Saralee4 wrote: » The only thing that I can possibly see that would make a hooker better in bed is : 1) Either the fact that the man hasn't got another woman to do what he wants because she is not willing She may be able to perform fetishes that the man is not experienced in 2) the man may not be able to get an attractive woman so decides to pay for it 3) It is a psychological thing for the man and he enjoys the fact that the woman is purely there for his pleasure and he feels a sense of power or feels more comfortable knowing that he doesn't have any need to pleasure her and that she is not in it for any pleasure of her own. Also he doesn't have to consider the woman as a person just a sex object and can walk away without any emotional connection.
Fubrege wrote: » I don't see how it's so difficult to understand that hookers would tend to be better in bed, their very livelihood depends on being good, they have more incentive. Most women just aren'the very good in bed, I'd hazard a guess the majority of men would share that opinion.
Sleepy wrote: » So, what you're saying is "there must be something wrong /sinister about a man if he thinks a hooker could be better at sex than the averagee.
Saralee4 wrote: » You just took a one line quote of a post that I did 2 days ago
without adding the rest and the examples of reasons why people may have for committing adultery and making a mistake. Go back and read the rest of the post.
Sleepy wrote: » So, what you're saying is "there must be something wrong /sinister about a man if he thinks a hooker could be better at sex than the average woman"?.
Let's be honest, I'd say most women would share the opinion that most men aren't very good in bed either... it's certainly a drum that gets banged enough in popular media... (quite well in a recent dumb rom-com I watched with Mrs Sleepy actually called Two Night Stand).
I can only speak from personal experience but the very best sex I've had has been where there's a mutual emotional connection between two (or more) people who are good, giving and game.
The emotional connection will most likely never be there with someone you're paying (I'd say never but there's nowt as strange as folk and I've read of hookers marrying their Johns) but in my experience and from conversations I've had with both male and female friends, I've come to the conclusion that in general in Ireland, it's easier to find a partner who you've an emotional connection with than it is to find one who aspires to that ideal.
Like Fubrege though, I don't see why it's so hard to grasp why an escort will be. It's in her (or his) financial interest to be.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Apologies, sometimes I miss replies when I look at my quoted messages so I didn't get to it the other day. I did read it, I just don't agree with it. Some people might take a more relaxed view and that's their choice, but as far as I'm concerned adultery is all or nothing. You cheat on me, we're done. I cheat on someone, I'm a terrible person and I deserve to be dumped. There is no excuse for cheating on someone when you could instead dump them and then be free to do anything you want - cheating is an example of a "have your cake and eat it" mentality which I cannot stand. The point is, again, that if someone has betrayed you in this manner I don't believe you should have any further obligations to them. Is that so unreasonable? The idea of funding someone's lifestyle after they've broken my heart and betrayed my trust makes me nauseous. Also, regarding misogyny, I'm not suggesting for a second that men are any better. Most human beings will take advantage of an unfair situation if one arises. However, in practise, it's usually men who find themselves in this position.
Roquentin wrote: » There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche
Saralee4 wrote: » My examples explained why sometimes people cannot leave a marriage. How people can become depressed within a marriage. How when one person is unfaithful it is not always the case of blaming that person but looking within the marriage. You view it in a basic sense that 'you were unfaithful so your wrong" where I see that is the case sometimes but sometimes it is problems with in the marriage be that abuse, neglect etc that have caused the person to stray. We just have a different outlook on it that's all.
Saralee4 wrote: » If you have the belief that people are selfish when it comes to sex or in general(and you can't speak for men) then you will look for ways to proove that to yourself. Saying that all people are selfish sounds like a very negative view especially to have towards sex. And when you go into something negatively then that's what your going to get.
Not sure what it has to do with it but we are married couple of years, together 10 years. At what year would you say that we get all bitter and selfish? Have we still got time? (I'm joking)!
The Corinthian wrote: » Well after ten years, you'd be lying if you told us that you were still having the same frequency of sex. Or putting in the same amount of effort as you once did.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Strange how you're only acknowledging that now. Fwiw btw, more sexually experienced is no guarantee that you're going to please every different individual all the time, but it does mean you get better at giving people who are easily pleased, exactly what they're paying for.
The Corinthian wrote: » Being realistic is not the same thing as being simply negative. Well after ten years, you'd be lying if you told us that you were still having the same frequency of sex. Or putting in the same amount of effort as you once did. It is not be selfishness, per say, that is behind this, but there still exists a fine line between it and laziness. We're all prone to it. That's why I presumed you were not married that long; if you were, I would have thought you'd have admitted this much. Or maybe you don't think this is the case and everything is hunky dory, just as you seem to be convinced that a dependent spouse is always entitled to being supported, no matter whether it makes sense or not, or that if that spouse did cheat, it's not cheating but a 'mistake'. Hmmm...
Saralee4 wrote: » You are being realistic though based on your own experiences. It is not realistic to say that all lovers are selfish and only after their own needs. That is very unrealistic in my opinion. The fact that I am with my partner 10 years and still we are very happy together may seem like a lie to you but that's not my problem. Perhaps we are open minded and good at communicating and many more things but it's not something that I feel I have to justify to you. Your hunky dory comment implies that you think I live in some kind of lala land however I am not going to become unhappy in my situation in order to make some else happy. There is nothing wrong with being happy, comfortable and confident in your beliefs. I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring up the issue of spousel pay with me again as we have already confirmed that we do not agree on this and since any point I raised was dismissed as irrelevant by yourself I see nothing for you to gain from bringing it back up at any chance you get.
Saralee4 wrote: Nope, what I'm saying is that all people are different in bed and some people are better than others and many factors come into play about why someone is better and why someone perceives someone to be better. Just because you pay people to have sex and you class it as a service does not make the person technically better at sex. There may well be a certain hooker who is better for one man than another certain woman but all hookers are not better or worse at sex then all women. They are all women. I was simply listing the only reasons I can think why someone would specifically think that hookers are better in bed than any other women.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I didn't read Sara's post that way, but what I will say is that anyone who assumes that experience counts for anything when it comes to sex is profoundly and utterly misguided.
Even better when you can find someone who is willingly giving without you having to pay them to give.
Well it's only natural that you're going to mix in social circles with people that share your opinions. Probably shouldn't have to state the obvious by now, but I don't share yours or your friends opinions, based on the my experience and the experience of my friends. I'd say your conclusions need further exploration before you draw anything conclusive.
It's only in a person's financial interest to give their customers what they want, and there's no shortage of customers. It's not that it's hard to grasp, that would of course seem to make logical sense, depending of course upon your qualifying criteria, which would be entirely subjective. By your same qualifying criteria, someone who regularly visits sex workers should be able to please anyone sexually because they too would have plenty of experience, right? Stands to reason surely? Ehh, no, no it doesn't, clearly :pac:
The Corinthian wrote: » Many people (I can only speak of women, but have no doubts that men are equally culpable) are selfish. They do what will get themselves off, they'll concentrate on their own needs, they'll refuse what is of no interest to them (I'm not saying things they are repulsed by, just are indifferent to), though it may be of interest to their partner and demand the reverse.
Saralee4 wrote: » Furbrege; There's the post about lovers being selfish. Please go back and read posts yourself next time if your in doubt. Also in terms of my posts about spousal pay, perhaps you didn't read them either. Even if that is what you or continian feel about my opinions, you have already voiced that more than once and I have agreed to disagree with it.
Sleepy wrote: » As The Corinthian pointed out repeatedly already in nicer language, many people are selfish in bed. It's my observation of Irish society that many men are conditioned to feel lucky if a woman is prepared to spread her legs h.
Fubrege wrote: » No one said all lovers are selfish and only interested in their own needs. Read it again. You can then disagree that anyone said that all lovers are selfish and only interested in their own needs.
Saralee4 wrote: » I was simply listing the only reasons I can think why someone would specifically think that hookers are better in bed than any other women.
Saralee4 wrote: » Just because you or the Corinthian repeatedly point out that "many people are selfish" in bed does not mean that many people are selfish in bed. I can just as easily repeatedly and in nicer language point out that many people and couples are very giving in bed.
strobe wrote: » In summary, the original post of mine paraphrasing my mate can be summed up like this: He believes some hookers are extraordinarily good in bed, as in the top 10% of women in terms of sexual ability, he is willing to pay them for sex as the odds of a girl you meet out one night at random also being in that top 10% is, by definition 10-1. And sometimes he'd rather pay than play those odds. That is a stupidly long post about whether or not prostitutes are likely to give a good ride.
Saralee4 wrote: » that is a very long post strobe. in summary of your original post I thought your friend mainly went because he was definitely going to get great sex not an 'odds on' situation. So now its more the odds are in his favour rather than a sure thing. Anyway im sure you would easily be able to compile a similar list containing reasons why women are great in bed (or as they have been called in this thread 'non-hookers' and 'average women'). The fact is that different people are good in bed for different reasons depending on the woman and the man they are with. In your analogy's you used the Nissan mechanic and a trades man like yourself both jobs where training is necessary. Surely you would agree that you can get some good mechanics, some very bad mechanics, and some ok mechanics (the do the job). You cannot compare hookers and women to mechanics working on a car. All women all have the ability whether hooker or not (or in mechanic terms trained) to be extraordinary in bed. What one man will find extraordinary, another will find repulsive. there is no law when it comes to being good in bed. it is the woman and mans communication, willingness with one another and the perception and desire that make it good not the fact that the woman is a hooker or not. Some men and by the posts here do seem to believe that hookers are going to be better but that is their perception of the situation. The situation for them is better. They are getting what they want because they paid for it. She is not better at sex than any other woman. Any other woman can do what she can do. If its a case of her being more attractive and the man cant get an attractive for free, then the hooker is not better just available through cash compared to the attractive woman who doesn't want him. The man is essentially creating a control to his own desires but it is not the woman that is better. Anyway everyone is entitled to their own views so if you all feel that hookers are better than 'average women' at having sex, (I personally don't think there is one better than the other) then you are free to feel that way.
Fubrege wrote: » You're missing what people are saying, hookers tend to be better in bed all thing equal. No one else is interested or has shown any interest in women's potential to be great in bed. Who is actually better is the question.
Mister Vain wrote: » Once a week is a bit much. That said, an escort wouldn't cost much more than a night out. I remember on one of the documentaries they showed on TV3 a while back, they interviewed a few of the johns. One guy said he was sick of being treated badly by women on nights out so he started using escorts. He said when you factor in drinks and cab fair etc, there wasn't much of a difference.
Saralee4 wrote: » No I think you are not understanding what i am saying. neither one is better. that's the answer. they are not different. the situation is different because the man has complete control.
