking, softball, or anything else. Quite the contrary.

Daveysil15

UCDVet wrote: »

My favorite food is pizza. I could eat a lot of pizza, but sometimes I want ice cream. I don't always want ice cream though. I want pizza most of the time, but sometimes ice cream; in a world where pizza IS NOT ice cream.

Now that is a mouthful and a half.

poundapunnet

I'd kill for a pizza right now.

Czarcasm

CK73 wrote: »

What if there is nothing wrong with the marriage other than a basic lack of desire for sex by one party? If having gone through the Doctor there is still no desire, then should that partner have sex purely to accommodate the other person and how does the partner feel, knowing the person they are having sex with would rather be watching the football or a soap on the telly?

Hmm, quite a leap there CK to suggest that if a doctor can't solve your issues, then visiting an escort can! There are a vast number of options in between both before you go down that route.

Sometimes compromises need to be made.

Indeed they do, sacrifices need to be made too before there can be any compromise, and if you view visiting escorts as a compromise in a happy marriage, I'd say it was a compromised marriage alright, though not in a good way.

I also know of people that have had problems during childhood that mean they have a different outlook on life and needs to be met that your every day person just can't relate with. For these people to be able to function, they need an outlet. Is it not better to seek that outlet than life a lonely life, because without it they can't function properly or give their partner what they need?

Their partner needs them to visit escorts? Well I can see how that would be just what the doctor, marriage guidance counsellor, therapist escort ordered.

Nothing in life is black and white. People are complex and where it is easy to say that people should work at it, some things are not workable, but that does not mean they are unable to still have good functional relationships and give love within a relationship, if allowed to be a whole person, however that need is met.

Absolute nonsense tbh. The very definition by your own admission is that if something isn't workable, then it's NOT functioning. That goes for a marriage too, whatever way you want to paint it. Which brings us back to my original point that if something isn't working, then you either make it work by working on it, or kid yourself by thinking that distracting yourself from the issue will fix it.

Issues don't have a habit of fixing themselves, they need to be worked on, and if you're not prepared to work on it, then thinking you only need to fix one aspect of the marriage for your own sexual gratification is hardly viewing your partner as a whole person.

SV

poundapunnet wrote: »

I'd kill for a pizza right now.

I'd prefer some ice cream to be honest..

UCDVet

Gambas wrote: »

The existence of any of the above does not mean that sex is like cooking, softball, or anything else. Quite the contrary.

No - but it certainly means that sex is not exclusively intimate.

Means Of Escape

SV wrote: »

It involves insertion or receiving of body parts and other bodily fluids. It's always going to be pretty intimate.

Until you get a burning itch two days later

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Chefrio

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hmm, quite a leap there CK to suggest that if a doctor can't solve your issues, then visiting an escort can! There are a vast number of options in between both before you go down that route.





Indeed they do, sacrifices need to be made too before there can be any compromise, and if you view visiting escorts as a compromise in a happy marriage, I'd say it was a compromised marriage alright, though not in a good way.





Their partner needs them to visit escorts? Well I can see how that would be just what the doctor, marriage guidance counsellor, therapist escort ordered.





Absolute nonsense tbh. The very definition by your own admission is that if something isn't workable, then it's NOT functioning. That goes for a marriage too, whatever way you want to paint it. Which brings us back to my original point that if something isn't working, then you either make it work by working on it, or kid yourself by thinking that distracting yourself from the issue will fix it.

Issues don't have a habit of fixing themselves, they need to be worked on, and if you're not prepared to work on it, then thinking you only need to fix one aspect of the marriage for your own sexual gratification is hardly viewing your partner as a whole person.

What is this jibberish I see before my eyes?

If one partner just doesn't fancy the other partner you can "work on it" all you want but that won't make someone fancy their partner.

Czarcasm

UCDVet wrote: »

Your biases are pretty clear in your assumptions here. Someone with a different opinion that you must be BAD at sex or NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING. Clearly, anyone who knew as much as you do; would clearly agree with you.

You're comparing reading books to having sex? Hell I love reading books too, but sex? Bloody hell UCD there's nothing compares to it in all fairness! I don't mind that you don't agree with my opinion, but my god man to reduce sex down to merely the physical act that the whole family can play, come on like! :pac:

If I say I am tired of eating carrots, you'll just imply that I don't know how to properly cook carrots....

My favorite food is pizza. I could eat a lot of pizza, but sometimes I want ice cream. I don't always want ice cream though. I want pizza most of the time, but sometimes ice cream; in a world where pizza IS NOT ice cream.

Your favorite foods are pizza and ice cream? Easily pleased I'd say, which would also explain why you think there's nothing more to sex than the basic physical act.

That doesn't mean the pizza is bad. That doesn't mean I don't know how to properly eat pizza or that I'm not 'man enough' to always eat pizza. I'm just a normal person who can admit that sometimes I like different things. And, I'll repay your favour and say - IF *YOU* CAN'T APPRECIATE MORE THAN ONE FOOD; YOU MUST HAVE SOME PRETTY BAD TASTE BUDS!

I can appreciate all manner of foods and I have a voracious sexual appetite, that still doesn't mean I'd be happy to let my wife play pass the pitta pocket with half the fcuking neighbourhood!

Czarcasm

Chefrio wrote: »

What is this jibberish I see before my eyes?

If one partner just doesn't fancy the other partner you can "work on it" all you want but that won't make someone fancy their partner.

I see, and visiting escorts will make them FAR more attractive, and it'll fix everything, right? All fairness Chef while I may come out with some classics, I'd say subscribing to your newsletter it'd go in the same folder as those magic beans e-mails I mentioned earlier.

Daqster

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

I'd imagine that discretion is a serious part of an escort's business.

Well Divine Brown revealed all about Hugh Grant but the Hollywod madam, Heidi Fleiss, did time, made a documentary, wrote a book, took part in many interviews, but yet still never named her apparently long list of famous clients, let alone their sexual peccadillos.

Although, some suggest that she is just keeping a lid on those revelations as a form of a pension fund and will reveal them one day. In the second part of the following interview she is asked if she ever will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQrMGWlRDGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obZqkYHVjZk

looking_around

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Or both partners just enjoy sex and want to experience it with whoever they want to and not just one person all the time, not necessarily to add excitement to their relationship just a choice they make as a person, no person to "blame" or lacking anything, just a personal choice.

looking_around

Tasden wrote: »

Or both partners just enjoy sex and want to experience it with whoever they want to and not just one person all the time, not necessarily to add excitement to their relationship just a choice they make as a person, no person to "blame" or lacking anything, just a personal choice.

That was nitpicking.
They want to experiences others for a reason, much like you'd want to do any experience, it's fun, exciting, enjoyable..etc etc.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

That was nitpicking.
They want to experiences others for a reason, much like you'd want to do any experience, it's fun, exciting, enjoyable..etc etc.

It wasn't nitpicking, you basically said people want an open relationship because one partner won't do something or to add something to a relationship. Sometimes the relationship you have is perfect but as a person you want to enjoy sex with other people, not that it adds anything to your current relationship with your partner but because you just enjoy a varied sex life as an individual. If you feel that's nitpicking fair enough but I thought it was worth pointing out that its not always because a relationship is lacking something, sometimes its just a personal choice because you'd enjoy having sex with more than one person.

looking_around

Tasden wrote: »

It wasn't nitpicking, you basically said people want an open relationship because one partner won't do something or to add something to a relationship. Sometimes the relationship you have is perfect but as a person you want to enjoy sex with other people, not that it adds anything to your current relationship with your partner but because you just enjoy a varied sex life as an individual. If you feel that's nitpicking fair enough but I thought it was worth pointing out that its not always because a relationship is lacking something, sometimes its just a personal choice because you'd enjoy having sex with more than one person.

*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.

I thought by the bolded part, it was fairly obvious what I meant.
I also did say 1 or both want it.
That point had nothing to do with one partner unwilling to do something.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.

I thought by the bolded part, it was fairly obvious what I meant.
I also did say 1 or both want it.
That point had nothing to do with one partner unwilling to do something.

I'm referring to the "add excitement to their relationship" bit. Which implies the relationship is lacking excitement. Sometimes its a personal need/want in general and nothing to do with not being fulfilled/satisfied/excited in your current relationship.
I wasn't saying that point related to a partner unwilling to do something. Your post limited the want for an open relationship as being due to either the relationship lacking something (excitement) or a partner not doing something. Which isn't the case.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Not everyone is talking in theory though looking_around, and when you said you wanted to throw in some reality, you finished your post with a couple deluding themselves. A marriage or marital relationship is generally understood to be a relationship and legal contract between two people, not involving a third party. When a third party is introduced into the relationship or when one party goes outside the relationship seeking sexual fulfillment with another person (the crux of this thread is about visiting escorts), that immediately redefines the relationship and it's no longer the generally understood definition of a marriage. Now you could be pedantic and play around with phrases like open marriage, polygamous marriage, etc, but those types of marriage are hardly statistically significant in comparison to the number of relationships that are sexually exclusively mutual between two people.

TL;DR: It takes two people to make a marriage, it takes one person to break it, and the involvement of a third person in the marriage isn't going to save it. It'd be like a person who couldn't swim, jumping into a river to save a person who was drowning. If it makes a person believe they're about to be saved though, I can see how allowing them to kid themselves might be helpful - gives them blind hope in the short term at least.

B.A._Baracus

One thing i've realised in life is that a person can justify anything. Doesnt matter if its cheating, screwing a person over, sure even murder.

aidan24326

Candie wrote: »

I wonder what take their partners have on it, except I doubt they know for the most part.

I'm sure it happens, but it's also a self serving statement.

Totally. For a cheating* husband who visits hookers, saying it 'saved his marriage' is as obviously self-serving as turkeys voting to ban Christmas. The obvious response to a guy who claims that would be 'what does your wife think about all of this'? and I'm guessing in most cases the wife wasn't actually consulted about this ingenious plan to save the marriage.

*I accept there are exceptions, open marriages and such, but in the majority of cases where a married man visits an escort we can assume he is cheating.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

aidan24326

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? I think we can safely assume that there aren't loads of wives out there who would be perfectly ok with their husband visiting a hooker. A smallish minority perhaps, depending on circumstances, but most wives would surely be horrified at the idea. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make as it tallies with reality. (and I did say that I know there are exceptions and different situations for different people etc etc).

looking_around

Czarcasm wrote: »

TL;DR: It takes two people to make a marriage, it takes one person to break it, and the involvement of a third person in the marriage isn't going to save it. It'd be like a person who couldn't swim, jumping into a river to save a person who was drowning. If it makes a person believe they're about to be saved though, I can see how allowing them to kid themselves might be helpful - gives them blind hope in the short term at least.

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. It also doesn't make the people who involve a 3rd party and less married or wrong.
Like you said, it's an agreement between 2 people, if they agree to involve someone else, is that not still between them?

I couldn't count the amount of marriages who are unhappy because of sex. Normally more so one sided, but they still love the other person. They don't want to break up with them over sex, but some people need sex, hence the introduction of a 3rd party.
If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. It also doesn't make the people who involve a 3rd party and less married or wrong.
Like you said, it's an agreement between 2 people, if they agree to involve someone else, is that not still between them?

I couldn't count the amount of marriages who are unhappy because of sex. Normally more so one sided, but they still love the other person. They don't want to break up with them over sex, but some people need sex, hence the introduction of a 3rd party.
If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

Clearly reality goes out the window very quickly when it doesn't suit your theory either.

looking_around

Czarcasm wrote: »

Clearly reality goes out the window very quickly when it doesn't suit your theory either.

care to clarify?