"Visiting escorts can save a marriage"

poundapunnet wrote: »

And what about the first part of my post?

Just responded to it now.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

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.

Where do you get this from? Don't you think it is more likely to catch an STI having a drunken one night stand or an affair without using condoms? It is not difficult to find an Escort who is STI free and has regular check ups and only offers safe services, so if they are 'playing safe' then there is far less risk.

I agree that if it is just a matter of not fancying your partner any more and the relationship is dead, then they would be better off divorcing. However, it is far too simplistic to imagine this is the only scenario in which someone would book an Escort.

CK73 wrote: »

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?

If women have casual sex while in a relationship with somebody who does not agree that that's acceptable then it is most definitely a problem. If a man not in a relationship has sex with an escort then that's a completely different situation to what's being discussed here.

My point with the poking holes in condoms (which I would see as terrible behaviour) is that a woman could easily justify that to herself "Sure it's just a child, if he saw it the same way I saw it then he wouldn't have a problem with taking a huge risk of pregnancy, but he'll be happy with a child, it'll make the relationship better, so I'll just go ahead and do this without his consent for both our sakes". It's rationalising selfish behaviour, it's completely self-serving, and in that way it's only a difference of degree between that and "She thinks escorts are a big deal, but I need them and I know it's not a big deal, it's good for the relationship even though she most certainly wouldn't agree, so I'll just go ahead and do it without her consent for both our sakes".

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

You're missing out.

Too f*cking right I am! Living in a world where sex is going on everywhere, thrown in our faces in the media and films, and not finding a female to actually do it with?

That's what drove me to a hooker in the first place :mad:

Sky King wrote: »

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

I think pretty much 99% of the escorts I've met were voluntary (I've asked a lot of them if they needed help and they always laughed at my innocence).

Now, some of them could have been incredibly good actors, but they always seem to have a plan with what they want to do with their lives0, and they've never been miserable about their jobs, only miserable with a small few particular clients they've had

Chazz Michael Michaels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think pretty much 99% of the escorts I've met were voluntary (I've asked a lot of them if they needed help and they always laughed at my innocence).

Now, some of them could have been incredibly good actors, but they always seem to have a plan with what they want to do with their lives0, and they've never been miserable about their jobs, only miserable with a small few particular clients they've had

Where do they escort you to?

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly? Probably 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

It's going to have to be agree to disagree on this one I think bud. If sex is SO important to you that it can drive you to emotionally abuse a partner or conceal behaviour from her that you know would be considered a devestating betrayal of trust, then you really need to reassess the relationship. Either find someone whose sexual appetites or attitudes to monogamy chime with yours or do something to try and sort out the sex problem in your existing relationship.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Where do they escort you to?

Nowhere. 'Escorts' is a more polite / legally ambiguous term than 'prostitutes'.

To my interpretation, prostitutes are the women who hang around Fitzwilliam Square / Mespil Road area, whereas escorts are ones who advertise online and provide transparency as to who they are and what they do/don't like

CK73 wrote: »

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!!!

This relationship is starting to feel like a real marriage!

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?

Nah CK I'm gonna give you that one, I want to say the man is disrespecting his wife by not telling her, but I'm not gonna be a bastard about it either, there's a LOT going on there, and as you say, no such thing as black and white and all that.

poundapunnet wrote: »

If women have casual sex while in a relationship with somebody who does not agree that that's acceptable then it is most definitely a problem. If a man not in a relationship has sex with an escort then that's a completely different situation to what's being discussed here.

My point with the poking holes in condoms (which I would see as terrible behaviour) is that a woman could easily justify that to herself "Sure it's just a child, if he saw it the same way I saw it then he wouldn't have a problem with taking a huge risk of pregnancy, but he'll be happy with a child, it'll make the relationship better, so I'll just go ahead and do this without his consent for both our sakes". It's rationalising selfish behaviour, it's completely self-serving, and in that way it's only a difference of degree between that and "She thinks escorts are a big deal, but I need them and I know it's not a big deal, it's good for the relationship even though she most certainly wouldn't agree, so I'll just go ahead and do it without her consent for both our sakes".

The difference between a man booking an Escort and a women poking a hole in a condom are worlds apart.

They both hold deception as the starting point, but that is where it ends.

Bringing a life into this world is not the right of one person, as half of the genetic make up of that child belongs to the man. The child deserves to have a Father, or at least know who the Father is. The child will need looking after and they are not cheap. You are therefore either denying or pushing a life long responsibility on to someone without their knowledge.

Also, if the lady is not discriminating with whom she is trying to father a child with, she could find he has an STI and pass that on to the child too. Think of HIV for one.

Now I have always wanted a daughter and if I had cared to, I could have tricked my ex-husband into creating one with me (although it may have been a boy, but then try again?). However, I would not do this. Not so much out of respect for my ex, but out of respect of the unborn child, who deserves to have two parents that love it.

When talking about the creation of life, it is not comparable with sex and please remember that humans were not designed to only have sex for the sake of having children, as we were designed to enjoy it purely for pleasure and sex can decrease the possibility of many illnesses and stress related problems. We were designed to do it life long from adolescents onward.

Shrills

poundapunnet wrote: »

It's going to have to be agree to disagree on this one I think bud. If sex is SO important to you that it can drive you to emotionally abuse a partner or conceal behaviour from her that you know would be considered a devestating betrayal of trust, then you really need to reassess the relationship. Either find someone whose sexual appetites or attitudes to monogamy chime with yours or do something to try and sort out the sex problem in your existing relationship.

Unless his monogomous partner has the ability to morph into multiple people the sex problem in the relationship can't be sorted out. Some people need sex with multiple partners and a close relationship to feel happy.

poundapunnet wrote: »

It's going to have to be agree to disagree on this one I think bud. If sex is SO important to you that it can drive you to emotionally abuse a partner or conceal behaviour from her that you know would be considered a devestating betrayal of trust, then you really need to reassess the relationship. Either find someone whose sexual appetites or attitudes to monogamy chime with yours or do something to try and sort out the sex problem in your existing relationship.

Agree to disagree with you then. I don't think prostitution is going anywhere though.

I think that, like marijuana, we need to regulate, legalise it and protect ALL of those those involved in it, however seedy it may be to some people.

Shrills wrote: »

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

Hey I'm Roman Catholic, dafuq did you expect? Honesty or something? Fcuks sake :pac:

Shrills wrote: »

Unless his monogomous partner has the ability to morph into multiple people the sex problem in the relationship can't be sorted out. Some people need sex with multiple partners and a close relationship to feel happy.

Then they should find a partner who's okay with that, and not justify deceiving somebody who's not. Some people need a monogamous relationship with maybe not very much sex to be happy, but they're not being given a choice in the matter.

I have nothing against non-monogamous relationships, swinging, escorts, anything. I do have a problem with people carrying out such a fundamental deception because they selfishly want to have their cake and eat it too: they want this partner and that sex life and bugger what she wants, it's grand if she doesn't find out. It is NOT a close relationship if you are lying about seeking sex outside it. The other partner is having a completely imaginary relationship, the monogamous, trusting relationship they think they have doesn't exist, and no matter how much escorts allow you to maintain that illusion and have a quiet life, it's still an illusion. I don't see how it can be justified.

Deleted User wrote: »

Agree to disagree with you then. I don't think prostitution is going anywhere though.

I think that, like marijuana, we need to regulate, legalise it and protect ALL of those those involved in it, however seedy it may be to some people.

Just to be clear, it's not prostitution I have a problem with. I've already stated in this thread that I think it should be legalised and regulated.

poundapunnet wrote: »

Then they should find a partner who's okay with that, and not justify deceiving somebody who's not. Some people need a monogamous relationship with maybe not very much sex to be happy, but they're not being given a choice in the matter.

I have nothing against non-monogamous relationships, swinging, escorts, anything. I do have a problem with people carrying out such a fundamental deception because they selfishly want to have their cake and eat it too: they want this partner and that sex life and bugger what she wants, it's grand if she doesn't find out. It is NOT a close relationship if you are lying about seeking sex outside it. The other partner is having a completely imaginary relationship, the monogamous, trusting relationship they think they have doesn't exist, and no matter how much escorts allow you to maintain that illusion and have a quiet life, it's still an illusion. I don't see how it can be justified.

I'm with you on this one. I think often when choosing a partner not enough attention or value is put into seeing how sexually compatible you are. I know of many relations that work very well where the lady is encouraged to have as many sexual partners as she wishes and sometimes the husband joins in too.

This would not work for most people, but there are men and women out there that crave this scenario. Go out and find the right person!

Shrills

poundapunnet wrote: »

Then they should find a partner who's okay with that, and not justify deceiving somebody who's not. Some people need a monogamous relationship with maybe not very much sex to be happy, but they're not being given a choice in the matter.

I have nothing against non-monogamous relationships, swinging, escorts, anything. I do have a problem with people carrying out such a fundamental deception because they selfishly want to have their cake and eat it too: they want this partner and that sex life and bugger what she wants, it's grand if she doesn't find out. It is NOT a close relationship if you are lying about seeking sex outside it. The other partner is having a completely imaginary relationship, the monogamous, trusting relationship they think they have doesn't exist, and no matter how much escorts allow you to maintain that illusion and have a quiet life, it's still an illusion. I don't see how it can be justified.

I agree that's what they should do, but due to the monogomy centric society we live in many are brainwashed to think this is wrong or they won't be able to find anyone willing to agree to a relationship like that.

People generally just want to feel good, a man could resist 99% of the time his temptation to have sex elsewhere, but then on 1% of occasions he cheats to feel alive and excited again and gives in to temptation. It's in many people's nature to have sex with multiple partners, so don't be surprised when they revert to there natural inclination despite being told it's wrong.

Shrills wrote: »

I agree that's what they should do, but due to the monogomy centric society we live in many are brainwashed to think this is wrong or they won't be able to find anyone willing to agree to a relationship like that.

People generally just want to feel good, a man could resist 99% of the time his temptation to have sex elsewhere, but then on 1% of occasions he cheats to feel alive and excited again and gives in to temptation. It's in many people's nature to have sex with multiple partners, so don't be surprised when they revert to there natural inclination despite being told it's wrong.

Nobody's being told their natural inclinations are wrong. It's the deception that's wrong. Leading another person to believe that they are in a sexually monogamous relationship with a person when they're actually having sex outside the relationship without their partner's knowledge. That's the thing most people have an issue with.

Shrills wrote: »

I agree that's what they should do, but due to the monogomy centric society we live in many are brainwashed to think this is wrong or they won't be able to find anyone willing to agree to a relationship like that.

People generally just want to feel good, a man could resist 99% of the time his temptation to have sex elsewhere, but then on 1% of occasions he cheats to feel alive and excited again and gives in to temptation. It's in many people's nature to have sex with multiple partners, so don't be surprised when they revert to there natural inclination despite being told it's wrong.

Sorry, I think that's a cop-out. If you have so little control over your sexual urges, do not put yourself in a position where you will be tempted. By your logic you could see a girl passed out on a couch, lose control of yourself and have sex with her, and not be to blame because you're just following your nature. If your answer to that is "that's rape, rape is wrong and totally different" then it just shows that you absolutely can control your sexual urges, you just don't think your partner's expectation of monogamy is a good enough reason.

If that's somebody's position, that's fine, just don't use the cop out of "I'm a man and sometimes I have absolutely no ability to resist temptation, deal with it".

Czarcasm wrote: »

Nobody's being told their natural inclinations are wrong. It's the deception that's wrong. Leading another person to believe that they are in a sexually monogamous relationship with a person when they're actually having sex outside the relationship without their partner's knowledge. That's the thing most people have an issue with.

This is going to sound weird, as I do agree where there is no sexual denial within the relationship, that extra marital activity should really only happen with knowledge and consent of the other person, unless there is some deep and underlying problem as in my previous post.

Zen65

Chefrio wrote: »

I was browsing the escort Ireland forum for sh1ts and giggles and noticed an interesting thread about your first time with an escort or a client. It was mentioned by a few that visiting escorts saved their marriage.

Do you think this happens much and is the marriage really saved?

There are so many different relationships in the world, it's probably true that in some cases the relationship may be saved by

Both partners being members of the same religion
One partner working abroad most of the year
One partner playing golf most weekends
One partner having a huge bank account, while the other is a shopaholic
The partners having children, and staying together to raise them
One partner having an illness, and the other having a strong desire to care for them
One partner having a difficult childhood, and feeling comforted by their partner
One partner visits escorts to avoid sexual frustration
One partner visits a gambling house to release their frustrations
One partner goes parachute-jumping to release their frustration

Of all the relationship-savers in the list though, visiting an escort seems intuitively to be the least likely to be common.

With over 1,000 escorts operating in Ireland every day, and each escort having (say) 2-3 clients per day, that amounts to nearly one million sexual encounters a year, and it is probably fair to say that a lot of married men must be using escorts, and probably without their wives knowing it. I'd say however that the number of times this occurs as part of a marriage-saving strategy is probably very small.

If the original remark was written on a website which promotes escorts, it's probably safe to say that this is just propaganda.

CK73 wrote: »

The difference between a man booking an Escort and a women poking a hole in a condom are worlds apart.

They both hold deception as the starting point, but that is where it ends.

Bringing a life into this world is not the right of one person, as half of the genetic make up of that child belongs to the man. The child deserves to have a Father, or at least know who the Father is. The child will need looking after and they are not cheap. You are therefore either denying or pushing a life long responsibility on to someone without their knowledge.

Also, if the lady is not discriminating with whom she is trying to father a child with, she could find he has an STI and pass that on to the child too. Think of HIV for one.

Now I have always wanted a daughter and if I had cared to, I could have tricked my ex-husband into creating one with me (although it may have been a boy, but then try again?). However, I would not do this. Not so much out of respect for my ex, but out of respect of the unborn child, who deserves to have two parents that love it.

When talking about the creation of life, it is not comparable with sex and please remember that humans were not designed to only have sex for the sake of having children, as we were designed to enjoy it purely for pleasure and sex can decrease the possibility of many illnesses and stress related problems. We were designed to do it life long from adolescents onward.

Sorry only saw this now somehow. I agree that getting pregnant without the consent of the father or due regard for the child is reprehensible, and far far worse than visiting an escort or cheating. I brought it up because men were saying it is downright necessary to seek sex outside a relationship because of their biological drive, therefore the deception is justifiable and I was saying that a woman could use that same bullsh1t reasoning to justify doing something far worse than visiting an escort.

poundapunnet wrote: »

I have nothing against non-monogamous relationships, swinging, escorts, anything. I do have a problem with people carrying out such a fundamental deception because they selfishly want to have their cake and eat it too: they want this partner and that sex life and bugger what she wants, it's grand if she doesn't find out. It is NOT a close relationship if you are lying about seeking sex outside it. The other partner is having a completely imaginary relationship, the monogamous, trusting relationship they think they have doesn't exist, and no matter how much escorts allow you to maintain that illusion and have a quiet life, it's still an illusion. I don't see how it can be justified.

Hmm, think I see where you're coming from now. And.......I don't disagree with you.

The only doubt I'd have with your idea is that I can't imagine any woman who would accept their husband/boyfriend visiting an escort every now and again.

I'd love to marry a woman who'd accept me satisfying my urges once a month or something like that, but I don't think it would be possible for me to get that lucky.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, think I see where you're coming from now. And.......I don't disagree with you.

The only doubt I'd have with your idea is that I can't imagine any woman who would accept their husband/boyfriend visiting an escort every now and again.

I'd love to marry a woman who'd accept me satisfying my urges once a month or something like that, but I don't think it would be possible for me to get that lucky.

I think it depends on the situation.

It may be that she no longer wants sex and rather than feel it is her 'duty' to do it for his sake, she is happy to make that compromise, but doesn't want to know the gory details.

It could be she is bi sexual and is happy for another woman to 'share' now and again.

It could be that she also wants to see other men and as long as they tell each other when they do, it is okay by both partners.

It could be that she actually gets a thrill from it.

It wouldn't suit me either if I am honest, but if my husband fancied 3sums with another guy there, I might be up for that.

CK73 wrote: »

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.

Yeah well that's what I mean CK, individuals are free to define their marriage as it suits them, but generally when we talk about monogamous marriages, there are aspects that people generally understand to mean "marriage" without all the semantic definitions. One of the most basic concepts of a marriage is that neither party is having sex with someone else outside the relationship, and if they are not having sex with each other, there can be as I've said before, an infinite number of reasons for that and we could do the "if"s, "and"s and "but"s all day talking about the complexities and issues within individual relationships.

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.

CK if you google the history of marriage it'll show you that marriage was a social construct that formed a legal contract and THAT was the original intention of marriage long before any religious got their hands on it. The stuff you posted there about religious involvement in a marriage actually doesn't stop after the wedding ceremony, there are any number of religious counselling services offered when the marriage is in crisis. Do you honestly think religious leaders don't think they have the answer to everything?

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, think I see where you're coming from now. And.......I don't disagree with you.

The only doubt I'd have with your idea is that I can't imagine any woman who would accept their husband/boyfriend visiting an escort every now and again.

I'd love to marry a woman who'd accept me satisfying my urges once a month or something like that, but I don't think it would be possible for me to get that lucky.

You might be surprised what people would be up for though. I'm sure there's dating sites for people with those kinds of views anyway?

Personally I'm not that bothered by monogamy really, think there's far too much emphasis put on it. I was in a long-distance relationship where we both agreed that it wasn't a realistic expectation for either of us, worked grand. If I happened to be in a relationship where my sex drive suddenly fell off and it was a problem for my partner I don't think I'd have a problem with them seeking sex elsewhere, as long as it was just sex and as long as they were honest about it. I'm not the cheerleader for the monogamy team here, it's the lying and disrespect I'm taking issue with.

Shrills

poundapunnet wrote: »

Sorry, I think that's a cop-out. If you have so little control over your sexual urges, do not put yourself in a position where you will be tempted. By your logic you could see a girl passed out on a couch, lose control of yourself and have sex with her, and not be to blame because you're just following your nature. If your answer to that is "that's rape, rape is wrong and totally different" then it just shows that you absolutely can control your sexual urges, you just don't think your partner's expectation of monogamy is a good enough reason.

If that's somebody's position, that's fine, just don't use the cop out of "I'm a man and sometimes I have absolutely no ability to resist temptation, deal with it".

It's reality, put a hungry fat person on a diet in a room of sweets and junk food and see what happens. People give in to their urges all the time, it's human nature. I don't judge it.