Buy Sexual
My boyfriend of a year is wonderful, intelligent, kind, and hilarious. He told me he'd never been in love until meeting me, and while he'd had more sex partners than he'd like to admit, before me, it was all meaningless. Then, yesterday, I read an article about a prostitution ring, and asked how prostitutes can advertise without getting arrested. He explained how escort services work -- with a little too much expertise. I asked if he'd ever paid for sex. He admitted he had, then let loose, saying he'd done it five times over several years; most recently, six years ago. He said it's more common than people think, and like paying for a couple dates. He added that it was a time in his life when he was avoiding relationships, and considering the emotional cost of one, it was worth the price. Now, I'm finding myself repulsed by a man who, only yesterday, seemed so amazing. Help!
--Distraught
Clearly, honesty is the second-best policy, right behind leaping up to get one's jaw wired shut when one is tempted to take a little trip down memory lane -- to the corner of it, anyway -- and tell the girlfriend about the good old days, back when $20 still bought you somebody.
Your boyfriend apparently got so wrapped up in reminiscing that he forgot to check your face for a look of horror -- his cue to start an Olympic-style backpedal: "...and I took one look at that skanky ho, sped home, made hot cocoa, and read the collected Beatrix Potter!" Actually, he probably wasn't scoring drive-by sex from whichever meth-head in hotpants was working the alley; he most likely found a number in the paper or on a website for an escort -- essentially a gold digger with an advertising budget.
Retired escort-turned-author Amanda Brooks explains the difference in The Internet Escort's Handbook, Book 1: "If you are selling your time, undivided attention, and the (unspoken) offer of sexual entertainment, you're an escort. If you're selling a specific sexual activity for a certain amount of money, you're a prostitute. If you won't have sex with the man you're dating unless he buys you an expensive dinner, you're a (relatively cheap) prostitute."
The truth is, to a guy, a hooker isn't all that different from a hookup. Men can have sex without knowing where a woman grew up, what her sign is, and all the ways her cat is like a dog. Men ask about that stuff because women typically require some emotional connection before they'll get it on. But, unless a guy's seeking something girlfriend-y, all he really needs to know is: Is she hot, free around 8, and will she take the credit card he gets frequent flyer miles on?
Society and religion say it's wrong to pay for sex, but maybe it's worse to do what a lot of guys do: fool girls into thinking they're up for commitment when they only want to use 'em and lose 'em. Your boyfriend, on the other hand, was honest. He had a need, and he paid to fill it: Cash and Carrie (and Candeee, Tifani, and Jazmin, too)! It's natural that you'd feel threatened. Throughout history, women have made men pay for sex with commitment. If strings-free sexcapades are so readily available to your boyfriend, what hold could you possibly have? Well, just read your words above. Your boyfriend's sex acts six years back don't seem to impact how he lives today, except maybe in how grateful he is for the happy ending -- the kind a guy just can't buy, no matter how many hundreds he stacks on the dresser.
WORD. I think myself that a lot of women would be a lot happier and more content if they could accept men for what we are, instead of trying and trying to make us fit into a mold that we don't fit at all.
I also agree that going to prostitutes (which, IMO, should be legal anyway) is a lot more honest than fooling some poor woman with talk of commitment that I don't mean.
Technomad at August 25, 2009 7:52 PM
The distinction between "prostitute" and "escort" matters a lot here. If he was driving down a busy city street at night and picking up a street prostitute? Ouch! The LW is right to be troubled by that kind of insanely reckless behavior. However, finding an attractive, seemingly ladylike escort and putting her on retainer? Maybe the LW should see that kind of pragmatism as a positive??? The LW should defintely read, several times, Amy's explanation on men and their emotional requirements for sex (that is to say the often non requirement of it).
The LW says he is "hilarious". I have heard from reliable sources that a young man's sense of humor really grows by leaps and bounds when around prostitutes. Would the LW really want to give up this hilarious sense of humor just because of a half dozen Saturday night jaunts down main street at 2am?
TW at August 25, 2009 10:30 PM
This man obviously thought he was with someone who he trusted and thought was mature enough to know certain things. He was wrong. He admitted to going to an escort during a period of time that he was avoiding relationships. He was fulfilling a need without hurting anyone or leading anyone on. Basically, she is now repulsed by a man who behaved in a more honorable way than the man who goes out and sleeps around making false promises and making false proclimations to any girl who'll open her legs.
She should go back to the bar and find one of the lying cheaters who will satisfy her sense of what is right, basically by lying to her, and let this man go find someone with some emotional maturity.
Kristen at August 26, 2009 6:06 AM
"He told me he'd never been in love until meeting me, and while he'd had more sex partners than he'd like to admit, before me, it was all meaningless."
Somehow, I doubt he told the LW all this without being asked, and probably asked more than once. Was it all meaningless? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It's really none of her business, since, being in the distant past, it had nothing to do with her in the first place, her fragile ego notwithstanding.
Also, it seems to me that his dalliances with the escorts might work to her advantage. I mean, how many professional escorts are going to reappear in his life, trying to rekindle a romance that never existed?
old rpm daddy at August 26, 2009 6:26 AM
1. You don't pay a call-girl for the sex, you pay her to leave after.
2. The most expensive sex you can have is the kind you don't pay for.
So calm down - he obviously wants you to stay around, and is willing to pay your (much,much, to be sure) higher price...
DWS at August 26, 2009 7:26 AM
I had a relationship with a guy who told me that he once went to a brothel in NYC and discovered a girl he'd gone to high school with was working there! She'd even been like the homecoming queen. He didn't know what to do. It seemed wrong not to pick her, but he wasn't sure he should have sex with her either. So, he paid for her time, they reminisced a bit, then she assured him she'd feel more offended if he didn't have sex with her, so he did. I thought it was one of the most amusing stories ever. It didn't repulse me. In fact, it showed a weird sort of ethics, in my view.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 8:10 AM
I'm the LW.
Yeah, I reacted really strongly at the time that my bf told me abt this. I wrote to Amy becuase I wanted to get a handle on my reaction, because I knew that my strong feelings were:
1) not his fault
2) not helpful to our relationship.
Basically, I was looking for someone to talk me down, becuase I knew that the problem was not really about him and what he had done, but about my feelings. I had been a reader of Amy's and trusted her guidance and respected her opinion. I knew that she would not see a problem with seeing an escort, and that was why I wanted her advice. I didn't want someone to tell me that my bf was bad or depraved in some way for having done this (a very long time before we even met); I wanted someone who would help me reconcile my feelings of revulsion around the act of hiring an escort with the amazing and loving man of integrity that my bf had shown and continues to show himself to be.
Amy asked me to examine what was behind those feelings of revulsion, and I did. I figured a lot of stuff out about myself, I shared it with my bf, he listened, we talked, I listened, I felt heard, I felt better. Our relationship is stronger and more open now as a result of having worked through this.
Thanks, Amy!
LW at August 26, 2009 8:14 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1664813">comment from LWThank you so much for posting that, LW! So glad I helped.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2009 8:17 AM
You're welcome! I really appreciate the time and energy you spend on my issue. You do the world a service!
LW at August 26, 2009 8:23 AM
Anyone read this today?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8364856
Pirate Jo at August 26, 2009 8:41 AM
Interesting, LW, that your letter came up at this time. We had this very discussion over in the blog area a few weeks ago, in response to a hypothetical posed by Amy. And there were several women who agreed that they'd be viscerally repulsed, even though they admitted the feeling was irrational.
You say you figured out some things about yourself that were relevant to the discussion. Anything you'd care to elaborate on? If not, I would certainly understand.
Cousin Dave at August 26, 2009 8:42 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1664826">comment from Cousin DaveWe had this very discussion over in the blog area a few weeks ago, in response to a hypothetical posed by Amy.
I asked as I was preparing to answer this question, although I didn't want to say so. I do a tremendous amount of research for my column -- want to make sure I'm putting out the best possible information and advice.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2009 9:05 AM
I'm curious how the men would feel if things were reversed. If your gf/wife told you that several years ago, she had hired a gigolo, or male escort, just for sex, would it still be alright?
What is she admitted being an escort or going on one of these sites, like Pirate Jo just posted, that match women with "sugardaddies"?
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 9:10 AM
"If your gf/wife told you that several years ago, she had hired a gigolo, or male escort, just for sex, would it still be alright?"
Depends on the context. A woman who hires sex workers is a bit unusual, it would seem, given how easily women can obtain sex for free, or even make money off of it. It would certainly rate a "why did you do that?"
"What is she admitted being an escort etc...?"
Again, why would be pretty important. The usual answer is either (1) laziness plus a taste for nice things or (2) a drug habit, from what I can tell.
Spartee at August 26, 2009 9:50 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1664846">comment from SparteeA woman who hires sex workers is a bit unusual, it would seem, given how easily women can obtain sex for free, or even make money off of it. It would certainly rate a "why did you do that?"
Exactly. It's easy for a woman to have sex; she just has to want to. Guys have to work at it.
It's why people mistakenly mark gay men as promiscuous. All men are promiscuous; it's just that few women will go to bars, meet a guy, and blow him in the john five minutes later, then never see him again.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2009 10:02 AM
LW, I'm glad you and your boyfriend were able to clear things up! Not all the people who write Ms. Alkon get back with her readers to let them know how things went, and, as you know, some of the problems people share with Ms. Alkon have been kind of awful. So thanks for letting us know.
old rpm daddy at August 26, 2009 10:13 AM
I think things may be changing now, with the internet. I'm amazed at how many male friends have shared with me that the women they meet on sites like Match.com will often have sex with them on the first date. A friend of mine just met a guy on Craigslist and brought him home that first night. I told her she was crazy, as she knows nothing about him, yet men have been doing the same sort of one-night-stands forever.
Still, of course, it's rare for a woman to pay for sex. I know a guy who claims he was a male escort. He worked through a bellman at a fancy hotel in Miami. He tells stories of wealthy, "blue-haired" women he would service. Some just wanted to talk though.
I guess my question is more about how guys would feel knowing their woman may have engaged in sex just for sex. No strings attached. "Friends with benefits" kind of thing. Would it change your opinion of her to know she didn't have to have an emotional connection to enjoy sex?
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 10:32 AM
"Amy asked me to examine what was behind those feelings of revulsion, and I did. I figured a lot of stuff out about myself, I shared it with my bf, he listened, we talked, I listened, I felt heard, I felt better. Our relationship is stronger and more open now as a result of having worked through this."
Wow! Good for you!
Feebie at August 26, 2009 11:21 AM
@Lovelysoul: "I guess my question is more about how guys would feel knowing their woman may have engaged in sex just for sex. No strings attached."
At this point in life, Lovelysoul, it's kind of hard to say. My wife and I have been together quite a few years, so what she'd done before she met me is pretty far in the distant past now. I doubt I'd feel very strongly about it one way or the other. We don't talk much about previous relationships, and when we do, the stories are usually funny ones.
But twenty years ago it probably would have been a different story with me -- I remember a girlfriend mentioning the material the sheets at a particular no-tell motel were made of. That did bother me, I guess, though I would have had to admit it was none of my business.
Not sure if that sheds any light on your question or not, but there it is.
old rpm daddy at August 26, 2009 11:35 AM
Wasn't that idea about woman and indiscriminate sex explored in a recent Blog? The one where a woman told her fiancee that she had over 83 partners?
Amax at August 26, 2009 1:12 PM
"I guess my question is more about how guys would feel knowing their woman may have engaged in sex just for sex. No strings attached."
This tells me she actually likes sex. I think that's a good thing.
I can think of at least two reasons why a woman would rather pay for sex with a professional than just pick up a guy.
1. While it may be true than getting sex is easy for a woman, getting good sex is another matter. I imagine it's something of a disappointment to pick up a good-looking, well-groomed man in a bar and take him home only to find out he doesn't know what he's doing.
2. A professionals should be discrete. Some woman don't want to get a reputation. Considering the bragging some men do, this is probably a legitimate concern.
Gordon at August 26, 2009 3:10 PM
Jeez, losers, get over it. People have sex, it is fun, and they had sex before they met you. Men especially.
And, except in our youth (high school or college), men always pay for sex.
Frankly, I don't care what my wife did before we were married, and maybe not even that much now.
Is she supposed to never have a thrill again with a handsome guy? For 20 years we hump, hump, hump, hump...it gets stale.
I think many wives in their 40s have affairs, and they should. Last chance. I understand.
i-holier-than-thou at August 26, 2009 3:37 PM
Well, i-hole, you are quite progressive.
Regarding what Gordon was saying, I was recently talking to my ex, who is kind of a jetsetting, wealthy playboy, and he told me that he can't believe how many women he encounters that have NEVER had an orgasm.
He's in his late 50s, so the women he is dating, even granting for the "sugardaddie" age gap, are still no more than 25 years younger, so, if true, that is quite significant.
He is, I can attest, great at oral sex, an area I've heard most men don't often excel in, though I've always (gratefully) been lucky, so perhaps that makes a difference. But it seems there are a lot of women out there pretending to be satisfied that actually aren't. So, maybe by the time they reach middle age, they are willing to pay for what they can't get at home. Women can always get sex, but, as Gordon correctly says, GOOD sex is another matter.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 8:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1664947">comment from lovelysoulWomen who fake it don't understand that they are putting themselves up for unsatisfying sex lives from the start. You don't have to direct a guy like a traffic cop, but you can say stuff like "Lower, higher, faster, slower" or just show him, but with a light air, not a recriminating one.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2009 8:10 PM
Yes, Amy, but what do you do with someone who won't give oral? A lot of women can't actually orgasm without oral. I mean, I personally can't imagine staying with a man who wouldn't do that for me. No manner of instruction (higher, lower, faster, etc) is going to help that. And most men, eventually, are going to want oral sex too.
I knew of a man, who got married very young, and, later, began seeing prostitutes for oral sex because his wife refused to do that. He was actually a minister. He begged her to try, but she refused, so they divorced, and everyone viewed HIM as the bad guy, but I had total empathy for his situation.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 8:19 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1664957">comment from lovelysoulbut what do you do with someone who won't give oral?
Well, depends on whether it's more valuable to have it or him.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2009 8:31 PM
Gosh, that would be a hard choice. I know we are supposed to be bigger than that, you're right. In the end, sex doesn't matter that much, but I think many of us who grew up in a certain era expect our partners to have a broader sexual repertoire, and we'd feel deprived without it. I'm glad I've never had to make that choice, but I always feel more empathy for people like Gov Sanford, of SC, because I think maybe he'd never had sex like that with his very religious wife, and then somebody gave that to him. So, who am I to judge? I've always been fortunate enough to have lovers that were open and flexible enough to please me, but not everyone is so lucky.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2009 8:42 PM
When I was 19 I started dating a 32 year old woman.
I asked her how many people she had slept with? Big Mistake. I was immature and thought I wanted to know. She at 32 obviously had more sexual experience than I did. Duh! My response was to pout and be hurt.
She told me, "Don't ask a question if your not willing to hear the answer." A big lesson.
Also, Women don't seem to understand male sexuality and don't seem to want to. Feminists have somehow screwed up womens thinking so that women think sex is the same for a woman and a man.
Single men are almost always available for sex. Evolution has dictated that the woman gets to choose from a number of men and the man has to be ready when she decides.
I had to explain this to a female co-worker. I told her. You can walk out to the street in front of our building and start hitch-hiking.
In a matter of a few minutes you could get a ride from a guy and tell him you would like to have sex and you could. I as a male could go out and hitch-hike and possibly not be picked up by a female for days or longer. If I asked her for sex I would probably be told to get the F out of the car. Differences in male and female sexuality.
That being said I'm not sure about the whole prostitution thing. One because it's against the law and two, IMHO only, it's immoral.
David M. at August 27, 2009 8:06 AM
I dunno, David M., when I read the story about the Sugar Babies and their Sugar Daddies, I thought, 'Ewww, ick.' But then again, nobody's getting hurt. I realize violence is done toward prostitutes, but that's largely because of the legal prohibition against it, and it certainly wasn't happening in the situations Stossel's story covered. (Violence is done toward wives, too.)
I got to thinking, now that I'm approaching 40, how would I feel right now if I'd had a sugar daddy during my four years of college? And to be quite honest I don't know if I would ever think about it at all, at this point. When I was in college, I slept with (for FREE!) some pretty jerky guys who treated me like crap, because I had low self-esteem and didn't know any better. Would I really have been worse off if I'd been exclusive with some rich older guy who treated me nice and gave me money for those four years? Hells bells, I'd probably have graduated with a car that wasn't a clunker, no college debts, and some savings in the bank to get started in life on. I was never enough of a hottie that I could command $30K a month, but still. If I had been some nice older guy's sugar baby during college, would I sit around and regret it now? Probably not.
Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 10:31 AM
I wonder how they enforce such arrangements though. The trouble with internet dating is that everyone is free to keep shopping around. There's no exclusivity, and even if the guy promises exclusivity, how could you believe him? Half of them are probably married, so he's sleeping with his wife (and whoever she might be sleeping with), and probably a few others (and whoever they might be sleeping with). The risk of STDs would likely be much higher for a girl in that situation, as opposed to a prostitute, because a guy who's shelling out those kinds of bucks is gonna say, "Baby, don't make me wear a condom...I'm your sugardaddie". It's more like a relationship.
Plus, I could see a girl believing all her bills would be paid, then she gets dumped by Mr. Sugardaddie because he's found an even hotter girl online. What can she do - sue him? Not likely, though it is kind of a breach of contract.
lovelysoul at August 27, 2009 10:57 AM
I don't disagree with what you're saying, lovelysoul, regarding promises of exclusivity, etc. It's just that those same risks appear in the regular dating scene, too.
And sure, the Sugardaddy could dump his girl for a hotter one, just as the girl could dump the Sugardaddy for a richer one. If she wound up without a Sugardaddy, maybe she'd have to go back to working in retail or waiting tables like the rest of the college schlubs, but she might still graduate with less debt than she would otherwise due to the experience while it lasted.
I didn't see the older guys in Stossel's show treating their girls like crap, though - and why would you treat something like crap if you are paying that much for it? I have a feeling those guys treat them a lot better than the typical frat boys the girls are probably in school with.
Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 12:24 PM
I got to thinking, now that I'm approaching 40, how would I feel right now if I'd had a sugar daddy during my four years of college? And to be quite honest I don't know if I would ever think about it at all, at this point. When I was in college, I slept with (for FREE!) some pretty jerky guys who treated me like crap, because I had low self-esteem and didn't know any better. Would I really have been worse off if I'd been exclusive with some rich older guy who treated me nice and gave me money for those four years? Hells bells, I'd probably have graduated with a car that wasn't a clunker, no college debts, and some savings in the bank to get started in life on. I was never enough of a hottie that I could command $30K a month, but still. If I had been some nice older guy's sugar baby during college, would I sit around and regret it now? Probably not.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 10:31 AM
-----------------------
I understand it might not harm you but every generation is a role model for the next generation. If young women view men this way and men view women this way, will we have a successful next generation or the next generation after that?
David M. at August 27, 2009 12:37 PM
Don't get me wrong - I'm happy with how my life has turned out, and I don't regret NOT having had a sugar daddy. In fact I can't believe I'm even playing devil's advocate for that side of the argument! It's just that my reaction (similar to the LW's, above) was a little bit different after I'd thought it over than it was initially.
However, there is a line I have to draw when it comes to being a "role model" for the next generation. I'm not having kids of my own, and even if I did, it seems ridiculous to say that what I was doing when I was 18, 19, or 20 makes any difference when it comes to what kind of parent I'd be at 35. ALL parents have done smart things they're proud of, dumb things they're not so proud of, and tried some things where, well, they just didn't know how it would turn out at the time.
*Some* women view men a certain way, and *some* men view women a certain way, and sometimes the views they have when they're younger aren't the same views they have when they're older. This is true even when you get completely outside the realm of prostitution. What men and women are looking for at 20 is usually a lot different than what they are looking for at 30. Parents have a responsibility to teach their kids something, but their kids have a responsibility to not be complete dumbasses too. If I'm going to buy your argument, I'd have to accept that it's okay to go around scolding fat people for the terrible example they are setting for the next generation, with their eating habits. I think we've all grown up surrounded by some smart people and some dumb people, and at the end of the day we've had to make our own choices.
Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 12:47 PM
I think anything that has value will be traded. Women have been trading their looks for financial security since the beginning of time. A beautiful woman knows she can attract a more successful mate and will usually try to do that. The main difference I see in these arrangments is that the women are viewing them as short-term rather than long-term, such as marriage. They have less protection, but, as Pirate Jo points out, more freedom to trade up or out.
Yet, I agree it's a poor example to remove love entirely from the equation. I would hope by the time these women start having children, they have discovered that a loveless relationship just isn't worth it.
lovelysoul at August 27, 2009 12:54 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/08/buy-sexual.html#comment-1665097">comment from Pirate JoAnd sure, the Sugardaddy could dump his girl for a hotter one, just as the girl could dump the Sugardaddy for a richer one.
Economist Robert H. Frank talks in Passions Within Reasons about love as a commitment tool. If you feel love for a person, you're more likely to stick with them than if you have a simple exchange model relationship, as Sugardaddy relationships usually start out.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2009 1:04 PM
My boyfriend and I were talking about the Stossel show last night. We both agreed that it would be pretty difficult, in the sugardaddy/baby situation, to change things to a love relationship. For one thing, these guys are paying for an age difference - they aren't going to want these girls around when they get older, and presumably the girls wouldn't want to BE around. By then, I figure most of them have banked the money they got and would be looking around for men their own age to marry and have children with.
Also, it creates such a weird dynamic. If you're paying me to have sex with you, and then we decide we love each other, what does that mean? I start putting out for free and you stop paying me? One of the sugardaddies did end up marrying his sugarbaby, though. That was the Asian guy, who started the website.
Eh ... oh well. I'm happy with what I have and who I'm with. But I can't really cast any stones at these people. They are all adults, and should be free to enter into whatever arrangements they want.
Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 3:23 PM
I know a man who's told me that he uses the Seeking Arrangements site. From what he's said, the women aren't typically so young. They're usually in their late twenties and early thirties.
It definately seems like high-end prostitution. A lot of the girls see multiple guys, everything is worked out in advance - time, cost, the type of sex etc. The difference is that they're not just handing the women cash. Payment is rendered through credit cards in the woman's name, fungible gifts, securities etc. Also the engagements are usually set-up for months at a time, rather than single 'dates'.
He'd said that the site has gone downhill since it has started to get publicity. Apparently they'd gotten a better group of women at first, but now they're seeing a lot of escorts, strippers, and scammers.
And FWIW this fellow's not married. He's divorced and has two kids. He's very wealthy. I got the idea that he used this site to have casual sex, and to avoid some of the risks associated w/ escorts.
Jack at August 27, 2009 7:43 PM
Back when I was online dating, I actually posted my profile on "Sugardaddies.com". Not because I was looking for a sugardaddie, but because I'm financially well-off and liked the idea that it might match me up with a guy who was equally well-off, and therefore neither of us would need to fear the other. I specifically said in my profile that I wasn't looking to be "taken care of" - I just wanted to find an equal.
I got a lot of positive response. Many guys wrote to say, "Wow, that's refreshing!" I'd guess most were in their 40s/50s, and at least the ones who contacted me were looking for genuine relationships. They were just guys that were obviously very busy with their careers, and my sense was that they were also kind of clueless about how to find true love. They understood mergers and acquisitions, how to do a business deal, but not the emotional intricacies of having a rewarding relationship. They figured their money should be enough.
Some were married, and flat out told me they just needed "companionship". A few wrote to say they could "set me up nicely", so I knew they hadn't even bothered to read my profile.
There were also a lot of posers. Guys with online names like "leerjetowner" or whatever, with photos they stole out of fashion magazines.
I dated a physician that I met on that site for a little while, but he was pretty weird and kept wanting me to dress like a 20 yr old, so, all in all, I discovered it wasn't a good forum to find a quality man.
But one thing I learned, Pirate Jo, is that you're never too old to be a "sugarbabie". It's just that the age gap stays about the same - roughly 15/20 years. So, for us, it would be 60 yr olds. :)
lovelysoul at August 27, 2009 8:50 PM
I think we've all grown up surrounded by some smart people and some dumb people, and at the end of the day we've had to make our own choices.
Posted by: Pirate Jo at August 27, 2009 12:47 PM
-----------------------------
I think your smart enough to realize that your choices, good or bad, effect those around you. You can't wiggle out of something as serious as prostitution and say it's someones own choice. It is someones choice but it effects others as well.
Her choice effects her son, her parents, her siblings, society and every person she potentially sleeps with. Oh, and before you go there, condoms aren't 100%, there is condom failure etc... Just something to think about.
Example: I work in an STD office of our health department and do HIV testing. A pretty 21 year old girl came in my office last Tuesday. I could tell she had been crying. She has a 4 year old son and trades sex for money. A friend told her a guy she had sex with was HIV positive. She had sex with him the day before. She tested negative but will have to come back in 3-months and again 3 months after that for another test.
David M. at August 28, 2009 6:17 AM
"You can't wiggle out of something as serious as prostitution and say it's someones own choice. It is someones choice but it effects others as well.
Her choice effects her son, her parents, her siblings, society and every person she potentially sleeps with."
Her choice affects her son, and as far as STDs go every person she sleeps with. (Please, let's not go overboard and drag her parents, siblings, and everyone else in the world into it.) These effects/risks, however, are PRECISELY the same whether she had received money for the sex or not. You might as well just paint all sex with the same broad brush and be done with it.
Pirate Jo at August 28, 2009 7:33 AM
I think what David M is saying that if you make the choice to have intercourse with a large number of partners, you have to agree to all the risks this entail. Sure sex in and of itself carries risk, but the more partners you have, the more you increase those associated risks.
A person in a monogomous relationship isn't faced with the same issues or consequences as someone who makes their living on their back.
Amax at August 28, 2009 7:37 AM
Her choice affects her son, and as far as STDs go every person she sleeps with. (Please, let's not go overboard and drag her parents, siblings, and everyone else in the world into it.)
Posted by: Pirate Jo at August 28, 2009 7:33 AM
=====================================
I guess if telling the truth is going overboard, I'm guilty as charged.
It's a nice way to dismiss my arguement in favor of yours but protitution does effect the person and all the people they are connected to. Sorry.
If you think prostitution is so harmless, you should go be a prostitute for a year and write about your experiences. It would make a great book and give you a chance to prove your point.
David M. at August 28, 2009 8:00 AM
Yeah, it sounds like these girls are putting a new twist on the idea of being a mistress, which used to be an exclusive deal. They are actually accommodating more than one sugardaddie, which I assume means he is enjoying more than one sugarbabie. I don't have an issue if these people are all single and want to take that risk (other than it'll probaly be my tax dollars paying for their HIV treatments), but I'm sure many of these men have wives at home who have no idea their husbands have these kinds of "arrangements". Putting them unknowingly at risk is morally wrong, and if the sugarbabie knows about it, then she's just as guilty.
These girls can never empathize with the wives until they get married themselves have to look over their own shoulders. Karma is a bitch.
lovelysoul at August 28, 2009 8:01 AM
DWS said: "1. You don't pay a call-girl for the sex, you pay her to leave after.
2. The most expensive sex you can have is the kind you don't pay for."
No truer words were ever said concerning women and sex...! Haha!!! Love it...
mike at August 28, 2009 9:55 AM
it sounds like these girls are putting a new twist on the idea of being a mistress
That's the angle that the site operators play, but they're trying to avoid incriminating themselves.
I think that it's deceptive to present these as mistress arrangements. You could see how young women, with romantic notions of what's entailed, could be drawn into situations that they're not prepared for. And I'm not sure that most women in their early twenties are mature enough to understand what they'd be getting themselves into.
Jack at August 28, 2009 10:46 AM
I agree, Jack. A girl would need to be pretty savvy, which most aren't at that age. I think of that young girl McNair, the ballplayer, was involved with. He bought her a really expensive SUV, but, like most married men, he didn't want that to show up on HIS credit. Too easy for the wife to find out. So, he put it in her name. Maybe he verbally promised to make payments, but ultimately, she was the one struggling to do so and was quite stressed by it.
Not that this excuses murdering him, but it shows that often these gifts don't come free, irregardless of the sex. If a guy is paying your rent, for instance, he better be on the lease. Otherwise, these girls can really get stuck in a lifestyle they can't afford, with ruined credit. And now, employers are pulling credit reports when hiring, so it's no trivial matter.
lovelysoul at August 28, 2009 10:58 AM
There are a lot of guys who won't give oral, or if they do, they're not good at it, and won't take helpful hints or any kind of direction. Or, they do it for about 30 seconds and then get bored and expect a 20 blow job from you.
If you're an attractive woman with a nice body and a healthy sex drive, why would you stay with a man like this? So that you don't look like a slut, or to avoid having a lot of sex partners? If there was some way to know up front, before getting naked with a new guy, that he was going to suck in bed, it would save a lot of time and aggravation.
There is no excuse to not have a clue (women or men), because there are plenty of books on the subject at Amazon or any big bookstore.
I also find the the moralizing about STDs that goes with the subject of sex is pretty suspicious. Even in a so called monogamous relationship, there is a high probability that one of the people involved isn't monogamous, which leaves the other unguarded and unprotected. If someone is having sex, either for money or fun, they should be responsible enough to use condoms, and check the other person's external genital areas for warts and herpes, which condoms don't protect you from.
Chrissy at August 28, 2009 1:02 PM
- I Can't Get No ........ Satisfaction! -
It is no doubt true that many men don't know how to pleasure a woman and don't put much effort into working out how to do so. But this is understandable given other considerations.
The prevailing view is that men have greater sexual needs than women. This view is often reinforced by women who purport to be more moral and less carnal than men, and by women who treat sex as a favor to a man or who believe that men should be grateful for it.
Men respond to this by attempting to gain sexual favors from women in exchange for other things, like material favors, protection, emotional intimacy etc.
Once a man has got a woman into bed, he understandably figures that he has done all the hard work to get to that point. So why the hell would he then bother spending the next hour or however long doing more hard work trying to figure out how to crank her engine? Hell, it's about getting his own rocks off.
The bottom line girls is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't trade sex for other things and trade sex for sex. If you trade away your sexual bargaining power for other goodies, then you can't trade them away again for your own sexual pleasure. The chips have been cashed in and the proceeds spent. You can't just cash them in all over again.
If men have to pay for sex, then the man's pleasure will come first.
[stay tuned for part 2 in my informative series "Why modern women are sexually unfulfilled"]
Nick S at August 29, 2009 7:51 AM
P.S. I look forward to hearing all the gynocentric whining to the effect that I'm a crass pig for believing women cannot have everything their own way!
Nick S at August 29, 2009 7:54 AM
Well, Nick, that's why a woman will eventually divorce you, take half your money, and go find a man who actually satisfies her. Trust me, there are men who absolutely know how and don't mind. They will always win out over lazy, narcissistic guys like you. If you bothered to please a woman instead of just yourself, you'd discover you'll get more sex as well as love. Smart guys know it's a win/win.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2009 8:13 AM
Commodities in relationships
Say I don't subscribe to the view that we use thing like affection and sex as commodities in a relationship.
I want to understand what pleases my boyfriend and what is important to him and why. I feel he does the same thing for me. We are honest and clear - and seek to understand each other's point of view with a view to harmony. This is not to say I don't want to put my perspective forward and make sure it's taken into account and understood but I don't use it to give him something he wants. I use it to build intimacy.
If you're always looking to negotiate with your partner then the two of you are not exactly a team. You're holding like a poker chip things you want - perhaps to detriment of you as a couple. Wouldn't work for me.
AntoniaB at August 29, 2009 10:23 AM
wow nick s, i feel sorry for you, and anyone else whose relationship is about attempting to gain whatever they can get from each other, instead of making each other happy.
and i feel sorry for anyone who lacks the self respect to leave a partner who sees things that way.
and for anyone who blames society for the situation or relationship they're in rather than taking responsibility for their circumstances. how powerless you must feel.
m at August 29, 2009 6:15 PM
For what it's worth, Amy, *this* woman isn't "threatened" by a potential boyfriend having seen prostitutes out of a worry that available no-strings sex eliminates any "hold" I might have on him. That's crass.
(Not to mention the fact that most guys I've dated could have had that if they wanted it, easily, without resorting to prostitutes).
What disgusts me on a gut-level is the idea that he could enjoy and get off on sex with a person who at the time is any or all of the following: repulsed, ashamed, afraid, in physical pain or discomfort, mentally ill, forced to prostitute by an abuser, or desperate for money or drugs. (Check the rate of suicide or suicidal thoughts for prostitutes before you come back at me with anecdotes of prostitutes who love the work they do).
The fact that a man could get off and enjoy himself under those conditions reveals what is to me an inhuman lack of empathy.
It's a fundamental part of his personality and character which, yes, DOES "seem to impact how he lives today."
- - -
As far as whether men need/want an emotional connection to have sex, you present a false choice: between the man who lies to unsuspecting women to obtain no strings sex, and the presumably more honest man who pays prostitutes to obtain no strings sex.
Actually, there are two more options: the man who is honest about wanting no strings sex with a woman who also wants it, and the man who- by George!- actually likes to have feelings for people he sleeps with.
Those men are not Yetis. There are millions of them around.
As a female who likes sex in the context of a committed, loving relationship (which not all females do), I've always thought it's wiser to get involved with men who feel the same way I do, rather than the men who like to "use 'em and lose 'em," and the men who go to prostitutes. Crazy thinkin, I know. YMMV.
Not to say there's anything wrong with wanting no strings sex. It simply makes more sense for the women and men who want it to date each other.
katie at August 29, 2009 11:53 PM
Wow, Nick,
So it's all about a commodities exchange for you? You buy me dinner and a movie, therefore you needn't think about my sexual needs? Because, apparently I am trading for that experience?
So what happens when I make the man dinner (making dinner usually costs, in time and money, as much if not more than a dinner in a restaurant - at least the way I do it)? Is that the night that he pays attention to my needs?
When I am with a man I care about I am attentive to his needs, sexual and otherwise, because I want him to be happy and fulfilled. I can guarantee you that I will NOT be happy, satisfied, and fulfilled if I'm getting dinner, jewelry, etc but nothing in the way of sexual satisfaction.
I'd guess that Nick is what my friends and I call a "pounder." Pound it out because that's what feels good to the man, but the woman is left feeling completely unfulfilled and horny as all get out at the end. Yes, I've had to take care of myself after when I had a boyfriend like that.
kjm at August 30, 2009 11:23 PM
Nick sorta kinda had a point about one thing, though: There's a lot of cognitive dissonance in public beliefs and attitudes concerning the female sex drive. Let's face it, there's still a lot of "good girls don't" in our culture, despite the fact that there's also a lot of promotion of the positive view of female sexuality. This has resulted in various mental contortions, such as slut chic, with its unspoken message being that the purpose of sex is for girls to bag guys.
So we shouldn't be surprised that young men get confused. If the message that a man gets is that women generally don't enjoy sex and only do it as a favor, then why should he knock himself out trying to please her? After all, she isn't going to like it anyway, or so he's been led to believe. Compounding the problem is that there's a pretty fair number of women who have bought this line of thinking too, and they can't tell their partner what pleases them because they either don't know themselves, or they are too inhibited to speak up. That leads to the situation where the guy gives it an honest effort, but throws in the towel after an hour of getting no kind of response. I've been with a couple of women like that, and quite frankly, I dumped them because of it.
Cousin Dave at August 31, 2009 8:45 AM
Good point, Cousin Dave. However, I don't think that was Nick's reasoning. There's a vast difference between a guy who gives up in frustration at not being able to please a woman and a guy who never even tries because he thinks she doesn't deserve it.
Let's face it, we women aren't ideally designed for intercourse. We never know when it will work for us or not. I think most women can orgasm orally, but only if they're comfortable with the idea, and I hear from some girlfriends that they aren't, which is a shame - for them as well as their lovers.
The biggest problem is that many women don't even know how to please themselves, so how can they share what works with their guy? We have all these ridiculous stigmas surrounding masturbation, and I think it may even be worse for girls than boys.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2009 9:24 AM
It seems like you typically ask the very lowest common denominator of men how they feel about sex, take that as some kind of gospel, and then generalize that to how -all- or -most- men feel.
As a man I find that discouraging frustrating and sexist towards men. People like you teach women to see men like me, a nice guy who isn't a dog after sex all the time, as a freak.
who cares at August 31, 2009 1:22 PM
Yes, thanks, Lujlp. You must click on all the different conditions such a "skin bridges" to see all of the various photos.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2009 1:35 PM
Ooops...sorry, posted to the wrong thread.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2009 1:36 PM
LS, I hear you. I was just using that as a point of departure.
"The biggest problem is that many women don't even know how to please themselves, so how can they share what works with their guy? "
Lot of truth to that, in my experience.
Cousin Dave at August 31, 2009 1:55 PM
The reason I made the point I did was that some of the female posters here were complaining about how hard it is to find a man who can satisfy them sexually. I tried to offer some insights into why that may be the case, but others seem more concerned with shooting the messenger than actually dealing with the reality of what I am saying.
If you can't get what you want in life, you need to consider why that is. It is no use complaining that others are not bending over backwards to accommodate your every desire. That is not how things work.
I note, LS, that on previous threads you have used similarly narrow transaction arguments (i.e. "looks trade for money") to lecture other men about why they cannot get what they want. Yet you object to me using equivalent reasoning to explain why women cannot always have everything they want. So if men can't get what they want in life, they just have to cop it sweet and get over it. But try explaining why women cannot have everything they want, and suddenly you are a sexist pig who needs to be howled down. Or a "lazy narcissistic guy" who deserves to be taken to the cleaners. Anyway, thanks for the insight into female entitlement syndrome.
Nick S at August 31, 2009 4:37 PM
"It is no use complaining that others are not bending over backwards to accommodate your every desire. That is not how things work."
It seems to me that if you're in a relationship - you should want to accommodate your lover's desires .... .
Now, as you say - there are reasons your partner might not be accommodating them (although I would hope they *want* to). But it seems to me the reason you give is because of a lack of understanding of the barter system. I would hope it's because of a failure of communication rather than a failure of barter. I want no part of a barter dynamic!
A relationship to me is not about barter. If that's the reason I'm not getting what I want out of it - it's the wrong relationship. That's purely and simply why I'm not getting what I want. Such a relationship will never be truly loving.
AntoniaB at August 31, 2009 7:14 PM
Yes, Nick, looks trade for money, and you may indeed be correct in your assessment of why some men fail (or choose not) to satisfy their women. Maybe they foolishly think they've done enough, but what I'm saying is that they are missing out on one of the great pleasures of life, not to mention a chance to cement their relationship. To me, driving my man insane is a wonderful pleasure, so if you, as man, can do the same for your woman, you'd find there's nothing quite so powerful. It's much better than lording your money over her. That gets old. If she's beautiful, she can always trade up to someone who wants to please her sexually too. That may seem unfair but it's the law of supply and demand. You're a fool if you don't try to please her.
lovelysoul at August 31, 2009 8:20 PM
I understand the confusing messages guys get about women and sex, and the bad experiences they've probably had. If I'm with a guy and I see that he is not as comfortable with sex as I am, or has a lot of anger, I won't even bother. I've gotten better at reading people as I've matured, so I hope I'm avoiding uncomfortable encounters.
BTW, I've never traded looks for money, which may be what some guys are comfortable with, because it gives them some measure of control. How do you control an attractive women who enjoys sex soley for the pleasurable experience it is, both for herself and the guy? If you know a woman is with you because of how you treat her, how you keep yourself in good shape, and how you keep her happy in bed, the risk of failure in any or all of these areas is too painful to the ego, and therefore not worth taking for some guys. Also, if she is great in bed and you have the best sex of your life with her, that's going to burn to lose that too.
Chrissy at September 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Leave a comment