People who hire hookers?

The_Captain

yumyum10 wrote: »

Friend hires one a week. Says its cheaper than a girlfriend and isn't tied down. What's your views on people who hire them?

I think that costs extra

Paramite Pie

nokia69 wrote: »

and none of them ever escape, the trafficking myth just doesn't add up

In fairness, how many of us could've imagined all those missing girls chained up in peoples basements for decades?? Your "I'll see it when I believe it" attitude is actually quite close minded.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen interviews with escaped (trafficked) sex-workers on Prime Time over the years. It does happen, and a quick search found this

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/a-woman-trafficked-into-the-sex-trade-in-ireland-tells-her-story-29760573.html

http://www.ica.ie/Trafficking-of-Women-and-Children.606.aspx

^^ At least a 100 women escaped/rescued with the between 2009-2012.

Saralee4

yumyum10 wrote: »

Friend hires one a week. Says its cheaper than a girlfriend and isn't tied down. What's your views on people who hire them?

I don't know. I want to be open minded about it but I just find if bit seedy especially as its a substitute for him as a girlfriend. It sounds a bit mechanical with no connection.

I'm sure there are pros and cons to getting a hooker but being a girlfriend and in a relationship is not just about sex and perhaps if your friend has been trying to start relationships with women with the idea that they are expensive and only good for one thing and objectifying them, then he doesn't really have much to offer a woman and that's why he cant get a girlfriend.

Personally if I was a man (im not so I cant speak for them really) but if I was, the fact that I paid would be an issue for me. I would be thinking she could be disgusted by me or she's probably not enjoying it so I would find that a turn off.

Also I would say after the novelty wore off, it wouldn't be that much fun really. I know male friends who cant get girlfriends, they say they just don't meet them but at the same time I have been in situations with them where I can clearly see missed opportunities where a girl is giving them all the signals and they just wont make a move. I could see how they would feel they were the victims and women were rejecting them but sometimes its just their perception. I could understand if they are thinking this way that they might think 'hey fxxx it, I ll just go to a hooker, its better than nothing'

Does your friend go to the same hooker all the time? That's a bit weird like that would really be paying for a girlfriend.

Ive seen those documentaries about men who get those real looking sex doll things and they really believe they have a relationship with them. It doesn't seem to be just sex with those, they want to eat, sleep, watch tv with them so what they are searching for is a connection, sex is just part of that.

dark crystal

nokia69 wrote: »

trafficked prostitutes are a myth, just think of how hard it is to hold someone against their will, then add in the fact that you have to let them meet random members of the public

too many people think the film taken is some kind of documentary

You think trafficked prostitutes are a myth?? You think every prostitute working today is doing so out of choice to get rich? How do you know all of this?

I haven't see 'Taken' by the way, but I certainly wouldn't confuse any Hollywood blockbuster for a documentary.

mylefttesticle

Saralee4 wrote: »

I don't know. I want to be open minded about it but I just find if bit seedy especially as its a substitute for him as a girlfriend. It sounds a bit mechanical with no connection.

I'm sure there are pros and cons to getting a hooker but being a girlfriend and in a relationship is not just about sex and perhaps if your friend has been trying to start relationships with women with the idea that they are expensive and only good for one thing and objectifying them, then he doesn't really have much to offer a woman and that's why he cant get a girlfriend.

Personally if I was a man (im not so I cant speak for them really) but if I was, the fact that I paid would be an issue for me. I would be thinking she could be disgusted by me or she's probably not enjoying it so I would find that a turn off.

Also I would say after the novelty wore off, it wouldn't be that much fun really. I know male friends who cant get girlfriends, they say they just don't meet them but at the same time I have been in situations with them where I can clearly see missed opportunities where a girl is giving them all the signals and they just wont make a move. I could see how they would feel they were the victims and women were rejecting them but sometimes its just their perception. I could understand if they are thinking this way that they might think 'hey fxxx it, I ll just go to a hooker, its better than nothing'

Does your friend go to the same hooker all the time? That's a bit weird like that would really be paying for a girlfriend.

Ive seen those documentaries about men who get those real looking sex doll things and they really believe they have a relationship with them. It doesn't seem to be just sex with those, they want to eat, sleep, watch tv with them so what they are searching for is a connection, sex is just part of that.

A lot of people can switch off emotions when its sexual, it can be just be a release and anyway connections and other stupid words like that are very rarely mutual! They might seem like it but one is always into it more than the other.

dark crystal

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then by that logic you can't complain if women are discriminated against in interviews if they're at an age when likely to start a family and go on maternity leave. So either we let business employ gender-based statistics or we don't. Let me know which you prefer.

Not that your response has much to do with what I wrote. Care to address that?

I was replying in context to your assertion that it's sexist to bring in a law that, while treating men and women equally, happens to apply more to one gender than another out of circumstance.

Wacker The Attacker

cruais wrote: »

Whats the difference between a hooker and a kit kat?

You only get 4 fingers in a kit kat.

Why didn't you just call her a twix?

Saralee4

mylefttesticle wrote: »

A lot of people can switch off emotions when its sexual, it can be just be a release and anyway connections and other stupid words like that are very rarely mutual! They might seem like it but one is always into it more than the other.

I understand this but op said his friend compared it to having a girlfriend which would give the impression that this is probably what he really wants but has given up on the idea.

Roquentin

regardless of whether one is in a relationship or visiting escorts or whether you do neither, all three are valid arrangements. its up to the individual to find what works best and no one takes precedent over the other.

There is nothing wrong with visiting escorts IMO nor is there nothing wrong with living the lonely life. its up to each individual to find what works for them (before the new laws come into effect)

LDN_Irish

Saralee4 wrote: »

I understand this but op said his friend compared it to having a girlfriend which would give the impression that this is probably what he really wants but has given up on the idea.

I suspect the OPs friend has used the "cheaper than a girlfriend line" because it sounds less embarrassing than "I'm terrified of talking to women" or "scared of rejection" etc. I'm struggling to believe there are many men who don't have girlfriends purely to save a few quid. It does sound like a low opinion to have of women. I certainly don't know many (maybe not any) that would obviously be financially unviable to go out with and I'm not a high earner.

strobe

I had one friend years ago that used hookers regularly (well one that I knew of). I'd always presumed you'd be talking 20-50 quid a go or something, but he mentioned once that I was way off and you'd be talking 150-300 a pop on average. I thought that was crazy so asked him how on earth he thought 200+ a ride was worth it, especially considering he didn't seem to have any problem picking girls up for free on a night out. He had a pretty good response to be fair to him.

Went along the lines of "Ah but Strobe, you're not just paying for a ride. If you meet a girl on a night out there is as much chance she's going to be a bit crap in bed, as there is that she's going to be great, and most of the time she'll just be grand. And you've no idea until you're in bed together what, if anything, beyond plain old vanilla sex she's going to be up for. I don't pay 200 just for a ride. I pay it for the guarantee of an absolutely stunning girl, that really really knows what she's doing in bed, and is up for almost anything, and willing to do it just the way I like, and then say goodbye and leave right after. I mean I could ask a girl that comes home with me for a massage, and I might get lucky and it'd be pretty good, but if you want to be absolutely guaranteed a great one, you go to a professional, and you get what you pay for."

I could definitely see his point. But, it still wouldn't be for me personally. A massive part of what I enjoy about sex is basically, getting the other person off. The mutual enjoyment of the whole thing. Nothing in the world as sexy as bringing the other person to orgasm. And while I'm sure some hookers love what they do while they're doing it, I've gotta imagine for the vast majority it's just their job, it's work, and any enjoyment they seem to be experiencing is part of the performance. So it'd just be lacking one of my favourite parts, and so for me personally, not worth the money charged. But I can see why it'd suit others and I don't think anything negative about anyone that indulges, whatever floats your boat.

Roquentin

strobe wrote: »

I had one friend years ago that used hookers regularly (well one that I knew of). I'd always presumed you'd be talking 20-50 quid a go or something, but he mentioned once that I was way off and you'd be talking 150-300 a pop on average. I thought that was crazy so asked him how on earth he thought 200+ a ride was worth it, especially considering he didn't seem to have any problem picking girls up for free on a night out. He had a pretty good response to be fair to him.

Went along the lines of "Ah but Strobe, you're not just paying for a ride. If you meet a girl on a night out there is as much chance she's going to be a bit crap in bed, as there is that she's going to be great, and most of the time she'll just be grand. And you've no idea until you're in bed together what, if anything, beyond plain old vanilla sex she's going to be up for. I don't pay 200 just for a ride. I pay it for the guarantee of an absolutely stunning girl, that really really knows what she's doing in bed, and is up for almost anything, and willing to do it just the way I like, and then say goodbye and leave right after. I mean I could ask a girl that comes home with me for a massage, and I might get lucky and it'd be pretty good, but if you want to be absolutely guaranteed a great one, you go to a professional, and you get what you pay for."

I could definitely see his point. But, it still wouldn't be for me personally. A massive part of what I enjoy about sex is basically, getting the other person off. The mutual enjoyment of the whole thing. Nothing in the world as sexy as bringing the other person to orgasm. And while I'm sure some hookers love what they do while they're doing it, I've gotta imagine for the vast majority it's just their job, it's work, and any enjoyment they seem to be experiencing is part of the performance. So it'd just be lacking one of my favourite parts, and so for me personally, not worth the money charged. But I can see why it'd suit others and I don't think anything negative about anyone that indulges, whatever floats your boat.

i understand. different strokes for different folks.

also is your name strobe in real life?

Dravokivich

nokia69 wrote: »

trafficked prostitutes are a myth, just think of how hard it is to hold someone against their will, then add in the fact that you have to let them meet random members of the public

too many people think the film taken is some kind of documentary

It's not that much of a myth. The issue I have with trafficking being referenced for these discussions is apparently it's only something that occurs in the Sex Industry. It's clearly not and has been shown to be more prevalent in legitimate trade in this country. Unfortunately I don't remember the specifics of there occurrences. Came up a bit in construction.

Roquentin

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I suspect the OPs friend has used the "cheaper than a girlfriend line" because it sounds less embarrassing than "I'm terrified of talking to women" or "scared of rejection" etc. I'm struggling to believe there are many men who don't have girlfriends purely to save a few quid. It does sound like a low opinion to have of women. I certainly don't know many (maybe not any) that would obviously be financially unviable to go out with and I'm not a high earner.

theres more than money in the equation. some men might not want the work that goes with a relationship. some men just want to have sex and not see the woman until he rings her again. some men cant get a woman. Some men dont like the whole flirting thing. its not all money.

its simpler in some ways and more tricky in others.

strobe

Roquentin wrote: »

also is your name strobe in real life?

No not really. It's actually CoolUsername1992, believe it or not, goddamn hippy parents.

Saralee4

strobe wrote: »

Went along the lines of "Ah but Strobe, you're not just paying for a ride. If you meet a girl on a night out there is as much chance she's going to be a bit crap in bed, as there is that she's going to be great, and most of the time she'll just be grand. And you've no idea until you're in bed together what, if anything, beyond plain old vanilla sex she's going to be up for. I don't pay 200 just for a ride. I pay it for the guarantee of an absolutely stunning girl, that really really knows what she's doing in bed, and is up for almost anything, and willing to do it just the way I like, and then say goodbye and leave right after. I mean I could ask a girl that comes home with me for a massage, and I might get lucky and it'd be pretty good, but if you want to be absolutely guaranteed a great one, you go to a professional, and you get what you pay for."

I could definitely see his point. .

I get what he's saying and yea it makes sense but doesn't it also sound very controlling? like 'im gonna pay for the best for me and I can get them to do what I want because I have money' - That's the deal you make I guess.

He eliminates the chase, to know he can have a guarantee. But isn't that part of the excitement of pursuing and the fact that the person desires you as much as you do them. And like you said Strobe, it is a big turn on to bring the person to orgasm. Perhaps that is too much pressure for him and he is only interested in his own pleasure. I actually think that the process of getting a guaranteed lay based on the fact that you have the money to pay for it and nothing more is 'vanilla'.

Lucena

@Yurt!

I agree that all ideologies should be held up to scrutiny, nothing should be held 'sacred'.

@Corinthian

No, I didn't address that fact that men tend to get a raw deal when it comes to sentencing and having access to their children after a separation, which is true. I didn't intend to write a thesis and/or address every point.

Bock the Robber makes the point about perceptions of violence and unfair sentencing here:

http://bocktherobber.com/2012/03/male-and-female-violence-claire-nolan-convicted-crushing-man-death-car/

@BD45

The Page 3 thing. Feminists have the right to be against it, even if there are women suffering things far worse in other countries. It's almost like saying people shouldn't waste their time recycling as it's not as important as saving the rainforests.

@Everyone

Extremists of any belief should not be assumed to represent the whole.

strobe

Saralee4 wrote: »

I get what he's saying and yea it makes sense but doesn't it also sound very controlling? like 'im gonna pay for the best for me and I can get them to do what I want because I have money' - That's the deal you make I guess.

I wouldn't think of it as controlling, no more or less so than any exchange of services for money. Well same as a carpenter I guess. You hire one to build a table they build it to your specifics. Hire a masseuse they massage you as you prefer. Hire a chef they cook what you tell them to cook. Hire an actor they act the scenes you tell them to act as you tell them to act them. Hire a hooker they ride you as you like to be rode.

He eliminates the chase, to know he can have a guarantee. But isn't that part of the excitement of pursuing and the fact that the person desires you as much as you do them. And like you said Strobe, it is a big turn on to bring the person to orgasm. Perhaps that is too much pressure for him and he is only interested in his own pleasure. I actually think that the process of getting a guaranteed lay based on the fact that you have the money to pay for it and nothing more is 'vanilla'.

Well in his case. He also got women into bed 'the traditional way' also frequently enough, so it wasn't a replacement for those things, more an addition, it seemed. The 'guarantee' seemed to mean a guarantee of really great sex with someone that was really great in bed, not just 'a lay' I think that was the whole point.

I mean like I said, whatever floats your boat, wouldn't be for me and sounds like it wouldn't be for you but obviously is for a lot of others.

Dravokivich

Saralee4 wrote: »

I get what he's saying and yea it makes sense but doesn't it also sound very controlling? like 'im gonna pay for the best for me and I can get them to do what I want because I have money' - That's the deal you make I guess.

He eliminates the chase, to know he can have a guarantee. But isn't that part of the excitement of pursuing and the fact that the person desires you as much as you do them. And like you said Strobe, it is a big turn on to bring the person to orgasm. Perhaps that is too much pressure for him and he is only interested in his own pleasure. I actually think that the process of getting a guaranteed lay based on the fact that you have the money to pay for it and nothing more is 'vanilla'.

Jaysus, go from talking about being with women on the game, to tracking them down as if they were game.

Roquentin

Saralee4 wrote: »

I get what he's saying and yea it makes sense but doesn't it also sound very controlling? like 'im gonna pay for the best for me and I can get them to do what I want because I have money' - That's the deal you make I guess.

He eliminates the chase, to know he can have a guarantee. But isn't that part of the excitement of pursuing and the fact that the person desires you as much as you do them. And like you said Strobe, it is a big turn on to bring the person to orgasm. Perhaps that is too much pressure for him and he is only interested in his own pleasure. I actually think that the process of getting a guaranteed lay based on the fact that you have the money to pay for it and nothing more is 'vanilla'.

some men enjoy the chase and some dont.

The Diabolical Monocle

some people enjoy working as chuggers others dont.

Alexis Sanchez2

Saralee4 wrote: »

I get what he's saying and yea it makes sense but doesn't it also sound very controlling? like 'im gonna pay for the best for me and I can get them to do what I want because I have money' - That's the deal you make I guess.

He eliminates the chase, to know he can have a guarantee. But isn't that part of the excitement of pursuing and the fact that the person desires you as much as you do them. And like you said Strobe, it is a big turn on to bring the person to orgasm. Perhaps that is too much pressure for him and he is only interested in his own pleasure. I actually think that the process of getting a guaranteed lay based on the fact that you have the money to pay for it and nothing more is 'vanilla'.

That's really besides the point, the man likes what the man likes. I personally prefer just seducing women for free.

professore

Roquentin wrote: »

i understand. different strokes for different folks.

also is your name strobe in real life?

I see what you did there ...

The Corinthian

Lucena wrote: »

No, I didn't address that fact that men tend to get a raw deal when it comes to sentencing and having access to their children after a separation, which is true.

Problem is that feminism never does. Feminism is a movement that claims to seek gender equality by pursuing women's rights. Unfortunately you cannot pursue gender equality by pursuing on the rights of one gender, it's like having only one lawyer in a case representing one of the sides and trusting they're going to be fair to both.

They're not there to be fair, they're there to represent their client.

This would be fine with feminism, were it not that it continues to sell itself as representing equality and you should be a feminist if you believe in equality. This succeeds only in suffocating any chance for rights that are not specifically for women to even be heard and this is what has happened.

So, by all means be a feminist. But don't tell me you're thus representing equality, because you're not. You're representing women, that's all.

lufties

Pwindedd wrote: »

Whatever fulfills your needs I suppose but can't help but think it must be a relatively hollow experience. Even one night stands have a bit of chemistry or passion going on that I don't imagine you can replicate with a brazzer.

And why does having a girlfriend have to be expensive. Most of us have jobs and cars n everything now.

Its just simply sex, no emotional ties..a lot of men can't get sex the convention way,(ladies have become extremely picky imo) especially sex with a pretty woman, some men cannot get there desires fulfilled and escorts or prostitutes are an option, I don't find anything wrong with it if its regulated .

Saralee4

Dravokivich wrote: »

Jaysus, go from talking about being with women on the game, to tracking them down as if they were game.

Haha well I'm sure you know that when two people are pursuing one another it is often referred to as the chase and that can be either side and it's part of the fun. Wooing, pursuing, chasing, creating sexual tension whatever you want to call it. It's not meant as a derogatory term or to say its like tracking animals. It is a game or a dance and the two people take part.

Strobe, the reason why I said it's controlling is the way he describes it. And i agree it is a service. In his case i dont think its because he was lonely or whatever but he obviously needed to pay to get the girl to do what he wanted because other women would not do it for him. If he found it easy to get women, would you really pay 200-300 for one? It sounds like he had some fetishism that he was either embarressed by or women would not take part in.

Roquentin

Saralee4 wrote: »

Haha well I'm sure you know that when two people are pursuing one another it is often referred to as the chase and that can be either side and it's part of the fun. Wooing, pursuing, chasing, creating sexual tension whatever you want to call it. It's not meant as a derogatory term or to say its like tracking animals. It is a game or a dance and the two people take part.

Strobe, the reason why I said it's controlling is the way he describes it. And i agree it is a service. In his case i dont think its because he was lonely or whatever but he obviously needed to pay to get the girl to do what he wanted because other women would not do it for him. If he found it easy to get women, would you really pay 200-300 for one? It sounds like he had some fetishism that he was either embarressed by or women would not take part in.

some men like controlling; some men like being controlled.

strobe

Saralee4 wrote: »

Strobe, the reason why I said it's controlling is the way he describes it. And i agree it is a service. In his case i dont think its because he was lonely or whatever but he obviously needed to pay to get the girl to do what he wanted because other women would not do it for him. If he found it easy to get women, would you really pay 200-300 for one? It sounds like he had some fetishism that he was either embarressed by or women would not take part in.

I really don't think it was that. You'd smile if you knew the guy too. If he liked dressing as a baby and having sex with a woman in a Richard Nixon mask he'd have had no problem saying so. I mean he did speak freely and openly to anyone about using hookers and a lot of other things.

Nah I think it was more just along the lines of the edit in my other post.
"The 'guarantee' seemed to mean a guarantee of really great sex with someone that was really great in bed, not just 'a lay' I think that was the whole point."
From what he said there was nothing that out there, just if you take a girl home on a ons, well, she might not be up for oral even, or she may only like certain positions, or not like the ones you like, or want the lights off, or might just not be very good or really know what she's doing. Just things like that I think.

Different people like different things from sex. You may not see the point without it being precluded by 'the dance of seduction' or without the other person fancying the arse off you, but for other people they aren't deal breakers. We're all different and like different things. I tend not to judge.

===================

Good point about fetishes though, I suppose that'd be another good reason someone would use hookers. If you did like dressing up like a baby and having sex with Richard Nixon, not many girls would be up for that the first night you take them home either. Lots of reasons people would avail of the service I guess.

Saralee4

strobe wrote: »

I really don't think it was that. You'd smile if you knew the guy too. If he liked dressing as a baby and having sex with a woman in a Richard Nixon mask he'd have had no problem saying so. I mean he did speak freely and openly to anyone about using hookers and a lot of other things.

Nah I think it was more just along the lines of the edit in my other post.
"The 'guarantee' seemed to mean a guarantee of really great sex with someone that was really great in bed, not just 'a lay' I think that was the whole point."

Different people like different things from sex. You may not see the point without it being precluded by 'the dance of seduction' or without the other person fancying the arse off you, but for other people they aren't deal breakers. We're all different and like different things. I tend not to judge.

I agree but i wonder what the protistute was doing that was so great that other girls couldn't provide him with. I mean what could she possibly be doing that was so great he was willing to pay that much? Anyway it worked for him and hopefully for the women too.

Ive seen alot of posts here with people saying it's grand, don't judge people and there is nothing wrong with it but at the end of the post is "it's not for me tho". People are very quick to confirm it's great but not for them. I think this is because ultimately men want to get the best but everyone knows its not real if you have to pay for it. Like strobe you commended and praised him about his honesty of visiting hookers but if there isn't an issue why don't we see more people admitting it or admitting wanting to do it?

strobe

Saralee4 wrote: »

I agree but i wonder what the protistute was doing that was so great that other girls couldn't provide him with. I mean what could she possibly be doing that was so great he was willing to pay that much? Anyway it worked for him and hopefully for the women too.

Well like he said I guess. Sometimes the girl you meet in the club will be great, but it's just as likely she'll be a bit crap, and most will be 'grand', neither great nor crap. So his point was he pays that much for the guarantee of the great. The reality just is that it's only a minority of women that are really great in bed. He was of the opinion that prostitutes, at least whatever ones he used, were consistently in that minority.
Like I said, I think it's crazy money.

Ive seen alot of posts here with people saying it's grand, don't judge people and there is nothing wrong with it but at the end of the post is "it's not for me tho". People are very quick to confirm it's great but not for them. I think this is because ultimately men want to get the best but everyone knows its not real if you have to pay for it. Like strobe you commended about his honesty of visiting hookers but if there isn't an issue why don't we see more people admitting it or admitting wanting to do it?

Well I'd imagine because it just isn't a socially acceptable thing at present. Much like, for example, homosexuality wasn't 30 years ago, or women having ons's wasn't until recently enough, and abortion probably till isn't. So most people aren't comfortable being open about it.