"Visiting escorts can save a marriage"

SoupMonster

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What the websites are doing is legal in the UK where the websites are based.

It is illegal in Ireland to publish an advertisement for prostitution services. The usual escort ad disclaimer does not negate the courts ability to reasonably infer that prostitution is advertised.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0023.html#sec23

CK73

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's less saving their marriage and more just redefining their relationship. Then it's just a marriage by name and not by nature.

I have no issue with people redefining what their marriage means to them, more power to them and all, but the suggestion by anyone that escorts save marriages is about as valid as those e-mails that say with some magic beans I can add inches to my mickey.

Could you not say the same about a marriage that did not involve sex? I mean isn't that like living with a friend and not a loving partner that cares for you mind, body and soul? Or are we able to detach from that?

CK73

Czarcasm wrote: »

Em, feel free to correct me if I'm picking you up wrong, but marriage is an institution constructed by a society with the aim of well, "till death do us part"?

I'd say marriage is a good example of the definition of a valid social construct? Unless you mean something completely different to the rest of society, in which case it's not society that's fooling itself, it's... well, you're the only one fooling yourself really.

I beg to differ. I thought marriage was an institution invented by religion in order to keep control of the masses?

CK73

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Maybe the Vikings could force the other spouse to stay in the marraige:D Personally, I see marraige as mutally exclusive. Anyone who is looking for sex with someone outside of their marraige needs to re-evaluate their relationship, talk to their spouse and decide if the marraige is viable. If it isn't viable then it would be time to move on.

What if one of the partners was not able to have sex due to illness or hormone imbalanced had no will for it? Should the other person believe they can not live without sex for the rest of their life then just up and leave? What if they still loved their partner and wanted to be with them still? Does that mean they have to have an 'all or nothing' attitude towards their relationship?

Many men are not able to function due to certain illnesses and visa versa many women have reasons why they can't have sex. Often if people are honest, it is their phobia of being open about their sex lives and bodily functions that stops them from seeking help. Society has a bad attitude about sex, which can ruin lives and relationships, where people are too scared to admit when they have a problem.

I would say that if society would embrace sex and see it as a normal part of life, then more people would go to their doctors and seek help. I'm sure far more relationships would remain monogamous if this were to happen, but it rarely does and people just 'shut down' instead of face their fears full on and leave their partner to fend for themselves with no where to direct their frustrations. Seriously what can people expect, when they are so busy ignoring the needs of the person they are meant to love the most?

CK73

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Remember, though, that many "escorts" are not working in that particular industry of their own free well, or are particularly happy about it.

The same can be said for the hospitality industry, factories and some organ donors. It's not the only industry where some are not happy in their work or indeed working of their own free will. Thankfully there are laws in place to help people who find themselves in this situation though and while people visiting Escorts are able to do this legally, then there is a way to help them and get them away from a situation they don't want to be in.

In a more positive light, it is also true to say that there are also Escorts that are happy in their work, as well as people in the hospitality industry, factories and organ donors.

Visited escorts many times, including when I was in a 4 year relationship.

I think us guys are wired differently to women - we are biologically programmed to spread the seed.

I see no problem in visiting escorts, it's just a sexual release with no emotional connection, even though it can be very cordial. To be honest, I think it's only a slightly more edgy form of going to the doctor/dentist. I know it's hard for many people to understand, but it does keep a lot of people from going insane.

Personally, I think the Dutch/Germans are a very civilised people, and yet their laws are, to some Irish people, disgusting/sick/barbaric yada yada yada :rolleyes:

I am single currently (cue obvious, unfunny jokes) but would love to someday meet a woman and get married for life, even though

CK73

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Thanks.

These people have presumably studied the subject, no? Or are they to be immeadiately disregared because there are nuns involved?

No they have not studied the subject. You should read their submission for the DIAL committee, you would think a GCSE student had written it and not one piece of information was backed up with any statistic from any official organisation, as they are all fabricated and sensationalized, much in the way you find in a snooze paper.

I was actually shocked when I read it and surpised that it was actually being given any consideration.

* Even though I know I'd probably get moments of weakess and visit the odd escort while married.

CK73

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.

You're doing the break down of quotes again, although time after time you apologies for doing so and say you will try not to! This relationship will never work!!!

Okay here is an example of a true story.

I met this person before I started my current job by the way, so not quite on topic, but it is most certainly related.

The chap in question is in his 50's, he is successful in his work, he is happily married and has a good standard of living. He appears to be sociable and easy to talk to and very intelligent.

This man as a hobby makes items of torture for the penis. He makes vices to be correct and he originally made them to be used on himself by Dommes. His wife knows nothing about this, but as he explained to me, without this outlet, he would have likely have committed suicide.

As a child he was abused. It was beyond anything you can imagine and he endured it for many years. As an adult he sometimes finds himself overwhelmed with how happy his life is now and how lucky he is to be with someone who loves and respects him and having a good quality of life and when this happens he has huge inward conflict with himself and the world and feels unworthy. His way to of dealing with this moment of crisis, which is very real, is to go to a Domme and recreate the torment he had as a child. He then has vented and is able to continue with his life and being the wonderful husband he is to his wife.

Now I'm sure you can think of many things to counter argue my point here, but many people in this world are suffering in silence and because of some kind of trauma are not able to give emotionally or intimately. They may try at first, but often these things do beat them, even with the love of a good partner.

I reiterate the fact that nothing is black and white and no one knows what is happening behind closed doors. People can love their partner deeply and be supportive, but they may also have needs and while they are respecting their partner can not for whatever reason be intimate with them, it is very harsh to say they should be denied. If they are happy with their decision, then who is anyone else to tell them how to behave?

poundapunnet

Deleted User wrote: »

Visited escorts many times, including when I was in a 4 year relationship.

I think us guys are wired differently to women - we are biologically programmed to spread the seed.

I see no problem in visiting escorts, it's just a sexual release with no emotional connection, even though it can be very cordial. To be honest, I think it's only a slightly more edgy form of going to the doctor/dentist. I know it's hard for many people to understand, but it does keep a lot of people from going insane.

Personally, I think the Dutch/Germans are a very civilised people, and yet their laws are, to some Irish people, disgusting/sick/barbaric yada yada yada :rolleyes:

I am single currently (cue obvious, unfunny jokes) but would love to someday meet a woman and get married for life, even though

Did your partner know? Presuming (and I think it's a pretty safe bet) that most women feel incredibly hurt and betrayed if they knew their partner visited an escort, do you still feel that "I'm a man and I'm programmed this way" is justification enough?

You could say that most women probably have a higher drive to have children than men, we're just built that way. Is it okay to poke holes in condoms or lie about being on the pill because that's the way you're wired?

Czarcasm

CK73 wrote: »

Could you not say the same about a marriage that did not involve sex? I mean isn't that like living with a friend and not a loving partner that cares for you mind, body and soul? Or are we able to detach from that?

You could of course CK, and that would be a marriage redefined as a marriage of convenience. That's just my opinion though, and people are free to define their marriage according to their own values. That's why I'm not a fan of semantics and I think as humbert pointed out earlier that marriage is a lot more complicated than just focussing on one aspect of the relationship.

CK73 wrote: »

I beg to differ. I thought marriage was an institution invented by religion in order to keep control of the masses?

Not at all CK, like many societal constructs that existed long before religion, marriage was just another societal construct co-opted by religions who like to claim that they came up with the idea. The fact is that a religious marriage isn't even recognised in the eyes of the law. A civil marriage is the part of the marriage ceremony that's important, and the religious stuff is just the fancy wrapping around it. It'd be the same for atheists or humanists that want to get married - the religious ceremony is meaningless to them, and they don't have to buy into all the pomp and circumstance involved in a lavish ceremony. I had a civil marriage myself, 20 mins in the registry office, in and out, €20 tip to the registrar for keeping it short and simple, certainly a lot cheaper than the €42k my brother and his wife spent on their Church wedding!

Shrills

My hypocritical opinions have been found out, therefore the reasoning is "semantics". Good one.

Pumpkinseeds

CK73 wrote: »

What if one of the partners was not able to have sex due to illness or hormone imbalanced had no will for it? Should the other person believe they can not live without sex for the rest of their life then just up and leave? What if they still loved their partner and wanted to be with them still? Does that mean they have to have an 'all or nothing' attitude towards their relationship?

Many men are not able to function due to certain illnesses and visa versa many women have reasons why they can't have sex. Often if people are honest, it is their phobia of being open about their sex lives and bodily functions that stops them from seeking help. Society has a bad attitude about sex, which can ruin lives and relationships, where people are too scared to admit when they have a problem.

I would say that if society would embrace sex and see it as a normal part of life, then more people would go to their doctors and seek help. I'm sure far more relationships would remain monogamous if this were to happen, but it rarely does and people just 'shut down' instead of face their fears full on and leave their partner to fend for themselves with no where to direct their frustrations. Seriously what can people expect, when they are so busy ignoring the needs of the person they are meant to love the most?

As I said, I believe marriage is mutually exclusive. That being said, I don't believe that the details of anyone's marriage are anyone elses business. Sex is a very fundamental and important part of a marriage/long-term relationship, but it isn't the most important part. Whatever works for a couple in their relationship, whether that be a sexless marriage, for whatever reason, or one partner using prostitutes is a matter for that couple. I wouldn't judge them one way or another.

CK73

Czarcasm wrote: »

You could of course CK, and that would be a marriage redefined as a marriage of convenience. That's just my opinion though, and people are free to define their marriage according to their own values. That's why I'm not a fan of semantics and I think as humbert pointed out earlier that marriage is a lot more complicated than just focussing on one aspect of the relationship.

I apologise. I mean a marriage that started off being sexual and then ceased to be. So not one for convenience, but based on love and mutual lust. This is when one partner ceases to want what was originally accepted as part of the relationship and often an important part of the relationship.

Not at all CK, like many societal constructs that existed long before religion, marriage was just another societal construct co-opted by religions who like to claim that they came up with the idea. The fact is that a religious marriage isn't even recognised in the eyes of the law. A civil marriage is the part of the marriage ceremony that's important, and the religious stuff is just the fancy wrapping around it. It'd be the same for atheists or humanists that want to get married - the religious ceremony is meaningless to them, and they don't have to buy into all the pomp and circumstance involved in a lavish ceremony. I had a civil marriage myself, 20 mins in the registry office, in and out, €20 tip to the registrar for keeping it short and simple, certainly a lot cheaper than the €42k my brother and his wife spent on their Church wedding!

Sure people get married in registry offices now, but I'm not sure that has always been possible? Plus it is religion that points out that marriage = sex and without the marriage you should not have sex, so it kind of uses a carrot to get people to Marry and then doesn't tell you what you are meant to do when the carrot has gone.

poundapunnet

poundapunnet wrote: »

You could say that most women probably have a higher drive to have children than men, we're just built that way. Is it okay to poke holes in condoms or lie about being on the pill because that's the way you're wired?

It's not OK for women to poke holes in condoms etc.

Why? Because the consequences of that completely are completely out of proportion compared with the consequences of a man having consensual, protected sex with an escort.

One has a short term financial impact. The other creates a human life, and changes lives irreversibly

Chazz Michael Michaels

I genuinely don't get the appeal of having sex with prostitutes. Paying somebody to have sex with you, when you know she really doesn't want to do it.

To me, one of the best parts of being with a woman is knowing that she is turned on by you and REALLY wants to **** your brains out. You can't buy that kind of passion.

CK73

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not OK for women to poke holes in condoms etc.

Why? Because the consequences of that completely are completely out of proportion compared with the consequences of a man having consensual, protected sex with an escort.

One has a short term financial impact. The other creates a human life, and changes lives irreversibly

Where I agree with you that the two are not comparable I would not say that sex out of marriage with anyone, even with protection is 100% safe and anyone doing this should have regular check ups at a GUM clinic. It is one thing taking risks with your own life, but if the person is still having sex with his wife, then he should think carefully and act responsibly.

poundapunnet

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not OK for women to poke holes in condoms etc.

Why? Because the consequences of that completely are completely out of proportion compared with the consequences of a man having consensual, protected sex with an escort.

One has a short term financial impact. The other creates a human life, and changes lives irreversibly

And what about the first part of my post?

CK73

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I genuinely don't get the appeal of having sex with prostitutes. Paying somebody to have sex with you, when you know she really doesn't want to do it.

To me, one of the best parts of being with a woman is knowing that she is turned on by you and REALLY wants to **** your brains out. You can't buy that kind of passion.

How do you know she doesn't want to?

Morph the Cat

howamidifferent wrote: »

Would a volkswagon work just as well?

It's funny, because you took "escort" to mean a car then made an amazing gag from it - so slick and fresh.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I genuinely don't get the appeal of having sex with prostitutes. Paying somebody to have sex with you, when you know she really doesn't want to do it.

To me, one of the best parts of being with a woman is knowing that she is turned on by you and REALLY wants to **** your brains out. You can't buy that kind of passion.

Yeah, I used to be like that.

However, I've never been particularly successful with women and at the age of 22 I was still a virgin. I went to Amsterdam in order to finally pop my cherry.

It's very shameful but a true story. I suppose being in my position kind of changed the way I viewed things. When you've tried for years to be with a woman and had no success, eventually you explore other means (however seedy).

Then, once you do it once it changes the way you view prostitution.

Chazz Michael Michaels

CK73 wrote: »

How do you know she doesn't want to?

Its a safe assumption.

B.A._Baracus

CK73 wrote: »

How do you know she doesn't want to?

if you have to ask that question.... then my friend you really do not know much about prostitution.

Chazz Michael Michaels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, I used to be like that.

However, I've never been particularly successful with women and at the age of 22 I was still a virgin. I went to Amsterdam in order to finally pop my cherry.

It's very shameful but a true story. I suppose being in my position kind of changed the way I viewed things. When you've tried for years to be with a woman and had no success, eventually you explore other means (however seedy).

Then, once you do it once it changes the way you view prostitution.

You're missing out.

Sky King

Deleted User wrote: »

Then, once you do it once it changes the way you view prostitution.

Are hookers as miserable as Radio 1 documentaries would have you believe or do they seem to like their jobs?

CK73

poundapunnet wrote: »

And what about the first part of my post?

It would have been a better analogy to say that due to women wanting to make babies they have a higher sex drive and therefore have casual sex while in a relationship.

Many, many women do have casual sex, but because they don't pay in the same way men pay to see an Escort, it's not seen as a problem or abuse.

For example. A woman puts an advert up on a forum (dating/swinging) saying she would like casual sex. The next day she checks to find 100+ replies.

A man does the same thing and gets '0' replies.

The lady picks the guy she fancies the most and off she goes and the guy picks up the phone and books an Escort that he fancies.

The difference is that the guys are volunteering to do it for free and the women are volunteering to do it for a fee. They are both volunteering none the less. One is a guy getting a good time and the other considered what exactly?

charlietheminxx

Reading this thread has me seriously worried about how some people view relationships.

If you no longer fancy your partner, don't stay in a relationship with them. I'm a child of divorce myself, so personally I know it's better for everyone in the long run to do what makes you happy rather than staying in one that leaves you unfulfilled.

Using an escort is running away from your problems and burying your head in the sand. It doesn't solve anything and you're being generally unfair to your partner and yourself by denying either of you a chance to find a relationship that IS fulfilling.

If someone cheated on me with an escort, I would be appalled. Especially with the higher risk of contracting an STI. Would it save your marriage to give your husband or wife genital warts or hepatitis?

A marriage or relationship with that much dishonesty and betrayal is a relationship in name alone. It's not what it's all about.

CK73

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

if you have to ask that question.... then my friend you really do not know much about prostitution.

That is very funny

poundapunnet

poundapunnet wrote: »

Did your partner know? Presuming (and I think it's a pretty safe bet) that most women feel incredibly hurt and betrayed if they knew their partner visited an escort, do you still feel that "I'm a man and I'm programmed this way" is justification enough?

Honestly? Probably not justification enough. My ex never found out. I know it was dishonest but I don't know if I could make it in a life long relationship (aka marriage) without having incredible urges to have sex with other women. Those urges would drive me insane.

Let me put it this way. I've witnessed a lot of marriages where the husband is so sexually frustrated that he'll be passive aggressive towards his wife. In social situations he'll undermine and belittle her opinions, to the point of emotional abuse out of frustration and the feeling of being trapped.

To me, guys like this (and their wives) could benefit from him having a no strings-attached release with a professional escort

CK73

CK73 wrote: »

Where I agree with you that the two are not comparable I would not say that sex out of marriage with anyone, even with protection is 100% safe and anyone doing this should have regular check ups at a GUM clinic. It is one thing taking risks with your own life, but if the person is still having sex with his wife, then he should think carefully and act responsibly.

Don't disagree with you. Probably should get myself checked out.