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.
The_Valeyard wrote: » Just personally thinking, but, if you are married and feel the need to visit an escort, surely the marriage is already dying? This could just be a faux solution, thinking it will save things, when it could just drag it out longer.
looking_around wrote: » You might want to read some possible reasons on the previous page. Sometimes it's simply about getting a need met, but they still want to live/cuddle/sleep(like actually sleep) with the OH.
looking_around wrote: » care to clarify?
Czarcasm wrote: » Not really looking_around tbh, and I mean this with the greatest of respect but I don't think you're prepared to listen to or discuss anyones opinion that differs from your own in this regard. I'm ok with that too though as I am with people who choose to define their marriage or do within their marriage whatever they want. It's only if I was personally affected by their decisions I'd give a ****e tbh, but you're hardly going to believe that when you have your mind made up already about what you choose to believe. I'm also ok with not winning an argument on the internet in what is most times in AH merely an academic discussion that quickly descends into petty jibes and point scoring for "thanks" or "likes".
looking_around wrote: » I'm not prepared? :rolleyes: suit yourself.
looking_around wrote: » alright everyone is talking in theory. Lets throw in some reality.From people who are in open relationships. ...whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.
looking_around wrote: » Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. ... 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 wrote: » Well you've laid it out pretty clearly that your opinion is to be the be all and end all when you come out with stuff like - So the basis of your argument is what other people decide to do and what way they choose to define it, is their own business. How can anyone provide a counter argument to that opinion? They simply can't, but by your own admission that opinion only works for a tiny minority of people as opposed to the vast majority of people for whom marriage means just the two people involved, and for whom the introduction of a third party redefines the marital relationship, which then means that the couple isn't saving the marriage they entered into as a couple, but redefining their definition of marriage to accommodate the introduction of a third party. Now that I've elaborated for the nth time (must be the third or fourth time I've said it if you read back through the thread), I'm prepared to be told yet again that what other people choose to do and how they choose to define it is none of my business, end of discussion, etc, ad nauseam.
humbert wrote: » At the risk of wading in half way through; is having a flexible definition of marriage a bad thing? Surely allowing their marriage to evolve in ways that were unforeseeable, or at least unforeseen, at the onset doesn't necessarily diminish it.
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.
Czarcasm wrote: » We already have flexible definitions of marriage, no argument there, but for the purposes of this discussion, it was understood to be a monogamous marriage between two people. The whole crux of the discussion here is whether or not the involvement of a third party saves a marriage between two people that is already diminished due to unforeseen circumstances (marriages go tits up all the time, there's no denying that, but the question is whether involving a third party saves the marriage or not), and so far in this thread, the assumption has been that the third party comes NSA with no feelings or agenda of their own and only appears for sex and then disappears, and there are no negative consequences within the marriage whatsoever for this arrangement. That might be a valid argument if human beings weren't human beings and didn't have emotions, feelings, thoughts and desires of their own, but that's merely an academic argument with set parameters and no acknowledgement of a rather complicated and complex reality of the situation. There's also been no discussion around what happens when one party decides a third party arrangement really isn't working for them and they'd rather try and work on the marriage as a couple without the additional complications of a third party, third party doesn't always conveniently piss off when they're told to! But that's just messy and popular opinion on the internet often tends to ignore such complications in favour of just the facts and logic please, none of that messy emotional stuff.
Cienciano wrote: » Ridiculous post. You're assuming everyone is the same as you (and probably the majority of people) and sex is of vital importance in a relationship. For some people it's not. Newsflash: People are different, not everyone has the same tastes as you, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.
Czarcasm wrote: » OP if you and your OH or you mates and their OH's are happy in your relationships, that's the most important thing over what anyone else thinks or what works for them in their relationships!
Czarcasm wrote: » There's not nearly enough information in the OP to be able to form any kind of an opinion on his friends immediate apparent issue that there is a lack of sex within their marriage. Lack of sex within a marriage can be down to an infinite number of reasons and more often than not is never as easily solved as "Sit down and talk", "Up 'n' leave", "Get it somewhere else/they have to be getting it somewhere else" nor "Seek marriage guidance/counselling", etc. Without knowing the people involved, it's impossible to comment with any authority on the circumstances of their relationship.
humbert wrote: » Thanks for the concise synopsis, I really wasn't willing to trawl through this particular thread.If it's an escort surely the pissing off part is very easy?
I would have suspected that the secrecy of the arrangement was the main bone of contention.
Simply though, I think the common consensus on what a good marriage or relationship is is little more than the most polite and palatable version, not the reality. I think the reality is inconsistent, complex and frequently ethically dubious but, IMO, so are the people involved. I personally think attraction can take many forms, sexual being only one of them (though, as with all creatures, the one which must be in some way satisfied), and that no one from is more important than the rest.
Emotional stuff may provoke us to do irrational things but I think it can be discussed in a logical and factual manner.
Czarcasm wrote: » Absolutely, but only if you're working under the assumption that an escort doesn't charge for their services so there are no financial implications for the marriage first of all (how much as a couple are they willing to pay for play? How much is the agreed budget and what quality should they expect for their budget? Multitude of questions on a surface level that hasn't even been scratched in this thread). Secondly, the partner seeking sexual fulfilment outside the marriage (assuming they also get their way with the budget and quality and don't end up with Wayne Rooney's sloppy seconds!) may initially be ok with once a week, but then might want once a day, and you're into more negotiations again, and that's even before we get into the person developing an emotional connection with the escort (and there's nothing to suggest the escort will object to this, escorts are just as much human beings too, sometimes it's good for business, sometimes it's bad for business), geez tbh I could go on all night about the multitude of complex issues involved in just introducing an escort (or escorts!) into the relationship, but it's easier for some people to just ignore all that stuff or consider it facts not in evidence (or you could just do a Mythbusters on it - "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own").
Czarcasm wrote: » Down off your soap box before anyone sees you, all fairness! Nothing in the post you quoted suggests that I think everyone thinks the same way as I do. I was providing a counter point to UCDVet who said he didn't see the big deal about sex, and if you were familiar with UCDVet's position on sexual relations, you'd know that they're a free-for-all kinda guy, quite the contrary to what you're suggesting I said (which I actually didn't say at all, so where you pulled that out of I have no idea, especially if you read this post from another thread - or, how about this one, from another thread on sexless marriages/relationships - Newsflash: You really shouldn't make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people on the basis of one single flimsy post on the internet, so I won't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions about you either, other than to state categorically that on this one Cicerano, you're WAY off the mark.
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)
humbert wrote: » While any one of those possibilities is entirely plausible I couldn't consider any of them more likely than not and so, while worth considering for anyone on the cusp of going down that route, don't really add weight to the argument in favour or against.
In the context of this thread, I don't have any particular difficulty believing that, for some people, seeing an escort allowed a relationship to continue and even possibly in a healthy fashion but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it is a general solution to marital difficulties.
Cienciano wrote: » Are you for real? You post that after saying this: Maybe you should follow your own advice
Czarcasm wrote: » Of course I'm willing to acknowledge that introducing a third party into a relationship will allow a relationship to continue between two people, now three people, but that's hardly what either person signed up for when their original intention was a monogamous marriage between just the two of them. The introduction of a third party (and this has been my argument all along) changes the definition of the marriage they originally signed up for, so is the introduction of a third party saving the monogamous marriage? No, it's redefining the parameters of the marriage from a monogamous one to an open one, and that marriage isn't considered saved, it's considered compromised, until the exit of the third party from the relationship and the marriage goes back to it's original definition - a monogamous marriage. That generally doesn't happen, not to my knowledge or experience anyway. Does that exclude the possibility that it can happen? I did use the word "generally" for a reason - because I'm also aware that it DOES happen, just not generally speaking. Usually with the introduction of a third party into a marriage already in decline, the marriage declines even further, to the point where separation or divorce becomes an inevitability.
Czarcasm wrote: » Ohh right, took me a minute there to figure out what you were getting at. Basically the point I was making in that first post you quoted was that UCDVet was trying to make out like sex was nothing more than just a mechanical function that human beings engage in just the same as they would reading a book, and obviously like I pointed out in my subsequent post, UCDVet has a flair for the facetious, so my reply was in the same vein. You really shouldn't have read into it as much as you did tbh.
Daveysil15 wrote: » In fairness it probably is for some people. You can't comment for everyone.
howyanow wrote: » Are the websites the escorts use to advertise also illegal seeing that the services provided are illegal?
Q. Is sex work or prostitution illegal in Ireland? Selling sex is not illegal in Ireland however, soliciting, living off the earnings of prostitution and organising prostitution are illegal as set out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993. Children are protected from prostitution under the Children Act 2001; in relation to child sexual abuse, for the purposes of the criminal law, the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 17 years.
howyanow wrote: » But would setting up a website and advertising services not count as solliciting on the escorts behalf? i always just assumed that the services were illegal and even possibly browsing an escort website would also be illegal.
Czarcasm wrote: » Browsing an escort website isn't illegal either, but there are many more sites and opportunities where escorts and sex workers will advertise their services without explicitly stating that they are soliciting for payment for sexual services offered.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » Heard that dating sites, plenty of fish in particular, is used by escorts these days. Makes perfect sense dont it? I mean an ordinary woman can have a profile and get dozens of mails from blokes looking for sex. All an escort has to do is reply with 'sure, give me 200 euro and you can do what you want'
Lyaiera wrote: » I've listened to a lot of sex workers speak out against them. Their fundamental position is that no-one is in sex work as a choice, which I know not to be true. By making buying sex illegal they make it more dangerous for the people who willingly entered sex work and far more dangerous for people who have been forced into it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dcc54fc0153c491ede3e66aef098573d.svg)
