People who hire hookers?

The Corinthian wrote: »

One thing is certain, given this discussion has raged unabated over Friday night - Saturday morning, and beyond, no one here is having much sex, good or otherwise.

Having stepped back from it for 24 hours, I'll have to say that it's gone into an incredible number of pointless tangents, largely fulled by the presumption that when someone says many men/women they mean all.

Prostitutes are better at sex than non prostitutes. TBH, I don't know why this one dragged on so long. I would imagine an experienced gigolo is more than likely going to be better than me in the sack. It's his job, he wants the repeat business, of course he's going to be better, put in the effort, rather than 20 minutes of squelchy noises at the end of a hard working day, with the missus of twenty years.

Of course, this doesn't mean it's the case always, but I was a bit taken aback by the suggestion that it may often the case by some. It's almost as if it was taken as a personal insult to all women everywhere.

Sex drives. TBH, I don't think it's as simple as saying men have higher sex drives or not. Different would be a better description; after all, women are affected by hormonal cycles that men don't have and the whole 'girls who sleep around are bad, boys who do are studs' thing undoubtedly also plays a part.

And due to various reasons women can get sex easier (please no one suggest that a man propositioning a woman for sex would get the same success rate as the reverse, that level of denial just isn't funny), it means there is not the same pressure to avail of opportunities that come along as there is with men.

Indeed, if a man was propositioned and knew the sex would be terrible and he'd get only a small amount of pleasure, as one poster raised, he would still likely say yes, depending upon his age, the last time he had sex and whether he has access to sex otherwise. As Brendan Behan once wrote; "I never went to bed with an ugly woman, but I have woken up with a few".

So even if women have the same sex drive as men (or not), they don't share men's urgency to attain it. Still, so what?

And do women have an easier time with relationships than men? Maybe if there's a ring on their finger, otherwise absolutely not. Women may be the gatekeepers to sex, but men are the gatekeepers to relationships. Men may go to prostitutes for the former, but dating sites and agencies are jammed full of women looking for the latter.

However, in this discussion, even if none of the posters identify as feminists, it's clear that misandrist feminist theories on male sexuality have made their mark on what they believe in. Likewise, some of the whackier misogynistic generalizations from the Red Pill brigade have also popped up a few times in discussion.

So returning to the original post in this whole sorry thread:

The cheaper argument is in general and long term true. It's not a nice thing to say unfortunately and will immediately raise the ire of those who feel their own marriages have been insulted by the mere suggestion it is (or it hits a nerve because they're presently profiting from such an arrangement), but if you do the math, in many cases it does work out cheaper. Not all, but many.

Tied down really depends on what you mean by tied down though. It's too subjective to suggest this claim is true. For some, who want to live their lives without having to worry about coordinating or being obliged to spend time with anyone else, then I suppose a relationship would tie them down. Same may well be the case with someone who travels 80%+ as part of their job. But for most I would doubt it, and if they do feel tied down by someone, they probably shouldn't be in a relationship with them in the first place.

What are my views on people who hire them? Neutral. I'm aware that people do for numerous reasons. I'd feel pity for some because they're lonely or because they're trapped in a sexless marriage. Contempt for others because they're cheating on a partner that they are otherwise sexually satisfied with - they just want more. And for many others, I'd have no opinion either way, any more than I would of someone who goes to get a massage (without a 'happy finish') upon occasion, or even on a regular basis. I'd probably wonder why they don't just get s fùck-buddy, but then again, not everyone can and not everyone can all the time.

But seriously, this entire thread has just degenerated into one big partisan gender war.

Colser wrote: »

No problem with the lads saying that the hookers are much better in the leaba than other women?

Colser wrote: »

No problem with the lads saying that the hookers are much better in the leaba than other women?

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm not going to dig through the thread, but have posters actually said such things on this particular thread?