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?
nokia69 wrote: » and none of them ever escape, the trafficking myth just doesn't add up
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
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.
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?
cruais wrote: » Whats the difference between a hooker and a kit kat? You only get 4 fingers in a kit kat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Roquentin wrote: » also is your name strobe in real life?
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. .
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'.
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'.
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'.
Roquentin wrote: » i understand. different strokes for different folks. also is your name strobe in real life?
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.
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.
Dravokivich wrote: » Jaysus, go from talking about being with women on the game, to tracking them down as if they were game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
