People who hire hookers?

Roquentin wrote: »

80-150 per half an hour. median price would be about 100 id say.

I could spend 80 euro on a night out if I end up getting a taxi home.

Saralee4 wrote: »

within reason yes but compared to a person you are not paying for it with, he has as much control as you possibly can with a willing participant.

Unless you're Christian Grey.

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 for him and given that his sexual "education" is largely the porn he's watched on-line, he's pumping away at the poor girl like a jackhammer which is hardly conducive to her learning to enjoy sex or want to explore her own sexuality much further.

Now, while a more confident or experienced woman will take that young man in hand and teach him how to please her, many won't (because they've been conditioned to think of sex as something dirty or because they simply don't want to hurt his feelings) and they'll either put up with his lack of technique or make limited efforts to educate him and leave him off into the world thinking he's a stud because he "lasted for ages" or worst of she'll fake an orgasm to get him to finish as quickly as possible re-enforcing his ignorance.

Were he trying to earn a living in such a way, however, his clients wouldn't be long in telling him that what he was doing wrong and demanding what they expected of him.

Now, flip the genders and you'll have why I think an escort is more likely to be good in bed: she has to be if she wants to continue be paid, avoid bad reviews etc.

(I do agree with you on the compatibility thing though, there are some people who just seem to fit together better than others)



Never once did I state that experience was the source of being good at sex (in fact, if you'd read the link I provided in my post, I gave my opinion that what makes someone good in bed is that they're what's referenced as "good, giving and game": i.e. they make an effort to pleasure their partner, they strive to improve their technique and they're game for trying anything within reason.

On the contrary, your whole argument seems to be based on the fact that you're putting forward this idea that frequency is somehow related to quality, as in the more a person has sex, the better they get at it. See even the firsr bolded bit where you suggest that it stands to reason that a person has to be better at sex in order to continue to be paid. You're ignoring the fact that market forces such as supply and demand have a much greater influence on whether a person continues to be paid for their services than the quality of the service they provide. All that's necessary for a business to thrive is knowing their market, and financially successful sex workers know their market.

My (admittedly out-dated as I've been in a relationship for over 7 years) experience is that most people don't make the effort to be GGG. Given that the term doesn't even seem to be familiar to you I'm guessing we're clearly of different opinions on this...

I wouldn't say it's your experience is out of date, moreso your perspective, and given what you've written above about older women taking younger men in hand and so on (the stock and trade of porn fantasy), the evidence suggests your perspective is definitely out of date. The term GGG is new, but the concept is as old as time itself, it's the basis of human relationships and how we went from men thumping women over the head and dragging them back to our cave, to actually having to make an effort with women in order to enter a relationship which is mutually beneficial for both (or more ) parties involved.

Again, I think you're confusing my point with that of someone else. Frequency of experience in no way implies quality of experience. Hiring a taxi every day isn't going to do anything to improve my driving. The driver is likely to get better at providing that service over time though.

I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "familiarity breeds contempt"? It really does. I have a regular taxi driver for business trips. I like to keep him on his toes. I don't need to know anything else about him only that he turns up on time and gets me from point A to point B as expediently as possible. I'm not sure how you think he could improve his service as there are many factors limiting his ability to improve his service. I'm always on the lookout for a better service provider, and the day I find one, I shall switch my custom. It's nothing personal, just business. In the same way, if all you're visiting a sex worker for is the provision of their services, you're always on the look out for a better service provider. Well, you should be anyway, otherwise you are indeed as I suggested earlier - easily pleased.

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.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark strobe and suggest that the odds are that your mate just wants his own way in bed ten times out of ten. I know the 10% is off the top of your head and all, and I don't know where your mate is going or what kind of signals he's picking up on or giving off, but I would suggest that 9 times out of 10, in terms of the kind of girls I meet when I'm out, your mate is wrong, very, very wrong (there's definitely some girls shouldn't be fed after midnight! :eek: :pac:).

Paying, rather than playing the odds simply tells me your mate is clearly risk averse, likes a sure thing. Cool, sometimes I like a sure thing too, because I'm a lazy bastard like that, but more times I like the uncertainty of not knowing what's going to happen next. I'll take spontaneity over routine, same old reliable, any day (well, most days, depends on my mood ).

Sleepy wrote: »

It'll all depend on our individual experiences and that's going to be entirely subjective and limited by those experiences. I've not been single for a long time, you've been married even longer and I don't know The Corinthian's current circumstances so it's quite possible we're all out-of-date in this regard...

That said, humans while often altruistic, are self-interested in nature. We wouldn't have survived on this planet if we weren't.

My experience of the women I've slept with is that a majority were quite lazy or selfish lovers (or became so over time). The fact that so many threads appear on PI, or that r/deadbedrooms exists on reddit etc. would suggest to me that this is a pretty common observation (and not just limited to women to be fair).

Oh come now Sleepy, you know better than to base your opinion on confirmation bias? The fact that so many threads appear on PI or r/deadbedrooms is only evidence of the fact that unhappy people complain, a lot, to anyone who will give them an audience. What you're ignoring is the 9 out of 10 people who are happy in their relationships. Otherwise, as you quite rightly point out yourself - we wouldn't have survived on this planet and propagated as a species if we were all as selfish as to only think of ourselves and our own needs.

Also, not meaning to personalise the debate but your username and the fact you're married (and therefore statistically likely to be straight) would suggest that myself or The Corinthian would have more a a greater sample size of women to extrapolate from in our experience than you would?

Ahh now Sleepy, that's a bit below the belt surely? Imagine if I were to make assumptions about you based on your username? "Sleepy" doesn't exactly scream "Goes like a rocket between the sheets", does it?

I won't ask you what my username suggests to you about me... :rolleyes: :pac:

Baby Jane wrote: »

You... said it was a myth.
How do you know it's very very rare? I know Bacik et al are exaggerating the amount to push their agenda but to say it's a myth or extremely rare (without knowing the facts) just to get one up on Bacik and the like... is pretty... bizarre when there are victims of it, no matter how rare it is.

If anyone wants to get the truth about trafficking I would say your best bet would be the figures from an unbiased source such as Interpol.

Here in Ireland the issue of human trafficking has been hijacked by people with an idealogical opposition to the sex industry in all its forms.

Fubrege wrote: »

I've had sex with hookers and non hookers and hookers are better on average than non hookers by a significant margin.

Some escorts give incredible head, 51 times more explosive than ecstasy.