Sex For Money
Why are women "grossed out" by a man paying for sex? I have a question about a woman whose boyfriend saw escorts a few times -- not while they were together -- and she is "repulsed" by him now.
I wrote back to the girl who wrote me about this, asking her about what beliefs of hers he's transgressed, etc., and asking her to explain her thinking to me about sex, prostitution and related issues, but she hasn't written back.
Maybe some of you can help me by explaining how you or women in general feel about a man seeing a prostitute or escort. Oh yeah -- there is a difference between a street hooker and an escort, although I'm not sure this girl realizes it.
So...lay it on me, ladies (and men).
Um, so to speak.
because he is interested enough to pay for it. I would guess that it is not just my own experience that there are femmes out there that simply aren't interested in foolin' around very much. So the idea that a guy would want to pay for it, just shouldn't be. Kinda like how guys shouldn't be interested in looks, and since we are, we must be less evolved or somesuch. I had that conversation once... when I pointed out that a species that evolved out of being interested in procreation would be extinct, I got the feeling that she wasn't looking at it that way...
On the other hand, I could understand if a woman would be thinkin "so what'd he catch from her..." Even though he is just as likely to get something form barhoppin' one nighters.
There is also the idea that if he was willing to pay then, what would keep him from being willing to pay later if he gets board with her... it's the separation of teh s3x from other forms of the realtionship that is apt to scare some people, I'm thinkin'
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2009 12:43 PM
because he is interested enough to pay for it.
Ahh...didn't think of it that way -- vis a vis her level of interest, perhaps.
A woman I asked today said it's "disgusting" and "dirty."
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 12:57 PM
OK males... how would YOU feel about your girlfriend's paying for sex?
And while I agree w/Amy that it seems inconsistent, it would be a turn-off for me as well - unless I was certain that he picked his hookers as carefully as most of us might choose professionals such as attorneys or surgeons, and that his relations with them were not exploitative. Nice sounding words, but would I honor them if push came to shove? I don't know.
For me it would depend on context. What was his experience? Was it a one time thing or does he make a habit out of it, and if so, why? If he's seeking hookers while I'm dating him, will he begin treating me differently than he would otherwise? Do I have any say in who the hookers are, and do I trust them not to start a drama about it?
Would I have the freedom to do the same, i.e., pay for sex or simply have sex with other people?
The idea of a boyfriend paying for sex makes us squirm because the guy is openly and candidly treating sex as a commodity, presuming that he's too lazy, desperate, or just plain caddish to do the work of convincing some woman to do him for "free" (not counting investments in dinners or conversation time).
And yet, most of us treat sex as a commodity at least some of the time.
vi at April 14, 2009 1:10 PM
Sex IS a commodity. Women who aren't prostitutes simply don't want to think of it that way because we are taught that the direct exchange of cash for sex is "icky", and something that less than respectable people do.
brian at April 14, 2009 1:17 PM
It's maybe a bit early to deviate from the question, but what the hell ... the thing that gets me (and did even with my wife) is that when there is a difference of opinion or values between men and women in a case like this, the women cannot simply accept it as a difference. I find they view any opinion other than their own to be a crime, and the person who holds that opinion, a criminal. I'm sure that's an unfair exaggeration, but it's the best I can do right now (been working late).
This example seems fairly typical. It's not just that he says potaeto, she says potahto. No, he has now gone beyond reasonable behaviour, and she's repulsed by him.
Of course she has the right to be repulsed, but why should she be? Is there an evolutionary advantage? Have I just rephrased Amy's question in different words? ... must sleep.
Norman at April 14, 2009 1:18 PM
My husband and half of his old fraternity brothers have banged hookers in Mexico. Ew. He doesn't do it now, though, so I don't really care. (And he's been tested for everything.) That was when he was in his early 20's, and he's in his late 30's now.
For me, if a dude wants to pay for sex, that's his decision. I think a lot of women who have issues with it (especially if it was a long, long time ago) probably also get upset about the idea that there was ever ANYONE other than them. Or, perhaps, they think the guy was desperate. (I know Husband has never been desperate, since he nailed half of the bar sluts in Austin before we started dating.)
Then again, I'm pretty liberal about these things. I don't mind strip clubs, either... but I'm not intimidated by strippers.
ahw at April 14, 2009 1:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643079">comment from NormanThere's a reason for this to be threatening to women, evolutionarily. It's the disgust I need to understand better -- the way her whole feeling ("positive affect," they call it in psychologyland) was changed about the guy upon this revelation.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 1:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643080">comment from ahwHusband has never been desperate, since he nailed half of the bar sluts in Austin before we started dating.
ahw, I love the way you talk!
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 1:22 PM
Amy - "disgust" - if there's a reason for this to be threatening to women, then disgust makes perfect sense, does it not? It makes her say "eeewww" and want to keep away from him. Disgust is *how* it works.
What's the reason, BTW?
Sometimes I suspect these ev psych reasons are capable of justifying anything, and so explain nothing.
Norman at April 14, 2009 1:37 PM
Hmmm. I think people get too hung up on the direct exchange. I was yakking with some guy friends of mine a few weeks ago and one of them was getting a bit horny but had no prospects to speak of and someone jokingly said something about hiring a pro. He then said he'd never been so desperate and basically said "eeeew!!"
Now, then, some people who are cynics might say that you're doing the same thing when you take a girl out and do the movie / dinner thing. Personally, I was raised a lady and the man paying for dinner and a movie is paying for the pleasure of my company. That does not necessarily mean sex, though there is, of course, the option. More importantly, though, it's somewhat understood that if I start dating a guy and we hit it off and are attracted to each other, then a relationship might develop - not sex, a relationship.
That's a rather long-winded way for me to say that personally, I think better of the guy who pays some pro for sex if that's all that's he's interested in than the one who wines and dines some girl and basically leads her on.
amv at April 14, 2009 1:49 PM
"to do the work of convincing some woman to do him for "free" (not counting investments in dinners or conversation time)." Vi
well then obvoiously it ain't free, is it? The strings attached are far reaching and potentially as damaging.
as to how I would feel about it... If it happened before me, I wouldn't care. It's no different than a hookup in college. Personally testing for STD's would be done on both our parts certainly for trust anyway before we get intimate. If she paid or not, makes no diff... since women generally don't have to pay anyway. The commodity part of this is that women control the gate guys want to enter. That means we pay.
Now if she was doing this while we were to gether is a whole 'nother thing. Then [unleas you aren't exclusive] it's cheating... just like if a guy does it. Also, it may mean you aren't bringing your "A" game, and she is looking elsewhere.
In my mind most people have multiple partners, if you pay for them or not ONLY makes a difference in that workers of the water trade have a higher potential to have an STD, which is a consideration.
Guys internally might have a bias against other guys using hookers because we would say "why pay for something you can get free?" On the other hand there is a long tradition of getting a friend drunk and having "Bubbles" over to make him feel better after a particularly nasty breakup... especially if the ex had been witholding pleasure from him. Another reason it is called getting back in the saddle...
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2009 1:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643092">comment from NormanBut, Norman, I'm threatened by a bear but not disgusted by one.
I look at ev. psych data. When there's a great deal of cross-cultural data showing, for example, that men prefer a certain sort of body type on a woman, this is relevant.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 1:51 PM
There's the whole concept that people have trouble separating what's morally wrong from what they merely find disgusting. So hookers become disgusting and morally wrong.
MonicaP at April 14, 2009 2:05 PM
I used to visit the gay male personals of Craigs List. I used to be fascinated with them because hot bodied men would post pictures of themselves either giving oral, etc.. doing other things. They would generally NOT block out their faces even while they were giving head in the pic. Their privates were easily visible and very graphic. Anyways I never got a sexual thrill from them (since I'm a woman) but I was fascinated at how diffrent they are from the female ads (lesbian or straight). I think women would be disgusted by these ads. So in the same vein women are disgusted by their significant other being with hookers. It just has to do with the truly sexual nature of man and how disgusting and revolting their true nature is to women. Amy you and I are not "typical" women and see this part of male nature kind of amusing. But also we are not obsessed with child-rearing, so this might have something to do with Nature not wanting women to have the same sexual apetites as men as women are NOT expendable and quite valuable in creating life and taking care of it. How could women possibly do that what nature requires them to do if they are out there spending money on hookers? So the simple solution is find the whole notion revolting, like every other sexual appetite of men.
Ppen at April 14, 2009 2:10 PM
Many comments in one!
First, didn't Charlie Sheen say something to the effect that he doesn't pay 'em to stay the night, he pays 'em to go away in the morning?
Second, the Barney Miller episode: divorceé Miller is waiting for the Captain, and a hooker is waiting outside the office, too.
Ex: "I can't imagine being paid to have sex."
Hooker: "What are you here for?"
Ex: "To pick up a check."
Scott Adams coined a fine "geek" insult on the topic: "Your mother engages in multi-vendor processes without synergy!"
Grace Undressed has a bunch of well-written stories about the junctions - there are many - between money and sex.
And lastly, here's another example of American schizophrenia: it's "disgusting" for the boyfriend to have sex with strangers - but it was OK for a President, even if he abused them in some way, especially if you voted for him? Why, yes it is - we have not only double standards, we have truly flexible standards which depend on who we're watching or talking about.
I suggest that people who fixate on the money have a disease, because sex with a stranger doesn't get any cleaner if cash isn't involved. It just reminds you you're doing a mechanical task, for which menial labor an hourly wage is the norm.
Radwaste at April 14, 2009 2:13 PM
I think it has more to do with women's desire to be valued as people as well as sexual beings. A man who has sex with hookers has shown that he can see women as things to be rented for the evening, like a bouncy castle with a vagina. A woman might ask herself, "Does he see ME as a thing to be bought? Or am I tool for barter?"
Some men might say, "Yes, of course you are." Maybe it's true, but few women want to be seen that way. (Personally, while I think prostitution should be legal and is ethically fine, I would look down on a man who has had sex with a hooker, at least as far as dating went. Maybe it's illogical, but this stuff isn't always logical.)
MonicaP at April 14, 2009 2:26 PM
Intellectually I know it shouldn't bother me any more than the other girls my fiance slept with before me, but on a gut level . . . I would definitely see him differently.
I think for me the issue is that I think sex should be something special between two (or more -whatever floats your boat) people. Paying for sex sends the message that it's not about who your with, just about the sex. As long as you know previous encounters were with other girlfriends you "know" that sex was special in that context too.
Realistically I have no doubt he cherishes and values me. Intellectually I *know* he's fanatical about protection. And he's been with me during some pretty lean times already and didn't cheat on me (I'm old-fashioned. I didn't put out until we were engaged). But I'd always wonder and worry.
And yeah, there's a lingering stigma. I'd also be wondering what the hell is wrong with him that he had to *pay* for sex. (I know - you don't pay for sex, you pay for them to go away afterward, but the stigma remains . . .)
FWIW I don't have any problems with him checking out porn or going to strip clubs. I wouldn't say I'd be *repulsed* by him after knowing he'd seen an escort, but yeah, I can't be cavalier about it.
Elle at April 14, 2009 2:32 PM
"like a bouncy castle with a vagina." M
now THAt needed a spew warning! *lmao*
"It just has to do with the truly sexual nature of man and how disgusting and revolting their true nature is to women." Ppen
really? so the Q? is, are women only interested in that nature for their own need to procreate? They don't get anything else from it, right?
So then why are they interested in men at all?
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2009 2:38 PM
@vi:
OK males... how would YOU feel about your girlfriend's paying for sex?
For me it would certainly depend on whether she already was my girlfriend while paying for sex. Please specify. And even then, maybe she wants something I just don't have; I don't have breasts, for instance. Or maybe I'm doing something seriously wrong. That wouldn't be her fault, either. (Never be afraid to ask.)
Would I have the freedom to do the same, i.e., pay for sex or simply have sex with other people?
It depends on the nature of your relationship. Some people really give each other that freedom, but most people don't.
The idea of a boyfriend paying for sex makes us squirm because the guy is openly and candidly treating sex as a commodity, presuming that he's too lazy, desperate, or just plain caddish to do the work of convincing some woman to do him for "free" (not counting investments in dinners or conversation time).
Handle that statement with care, because it sounds like a bullet-proof excuse for the sense of entitlement I've found in some women after about 10 seconds of conversation. If I weren't in the happy relationship I have been in for more than seven years and counting, there are a lot of women out there who I would never "do the work" for precisely because I am not desperate when single. Just "not doing the work for them" is enough of an insult for the kind of women mentioned above: No escort necessary for them to feel "squirmed".
Rainer at April 14, 2009 2:52 PM
"really? so the Q? is, are women only interested in that nature for their own need to procreate? They don't get anything else from it, right"
Lookie here women get sexual pleasure from sex. But they are not disgusting in their tastes or habits like men are (generally speaking) and are more concerned with baby-making than men are. You know how young men are horny all the time, kinda like how women in their late 20's to 30's hear that biological clock ticking.
Now every man is desperate for sex with whatever sort of thing they find attractive. Until they reach a certain age. See porn.
But women are desperate for emotional connections. See romance novels.
Ppen at April 14, 2009 2:58 PM
Female desire is driven by security, male drive by physical need. Which might go a long way toward explaining the apparent fluidity of female sexuality.
For the most part, ladies, you are just a means to an end.
I'm just sayin'
brian at April 14, 2009 3:05 PM
syntax error:
substitute "male desire" for "male drive" above.
brian at April 14, 2009 3:06 PM
"But they are not disgusting in their tastes or habits like men are (generally speaking)" Ppen
Hmmm, can you define disqusting for me then? Maybe THAT is what this whole thread is about. The words don't seem to mean the same things to each of us...
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2009 3:10 PM
Can't speak for Ppen, but it may mean wanting it all the time, no matter what, no matter how. And that's general speak, of course. By the porn, it appears that men are more slam, bam, thank you maam, let me cum all over you face, now have this other hotty lick it off, and so on. Romance novels aren't quite like that...or at least the one I've read wasn't. Sorry if the graphics made anyone queasy.
I do wonder though how much is nature v. nurture. I discovered my own "fun zone" well before my mother told me how disgusting it all was so I knew she was wrong. Would I have been more "disgusted" by sexuality if I hadn't figured it out on my own first?
moreta at April 14, 2009 3:22 PM
"Hmmm, can you define disqusting for me then? Maybe THAT is what this whole thread is about. The words don't seem to mean the same things to each of us..."
What men do is disgusting and let's not sugar coat it it here with "it doesnt have the same meaning for all of us." And personally I find it so amusing because it's so ridiculously gross.
Even men find their desires impolite. That's why we have a society where these sorts of things arent looked as the "reality" of human nature.
Ppen at April 14, 2009 3:30 PM
One of my male friends was a paid prostitute in his younger days. He started something of a business in college with two of his female friends, and their accounts of the types of men who paid for sex and the types of women who paid for sex were very interesting and different. Men wanted to get off. The women wanted a facade of a relationship. Often, the sex was only a small part of it, with most of the evening dedicated to talking.
Of course, some of the women wanted really raunchy rape fantasies, so there's the danger of making generalizations.
MonicaP at April 14, 2009 3:32 PM
It's simple economics, really.
The problem women have with other women accepting a strictly monetary quid pro quo for sex on demand is twofold:
First, given the law of supply and demand, if "professional" women are always willing and available for a price, then the competition necessarily drives down the trade value of what is between a woman's own legs (or ears, as the case may be.)
Second, and related to the first, is that women don't like men having that much control over the sexual "transaction." With an "amateur," a man knows he will pay for sex one way or the other, but, since there is no set price, he can never know when he's done paying!
The women complaining these days should be the professional sex providers, given the vastly increased supply of cheap, meaningless sex provided by all the "amateurs."
Jay R at April 14, 2009 3:32 PM
>> is a difference between a street hooker and an escort.
And what would those differences be, exactly? Standards?
Eric at April 14, 2009 3:33 PM
Would men be disgusted to find out they married a hooker?
Ppen at April 14, 2009 3:37 PM
Sorry ment ex-hooker
Ppen at April 14, 2009 3:37 PM
"What men do is disgusting and let's not sugar coat it it here with "it doesnt have the same meaning for all of us." And personally I find it so amusing because it's so ridiculously gross." Ppen
I'm asking you to spell it out, because I have NO idea what you are talking about.
and no I would have no problem marrying an ex-hooker, anymore than I would have a problem with an ex-soroity slut.
SwissArmyD at April 14, 2009 3:47 PM
Does anyone know any information (statistics) available on the internet what happens to the "professional girls" once their working days are over?
Do they become bankers, grocery clerk, librarians or teachers? Do they have normal life like raising children and going to zoo on the weekends? I was always curious.
Chang at April 14, 2009 3:55 PM
I was raised fairly religiously, and for a long time I bought into the idea that sex or any kind of sexual stimulation outside of marriage, tempting as it was, was degrading. Eventually I started to feel less strictly about the marriage thing but still sort of believed that sex without at least some emotional attachment was somehow bad for you. I probably would have been very concerned about the morality of someone who had been with a prostitute, or was even just into casual sex or porn and strip clubs and what have you. Yep, I was quite the little goody goody. The repulsed feeling, I think, comes from the belief that committed sex is somehow more pure. I mean, sex between prostitutes and johns is about as uncommitted as it gets, so if you have those standards then it's just morally despicable to you.
But anyway, I eventually got rid of my irrational religious beliefs, and also learned quite a bit about sexuality, male and female. And now I 100% embrace sex in its many forms; I have my own preferences, but as for everyone else, as long as it's consensual and responsible, go for it. I don't have a problem with a guy I'm with having visited a prostitute--my current man friend has. I believe that every human being needs sex, men even more than women, and just going for some uncomplicated paid sex sometimes when you're not in a committed relaionship is absolutely fine.
Debra at April 14, 2009 4:12 PM
Everyone pays for sex; prostitutes are essentially scabs, they do it for cheaper [and probably with better skill and vigor than the average Christian female] and are therefore a threat to the Vagina Cartel's price-fixing activities.
The opprobrium heaped on prostitutes and prostitution is nativist sexual protectionism.
Drew at April 14, 2009 4:31 PM
When I stationed in the Orient, getting a date with a round-eye was near impossible. Getting them into bed would take a small fortune.
Meanwhile out of the main gates was poontang that was easily available, you knew would cost about $XX (bar girl vs, street walker, vs a house) and you could get it done.
My current GF knows about my past. When I first started dating her she was just out of a young marriage (married before graduation), little experience and a restricted world view. She asked, I told a nice view of the truth. She didn't freak, but it shocked her how casual I was about it.
Now, a couple of years later, she is much more relaxed about it. She now sees that sex isn't wrong and discussing your desires, wants, and feelings helps to make it better. She also realizes that is from my past, and I'm not looking to continue in that way.
Besides it doesn't hurt that she's hot. :-D
Anonymous Coward at April 14, 2009 4:51 PM
Why is it about the women? It's about the men. Women don't like weak men (you can be funny, good looking, and rich, but if you're don't exude confidence and backbone, you're done). So women don't want men who couldn't score on their own. Regardless of how many other women they've dated, if you've paid for it before, you weren't up to snuff at some point (if you've had sex with a sheep before, it's also hard to shake off that tag).
I don't think this is something a women rationalizes out when she hears a guy has slept with a prostitute. It's instinctual.
Gregg at April 14, 2009 5:04 PM
'A man who has sex with hookers has shown that he can see women as things to be rented for the evening,'
Do you think that a man who pays for an escort or prostitute from then on automatically transfers that outlook to every woman he meets? It hardly seems logical to me. It would seem that he has shown that he sees women in that particular profession as available for money. Because he pays for sex do you really think he sees her as a 'thing'?
crella at April 14, 2009 5:14 PM
Amy:
I was going to email this to you, thinking you might find it interesting, but it is kind of on-topic:
nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12sugardaddies-t.html?ref=business
First para:
AT FIRST GLANCE, the Web site SeekingArrangement.com seems like any other dating site. Most of the men are looking for fit, sexy women, and most of the women want nice guys who can make them smile and laugh. But if eHarmony or Match.com is a chatty social mixer, Seeking Arrangement is a down-and-dirty marketplace where older moneyed men and cute young women engage in brutally frank transactions. They’re not searching for longtime soul mates; they want no-strings-attached “arrangements” that trade in society’s most valued currencies: wealth, youth and beauty. In the cheesy lexicon of the site, they are “sugar daddies” and “sugar babies.”
Very interesting article -- the author clearly perceives how this completely blurs the distinction between sex via prostitution and sex via relationship.
I have never explicitly paid for sex, nor have any of the guys I consider friends, so far as I know.
My job regularly takes me to countries where prostitution is accepted. Based on conversations with my co-workers, my guess is that roughly one in ten men hire prostitutes.
Either that, or only one in ten is willing to talk about it.
That said, my take on those guys who pay for sex is that they view women as nothing more than self-propelled sex toys.
Men who actually like women apart from their sexuality don't hire hookers.
Perhaps there is a connection.
Hey Skipper at April 14, 2009 5:42 PM
Aha - yet another dimension: Here's the Web page of retired porn star Asia Carrera.
So it's disgusting to charge for it. So what do you think about making movies about it - and the person either on the set, active, or retired?
Maybe you should find her FAQ page (NSFW) and see if there's something new there.
Radwaste at April 14, 2009 5:54 PM
Do you think that a man who pays for an escort or prostitute from then on automatically transfers that outlook to every woman he meets?
The operative word in my comment is "can." Certainly, anyone, man or woman, has the capacity to see others as "things." But a man who has slept with a hooker has taken the extra step and proved it.
I'm not willing to make sweeping generalizations about every man who has ever had sex with a hooker. But this is my explanation for why so many women are repulsed by it.
MonicaP at April 14, 2009 6:09 PM
My thoughts, it'd be a dealbreaker for me too. That's just an awful lot of dick in a hole where he placed his dick. And why on earth would he have to pay? What about normal women, and the process of relationships, is difficult or a turn-off for him? Once, maybe, to see what it's like in a dumb frat boy drunk in Vegas kind of way, maybe, but multiple times? It smacks of desperation.
I'd never ever be with someone who'd done porn either. It's again, partly the ICK factor of going where so many other's bodily fluids have gone, and partly the complete disconnect of sex from relationship with a person.
I get that some people say any relationship is prostitution because the woman gets stuff and the guy gets sex. But I don't see it that way. Every relationship involves lots of giving and receiving of any number of things, not just gifts and sex. That's what a relationship IS.
I don't think her being icked by that and not wanting a relationship is any different than you not dating people who believe in God. We all get to choose who we're with. Life's great that way. Doesn't really matter if it's bad breath or sexual history, if it bothers you, that's all that matters.
momof3 at April 14, 2009 6:21 PM
Monica - I think you're on to something. But I'd go one step further.
Women value security over everything else. A man who solicits a prostitute has indicated he is not interested in providing security in exchange for sex (the traditional arrangement).
brian at April 14, 2009 6:26 PM
"What men do is disgusting"
I can't speak from personal experience, as I've never visited a prostitute, but every account I've ever read by escorts & legal prostitutes in Nevada said that a fair proportion of their customers willingly paid just for the pleasure of their company & conversation, & not for sex at all.
"Would men be disgusted to find out they married an ex-hooker?"
I wouldn't. Remember "Lonesome Dove"? "Gunsmoke"? "Stagecoach"? The whore with a heart of gold has been a stock character in Western culture for a long time. At least one 13th century Pope announced from Rome that it was a noble, manly, & Christian thing for a man who fell in love with a whore to marry her & make a wife & mother out of her, and that any man who did so would receive his personal prayer & blessing.
"First, given the law of supply & demand...the women complaining these days should be the professional sex providers..."
Despite the boundless glut of free porn out there, good nude models, strippers, porn stars, & escorts are still making good money these days. Jenna Jameson was never my favorite porn star, but she said it best:
"A good blow job is 40% slobber, and 60% enthusiasm"
A top sex pro will ALWAYS show that spirit & enthusiasm, for every nude modeling session, every dance, every fuck. Regardless of whether the man she's performing for is a handsome devil or as fat & ugly as Ron Jeremy. I think the demand for hot women who can pull that off day after day will always be greater than supply.
And yes, there's a reason why they used to call them "working girls". If there's any doubt, just switch genders. Being paid to give Amy half-a-dozen orgasms would be pleasure. Being paid to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell? I would rather dig ditches in Death Valley.
Martin at April 14, 2009 6:28 PM
Relationships are too much like work, and there's no guarantee of sex. With a prostitute, there's no doubt there's going to be sex, and there won't be any work required tomorrow to guarantee future sex.
brian at April 14, 2009 6:31 PM
Oh, and I think hooking should be legal. I can't see how it's illegal for a person to pay to have sex with another person, but it's not illegal for 2 people to be paid to have sex together by a third for profit (porn). I just don't want it in my social circle, that's all.
Wonder if I was one of those Austin bar sluts? Timing's pretty close... :)
Actually, I was almost always a bar tease. It was a very rare guy that got the approval stamp.
momof3 at April 14, 2009 6:34 PM
Wow. PPen... I'm not trying to be catty, and I'm not flaming you, but your comments just really get me. Are you lesbian? And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I just would find it odd if you were attracted to men when you find them disgusting. Honestly, your comments remind me of the commentary of the aunt or whoever in movies like Red Dragon and Psycho. :shakes head:
Moving on - I find this huge disconnect going on here. How are you "seeing a person as a thing" if you pay for sex? Are you still seeing a person as a thing if you hire a gardener, a maid, or any other service provider? I don't think so.
To clarify my earlier comment... which of these two scenarios do you find more to be more honest?
1) "Jack" wants is sex, he's not interested in a relationship for whatever reason (and there are LOTS of valid reasons for not wanting to be in a relationship). He doesn't feel like masturbating, and he's not fortunate enough to have a friend with benefits. He goes to a prostitute.
2) "Bill" also just wants sex. His situation is the exact same as "Jack"'s, only his solution is different. He meets a girl and takes her out, finally "seals" the deal, and now he has his regular sex on a weekly basis. Two years later his girlfriend is writing Amy wondering why even though things are going "well" he still hasn't popped the question.
In my opinion, Jack was the better person in how he handled things, assuming that Bill never filled his girlfriend in on the fact he just wanted a piece of ass.
amv at April 14, 2009 8:24 PM
Vi's comment is about 90% perfect. The only worrisome part is
> the guy is openly and candidly
> treating sex as a commodity
It's not that she's wrong. But her phrasing suggests she's resisting the truth about masculine nature, which can take as much erotic pleasure from an encounter without emotional connection as it can from one with emotional connection. Women don't want to believe this. (See Norman: "women cannot simply accept it as a difference.")
And yet ---
> Sex IS a commodity. Women who
> aren't prostitutes simply don't
> want to think of it that way
--- or ---
> well then obvoiously it
> ain't free, is it?
--- or ---
> Everyone pays for sex
I hate when guys say things like this. Not because it's unpleasantly masculine or awkwardly blunt, but because it's childish.
First, it makes the youthful mistake of assuming that others are feeling the exact same things you feel, sexually and otherwise, but they've just not learned to respond to those feelings with sufficiently terse character... Which is naive. (And for the record, when silly women see the world that way, we'll mock their "feminist" insights, or at least challenge their wording: see the non-silly Vi, above.)
Secondly,... Hell, shouldn't #1 be enough? But secondly, saying "everyone pays" shamelessly fails to acknowledge the power of sexual nature. Yes; Sane (non-professional) women want to have a particular emotional experience with a man as they have good sex with him. Is that really a problem for you, loverboy? Do you need to whine about it as you'd whine about the 'costs' of gasoline? Is that where your head's at socially, that you want to stay fully enclosed in your own personality as you pretend to share a profoundly rewarding experience with someone? Gents, did you really, really think you were going to travel through your lives without moving –and being moved by– other people?
Thirdly,... Oh to hell with the numbers, these are all probably the same complaint. It's dumb for grown men to wail that women want too much security or whatever from partners in these decades. By hook or by crook –meaning by the progress of sexual sophistication or by a mass movement towards witless promiscuity– there's never been a better hour in history to find a partner who'll earnestly, proudly and safely fulfill your sexual needs. This is not the century to complain this way.
> It's simple economics, really.
After reading these blog comments for years, I've concluded that using the word "simple" (or 'simply') is like a siren that warns of a fast-moving stupidity. And having the word "really" on the end is like flashing lights. It's like an ambulance for a crippled idea.
Whatever you think about how human mating has worked in the past or ought to work in the future, it ain't plainly economic, and it sure ain't simple.
> Sometimes I suspect these ev psych
> reasons are capable of justifying
> anything, and so explain nothing.
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. They take the challenge (and smelly flesh) out of everything.
> as long as it's consensual
> and responsible, go for it.
I think you're begging the question. Amy's essentially asking whether whoring is responsible behavior.
Ppen's kicking comment ass today and deserves her own separate replies.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 14, 2009 8:39 PM
> I used to visit the gay male
> personals of Craigs List.
--- and ---
> Even men find their desires
> impolite.
Radio guy Prager's said that straight women can learn a lot from gay male pornography. When men compose fantasies without concern for how women will feel, you find just as much subjugation and depersonalization as you see in the desires of straight men. Those patterns aren't about a culture of oppressing women; that's just how masculine sexuality works.
> they are not disgusting in their
> tastes or habits like men are
> (generally speaking)
Umm... Kinda sorta... But understand that what you find disgusting is essentially a function of your own taste. Again, normal gay men often find a lifetime of fulfillment in practices that many normal straight women want no part of. Does that make the gay men "disgusting"? Or are they not-disgusting (only) because they're obviously unthreatening to women?
> Would men be disgusted to find
> out they married a hooker?
We can all smirk and shoot our cuffs and cluck and pretend to be really tough-skinned and street-savvy and sophisticated, and prattle to each other in a white-wine Reason-magazine kind of way about how there shouldn't be limits on consenting adult behavior. But in just about every culture I know of (certainly in this one), prostitution is overwhelmingly practiced by women who aren't in good control of their lives, who've been wounded by broken families, and who aren't managing their 'career' for any long-term benefit (either to themselves or their communities).
And you can list as many exceptions to that pattern as you want.... But Yeah, if a woman I was getting close to had made a living as a hooker, I'd have a lot of questions, including doubts about my own sensitivity. Monica says "this stuff isn't always logical." That's true. And it isn't always flattering to our noblest political postures, either. Nature isn't about giving us good news all the time.
Anyway, Ppen, Purplepen, the Penster, the Prehistoric Flying Purp-ausaures.... I don't know what your life is like, but I like your mind.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 14, 2009 8:41 PM
Hey Amy, is the Gregg commenting at 5:04pm the Gregg?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 14, 2009 8:44 PM
'But a man who has slept with a hooker has taken the extra step and proved it. '
I disagree. It's as simple as that. A man pays for a service from a woman, it doesn't automatically follow that he thinks she's a 'thing'. Have you ever actually asked men whether or not they think if escorts as things or are you just taking other womens' word or women's magazine 'common sense' as truth?
crella at April 14, 2009 9:30 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643206">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]Nope. (Not my Gregg.)
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 10:08 PM
"Are you lesbian?"
Nope, never been. My popularity has never rested with the homosexuals, especially lesbians.
Going off on a little tangent to illustrate the diffrences between sexes:
Lesbians have always found ME the LEAST appealing. They do not like my voice, they do not like my face, my body. My whole physical being is chockfull of neoteny. I've got the whole babyface.
I remember Jessica Clark (a lesbian model) once said she had the hardest time finding a girlfriend because lesbians always told her "she was in the wrong place". They found her unappealing because of her looks and always told her so. That's what so diffrent about the whole nature of sex between the sexes. Google her and answer me if any man would ever give her a no because of her looks.
As I said lesbians find me repelling. BUT...BUT alot of heterosexual men find my whole babyface absolutly entrancing. Which goes to show you the diffrences between the sexes. (I aint saying I'm pretty, I'm saying I got a kid face)
"I just would find it odd if you were attracted to men when you find them disgusting."
I never wrote that I found men in and of themselves disgusting. When I see a man I'm not repulsed by him but I've always been curious. So I've always gravitated twoards heterosexual men (never the gay ones). And I like the things they like out of my own nature. I know all the female porn stars, and I know all about cars. All of my male friends are nice typical guys, but I'll send them porno links, and talk graphically about sex. They find it amusing. They just laugh. Do you think that if I said that to nice women they would have the same reaction?
And I know nice women, because I am one. I'm also well liked by heterosexual women. All my female friends are pretty young women with nice husbands/boyfriends. We have conversations about fashion models, gossip, relationships, and pretty shoes, cute clothing. We are polite and friedly. So I understand both sides fully. I live in both sides.
Ppen at April 14, 2009 10:28 PM
> Lesbians have always found ME the
> LEAST appealing. They do not like
> my voice, they do not like my
> face, my body
Same here. You get used to it after a while, it's no biggie.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 14, 2009 10:37 PM
There are two diferent things here:
1) Having sex. About my own satisfaction
2) Making Love. About both of us satisfaction.
There is a song in spanish that says.
"This is my first time too, I had sex 1000 times, but I never made love"
This is the perspective of a young latin american man. For us it is not the same to have sex than to make love.
Hulkmania at April 14, 2009 11:06 PM
Male and female sexuality is different, that's all. Lacing it with heavy moral judgments on the other, something women are more prone to than men, smacks of bigotry to me.(Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice).
As for ex-prostitutes, sex stars, or even well experienced women:
"A kissed mouth loses no savor but is renewed like the moon."
Of course, STDs put a real crimp on this 14th century quote. Syphilis hadn't made it to Italy yet.
Ariel at April 14, 2009 11:33 PM
I find porn and hookers a bit disgusting too. Sometimes I visit web sites but I always leave feeling icky. I'm much happier tactile than visual, though the *clothed* female form is a big attraction. Even if the clothes are just a bikini. This seems to be different from most men, judging by porn sites that show close ups of body parts I'd rather not see. I was also late into the field - 23, to be specific. (Making up for it now, though!)
Amy, re disgust vs fear, and bears. Good point. We are generally disgusted by things that can make us ill, and fearful of things that can injure us. Is that relevant?
Norman at April 15, 2009 12:10 AM
I think you can whore responsibly. Use a condom, look at what's down there and try to avoid the drugged-out street hookers. There are many "working girls" out there who are a lot more careful about STDs than bar sluts. These would fall more in the escorts category. Yep, there's a risk going where so many people have gone before, but life is risk and smart people will take precautions and usually come out okay. I wouldn't be interested in a guy who whores all the time, but a guy having bought sex once in a while seems natural to me. It doesn't mean he was so repulsive he couldn't get in any other way. It means at that particular time he did not want to make an effort to convince anyone, he just wanted to get off. We don't make this accusation of people for masturbating or going to strip clubs or renting a porno. Yes, it goes a little bit further to actually pay a person to give you an orgasm but it's the same principle. If it's not done to excess, or while I'm with him, it's fine for me.
Debra at April 15, 2009 2:42 AM
Have you ever actually asked men whether or not they think if escorts as things or are you just taking other womens' word or women's magazine 'common sense' as truth?
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Objective reality has nothing to do with why I don't want to date men who have had sex with hookers. He could use most of his free time volunteering in domestic-violence shelters and feeding homeless babies, but if he has sex with hookers, there's going to be an ick factor that I can't rationalize away. He may be a great guy, but I will never see him the same way, because internally I will always attach my feelings to his actions. Again, not logical or even fair, but it is what it is.
MonicaP at April 15, 2009 5:58 AM
(Strictly from a game-theoretic / ev-psych point of view) it may be evolutionarily true that if partner is trading meat for nooky with some other chimpette the current relationship is so at risk that "Get out. Now." increases in weight in the menu of possible responses. Subjectively, this might very well manifest as disgust.
Damfino how to validate such an airy hypothesis short of a careful brain imaging study.
--
phunctor
phunctor at April 15, 2009 6:21 AM
Wow, what an interesting thread!
Off-hand, no, I wouldn't be. No more than porn, probably a bit less so actually. Porn seems a bit more twisted, too voyeuristic, and creeps me out a bit more. But I doubt I'd dismiss a guy altogether for having viewed some (unless it was excessive and seemed to be or border on an obsession, then too creepy). Basically, because I recognize that's an emotional response on my part.
My ex was, in fact, "kept" as a teen. Sicko father threw him and his three brothers out on the street when his mother died and he married his girlfriend who brought her own kids but didn't want his "baggage" around. They survived by turning to crime -- robbery, drugs and prostitution.
Now I wish I had worried about it more because it fucked him up in ways I still can't totally comprehend (he was only 11). Crid makes a good point -- most of the prostitutes in our society are basically the down and out and, hence, not the smartest sex partners. Not sure if this would change or not if it was legalized.
But we all make mistakes and learn from them. I guess I'd feel the same (even though I still think it's a business transaction that should be legalized) as I do about the porn. I can overlook a few transactions but if it was an all the time thing, I'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with someone who only sought out that option.
T's Grammy at April 15, 2009 7:01 AM
I think that what Gregg at 5:04 touched on is the crux of the matter, and needs to be expanded. Amy is seeking to find out not just that women are disgusted by a man paying for sex, but why -- and so far the women commenting have not been able to explain their gut reactions.
I believe this is because much of this disgust comes from an unconscious level having to do with social value within the human hierarchy. Females are hardwired to want to mate with high-status males -- that's part of our biological architecture as primates. High-status males are, by definition, able to mate with any female they want, and do not have to expend any resources to do so. By expending resources in exchange for mating (i.e., paying for sex), a male reveals himself to be of lower status -- and this lowers the status of any female mating with him, because female status is tied to mating success. The revelation of his sub-alpha status pulls down her social value, and because this hierarchical system is hardwired into us at a very deep level, the reactions is felt at an instinctual level -- as disgust and repulsion.
Life of Reilley at April 15, 2009 8:46 AM
It isn't that you are paying for sex. You are paying for the woman to leave afterwards and never contact you again.
rusty at April 15, 2009 8:53 AM
It's not so much that he paid for it as that (given what she does) she has probably been with a lot of men. That makes it filthy. I'd feel the same about a guy that had just had a lot of partners, but didn't pay for it. Of course, most men pay for it somehow, even if it's taking the woman to dinner or buying her a gift. It's just the sheer number of partners you're talking about with escorts.
Kim at April 15, 2009 9:19 AM
>>You are paying for the woman to leave afterwards and never contact you again.
Or - rusty - you are paying for the woman to pretend to want you just for a little while?
(Just another way of saying it's not about the guy wanting NO emotional response; but rather wanting to dictate the terms and duration of a certain sort of plausible response?)
Jody Tresidder at April 15, 2009 9:19 AM
What Jody said.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 15, 2009 9:33 AM
I think the biggest problem for most women is the inability to separate sex and relationships. Thus the "ick" factor when they find out. I realize most women don't come "hard-wired" to make that distinction but there are some of us who have no issue doing so. I have sex because I enjoy it, and sometimes I just need that release even if I'm not in a relationship. I dare say more men will openly admit to having this inate need than women - for fear of being branded a slut. That old double standard is still alive and well. I haven't ever paid cash for sex, nor have I charged - but let's face it, sex is NEVER completely free. Relationships however are something entirely different as is relationship sex.
That being said, if someone I was dating had gone to a prostitute or hired a call-girl, I wouldn't be disgusted by that. If anything I'd be curious about the whole thing and ask tons of questions. Of course, he wouldn't have the time or energy to go to either one while I was around. But that's just me. Ladies, if you're keeping your man happy at home, there's very little reason for him to look outside the relationship.
Sara at April 15, 2009 9:41 AM
>> Sometimes I visit web sites but I always leave feeling icky.
Then you're doing it right!
Eric at April 15, 2009 9:47 AM
Put on your reading glasses. This really hits the spot:
| "It is interesting to note," Houellebecq
| writes in one of many passages of armchair
| sociology, "that the 'sexual revolution'
| was sometimes portrayed as a communal
| utopia, whereas in fact it was simply
| another stage in the historical rise of
| individualism. As the lovely world
| 'household' suggests, the couple and
| the family would be the last bastion of
| primitive communism in liberal society.
| The sexual revolution was to destroy
| these intermediary communities, the last
| to separate the individual from the
| market. The destruction continues to
| this day." No wonder that "in the last
| years of Western civilization," the
| "general mood [was] depression
| bordering on masochism."
I'd thought of linking that in response to the many pathos-sopping comments here, but never got around to it.
When you take boastful pride in disassociation from others, you ought not complain that the world done you wrong.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 15, 2009 10:43 AM
Triple what Jody said.
"Ladies, if you're keeping your man happy at home, there's very little reason for him to look outside the relationship."
Well now that's just not true. Some cheat to get SOME they aren't getting at home, but as many cheat for the newness thrill, the something different, whatever. You know the old "show me the hottest girl in the room, and I'll show you a guy tired of fucking her" line? Well, show me the horniest nympho in the room, and I will also show you a guy tired of fucking only her.
I don't know that we can explain the disgust. The thought of a penis going into me that's been in a vagina that's had thousands just icks me. That's too much sharing for me.
momof3 at April 15, 2009 10:47 AM
>> Sometimes I visit web sites but I always leave feeling icky.
Then you're doing it right!
No you're not doing it right unless you leave feeling sticky
lujlp at April 15, 2009 10:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643375">comment from momof3Ladies, if you're keeping your man happy at home, there's very little reason for him to look outside the relationship." Well now that's just not true. Some cheat to get SOME they aren't getting at home, but as many cheat for the newness thrill, the something different, whatever.
Absolutely right, momof3. Thanks for batting cleanup for the second morning in a row.
The late Shirley Glass (Ira's mother) was an expert on infidelity, and made this clear in her work: Not "Just Friends": Rebuilding Trust and Recovering Your Sanity After Infidelity
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 11:00 AM
We can agree to disagree on this point:
"Ladies, if you're keeping your man happy at home, there's very little reason for him to look outside the relationship." Well now that's just not true. Some cheat to get SOME they aren't getting at home, but as many cheat for the newness thrill, the something different, whatever."
But I suppose my statement only holds water for those of us who are willing to keep the spice alive in our relationships - you know - something other than missionary with the lights off on Saturday night.
Sara at April 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Also, please note that I said "very little reason" unless of course you happen to be in a relationship with a real dog of a man. In that case, nothing I said applies.
Sara at April 15, 2009 11:16 AM
Sara speaks the truth. Most men kept happy at home do not cheat. Most men do not cheat, period. The same is true of women. As for spouses who do cheat, it turns out women are just about as nasty as men -- all they needed to catch up is the opportunity, it seems.
For those of you implying that most men DO cheat, well, I sense more than a little projection going on. And more than a little reflexive male-bashing, as well.
Jay R at April 15, 2009 11:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643392">comment from Jay RAs for spouses who do cheat, it turns out women are just about as nasty as men -- all they needed to catch up is the opportunity, it seems. For those of you implying that most men DO cheat, well, I sense more than a little projection going on.
Loads of men and women cheat. Far more than most people would imagine.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 12:07 PM
Amy, I haven't read through every comment so perhaps someone said this before.
My take on why a woman might be repulsed by a new lover of hers having paid for sex before is because she might then start wondering when he buys her meals, flowers, travel, jewelry, etc. whether he is "paying her", so to speak.
Robert W. at April 15, 2009 1:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643412">comment from Robert W.I don't think that's the case, Robert W. -- not in this case, at least -- and probably not in general.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 1:45 PM
Amy, yes, loads of people cheat on their spouses. But do you think it is most?
Jay R at April 15, 2009 3:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/14/sex_for_money.html#comment-1643423">comment from Jay RAmy, yes, loads of people cheat on their spouses. But do you think it is most?
I think it's people who have reason to want to have sex with somebody outside of their relationship, and who either feel it's worth the risk or haven't thought it out that well.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 3:33 PM
"But I suppose my statement only holds water for those of us who are willing to keep the spice alive in our relationships - you know - something other than missionary with the lights off on Saturday night. "
Honey, there are men who would tire of fucking Jenna Jameson, with all her tricks. Unless you're bringing other people in, you need to know the possibility of him just wanting new, or exciting forbidden, is there. Not every man, not even most men, but even black truffles get boring to eat after a while. Just saying, not all or even most cheating is the woman at home's fault. It's comforting to say "Oh, that just happened because she didn't put out" because then it can't happen to you, right?
momof3 at April 15, 2009 3:35 PM
momof3 - again, let me reiterate, IF you married that type of man, then yes, you can expect that to happen. I did not marry that type of man, nor have I ever been in a relationship with that type of man. Yes, there is a certain type of man that will do it no matter what he's getting at home. I can say with a great deal of confidence that neither my ex husband nor my current has cheated on me and I don't invite extras into my bedroom. I have never been one to share my things willingly (evidently, I missed that lesson in kindergarten).
Also, I'd just like to point out that I never said no man would ever cheat. That would be quite delusional on my part. I did say that there would be little reason for him to go outside the relationship - but again, if you pick the "bad boy" who likes to fancy himself a "play-ah" then yeah, he's probably a dog, and will use any slight - real or perceived - to cheat.
This is totally off topic to your original post Amy and I apologize to you for hijacking it.
Sara at April 15, 2009 4:13 PM
You'll believe that until the moment you catch him banging the babysitter.
brian at April 15, 2009 4:53 PM
I think Norman had it correct. I read a web article (Don't remember where, but I thought it was a credible source) about 6 months ago that talked how things that have historically made people ill tend to give us the disgusted feeling. The examples they used was an oozing puss filled sore. (My stomache is feeling queezy after just remember it now.) Generally things involving germs tend to cause it. Body fluids are another one - most people seem to find touching fecal matter disgustting also. Vomitting might actually help one get the nasty stuff out of your body (say you got some on your hands and accidently transfered it your mouth). So that seems like it all might make sense.
So I would guess the women inanaetly knows (and possibly thinks about/imagines) all the fluids the hooker has been exposed to and hence the man has been exposed to.
The former banker at April 15, 2009 5:01 PM
Hell I don't see what the big deal is.
Now I wouldn't do it here in the states, to risky.
But over in Europe it wasn't only not a problem, but it was normal & expected.
Used to be a half dozen other soldiers and I would go out, hit a restaurant, then a strip club, then catch the train down to the big city & go to the red light district and nail 2 or 3 on payday weekends.
Wasn't any big deal, I had a girlfriend then too, she knew I'd go out and have other women now and then, didn't give a damn either, very practical wench that one, we had fun together, went on long weekends, and I spent liberally on her and she *fill in the blank with very dirty deed in the book* very liberally with me, and life was grand.
Frankly, much as a I adore the fairer sex, most of the American set is rather...blind, regarding male nature, desire, and most else with regards to men. I got spoiled overseas, hard to go back to the prudish American fare. (No offense ladies, truly, but unless you've been overseas and seen the difference between the expectations of euro women as opposed to your own, you really can't appreciate my perspective)
Robert at April 15, 2009 5:20 PM
I can understand the rational viewpoint that women wouldn't like escorts because they represent competition, but I also don't understand the illogical, animal "disgust" response, it makes about as much sense as being disgusted by potatoes. Really, who cares if a guy paid for sex, it's about as interesting and meaningful as paying for a hamburger.
I think the response might stem from seeing a guy as low status, under the presumption (due to the common stigma) that if he had to pay for it, he couldn't "get it" on his own, meaning, he was a low-status non-attractive individual. Women struggle to judge a man's qualities directly, so they look for indirect "proxies" to judge him on - e.g. if other women are attracted to him, and so on. Since paying for sex has this stigma, he would be seen as low-status, and women often have a "disgust" response toward low-status men (recall the one discussion I think we had here about a women disgusted by some low-status guy at work who liked her).
DavidJ at April 15, 2009 5:38 PM
I forget who said it:
"Making love is what the woman does while the man is fucking her."
Call me brutish if you will, but that one always makes me chuckle.
I love the fairer sex...but I'll never BE LIKE them in the broadest sense of the word.
Robert at April 15, 2009 5:39 PM
"Ladies, if you're keeping your man happy at home, there's very little reason for him to look outside the relationship."
Yup, that is a fact! And that's all you can do anyway. But if you're keeping your man genuinely happy (and it really doesn't take all that much) the odds that he will cheat become very small. Sure there is a small minority of guys who would cheat anyway (likewise for women) --- but it would be absurd to suggest that that means you "might as well not keep your man happy" (unless you think a 2% chance and a 50% chance are equivalent).
DavidJ at April 15, 2009 5:48 PM
" did not marry that type of man, nor have I ever been in a relationship with that type of man."
No woman ever did or was.
Really, if Sienna Miller and Christie Brinkley got cheated on, anyone can. Just sayin'.
And idiotJ, I never said don't try. i said don't automatically blame the woman for "forcing" her man to cheat.
Robert, feel free to head back overseas if American women having self esteem is too much for you.
momof3 at April 15, 2009 5:55 PM
There's no point in analyzing the revulsion people have for prostitution, as there is neither a deep psychological reason nor any intellectually valid reason for said revulsion. We are taught it is wrong and disgusting and most of us go with it - i know i do. I cant find any reason for it but i wouldn't do a hooker even if she looked like Jennifer Love Hewitt minus the ass, and gave me a freebie. This is one of my few irrational views but it's been coded into me over the decades and as its hurting no-one i see no reason to work at getting it out of there. What others, male or female, do or dont pay for is up to them, and i doubt i would feel repulsed by a woman who hired a few hookers in the past, but then i dont depend on my sexual usefulness to the opposite sex for either psychological or financial gain, perhaps the woman who wrote Amy does.
Porky at April 15, 2009 5:58 PM
*L* Momof3 you couldn't be MORE wrong.
The girl in question that I was with left her home and family behind in Africa, came to Germany, learned the language in 6 weeks, got herself into school, worked and got her cosmetology license, worked harder and became a licensed massage therapist, and now has her own salon (we still keep in touch, still good friends even after going our separate ways)
That sound like a wench with low self esteem? Bloody hell no. She was confident, collected, and capable. I have no patience with the self loathing, I like people with some fight in them when the troubles of the world hit home.
But her self esteem did not center around the dalliances of my dick, if you'll pardon the crudest and plainest expression of fact. She wasn't dependent upon my cock staying locked up to feel good about herself, and when I was with her, the evening was about us, and on special occasions or "just because", it was about her.
Robert at April 15, 2009 6:30 PM
"A man pays for a service from a woman, it doesn't automatically follow that he thinks she's a 'thing'."
Yeah, I don't get the leap ... if I pay a woman to do domestic housework, does that mean I also suddenly view her as a "thing that washes dishes and vacuums carpets"?
DavidJ at April 15, 2009 6:53 PM
No matter how hot a woman is, somewhere there's a guy who's sick of fucking her.
brian at April 15, 2009 7:44 PM
There's a lot of disgust out there. I find the thought of homosexual sex to be disgusting. (I am not objecting to what other people do together - just stating how I feel about it.) I expect that children feel disgust at the thought of any kind of sex, and especially the thought of their parents having sex, or old people having sex.
No-one has mentioned oxytocin yet. This hormone fills women with feelings of love, trust, etc when they have good sex. AFAIK, men don't have this reaction to good sex. I think this goes some way to explain the difference between women "making love" and men "having sex."
I don't see how these points fit into the overall picture, but I think they may be part of it.
Norman at April 16, 2009 1:42 AM
> feel free to head back overseas
> if American women having self
> esteem is too much for you.
M3, props for the righteous slap...
But wiser men than me would counsel close attention on this point. When a man really loves you, there's no point in hounding him for teenage expressions of devotion. But (at least during the younger decades) it pays to consciously remember that men and women are not having the same experience.
Later on, when everybody is grown up and their stupidities can no longer be excused by youth, then wut-evar. Many years ago a middle-aged urologist warned me that with the passage of time, masculine eroticism becomes more feminine and vice-versa.
(But I've never heard of an older man who leaves a trail of rose petals to a steaming, candlelit bathtub... We are what we are.)
(What is
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 16, 2009 1:43 AM
But I've never heard of an older man who leaves a trail of rose petals to a steaming, candlelit bathtub
Ofcorse not he'd get yelled at for killing her roses and wasting her candles.
Candles are like decrotive soap - never to be touched, only looked at
lujlp at April 16, 2009 5:19 AM
Candles are like decorative soap - never to be touched, only looked at
lol. It's bad luck to leave a candle unburned
~~~
But her self esteem did not center around the dalliances of my dick, if you'll pardon the crudest and plainest expression of fact. She wasn't dependent upon my cock staying locked up to feel good about herself, and when I was with her, the evening was about us, and on special occasions or "just because", it was about her.
Agree with Robert. Crude & plain language appreciated. ;-)
~~~
No-one has mentioned oxytocin yet. This hormone fills women with feelings of love, trust, etc when they have good sex. AFAIK, men don't have this reaction to good sex. I think this goes some way to explain the difference between women "making love" and men "having sex."
Though this has always bothered me in a way. So is there anything then that fills the MAN with love & trust? Food?
Women are just poor slaves to our hormones?
MeganNJ at April 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Hi there MeganNJ, thanks for writing. I like you. Here's a question for you:
What quality of femininity must a woman keep under control if she's going to be a good person?
See what I'm getting at?
What's the biggest threat to a woman's virtue that comes just from being a woman?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 16, 2009 10:34 AM
"Women are just poor slaves to our hormones?" M
heh, at least you aren't slave to something that makes it hard to stand up in public.
"it that a pistol in your pocket..."
this is tangent to the article, but maybe not the direction of the thread. My understanding was that there was a hormone interchange between the partners, but only if you aren't using barrier protection, naturally. I wonder how the use of that barrier has changed the relations between genders... ie. when you don't have that chemical flood in your body leading to your brain, how does that enhance or diminish actual feelings?
SwissArmyD at April 16, 2009 10:39 AM
What quality of femininity must a woman keep under control if she's going to be a good person?
~~ Be less "emotional," less crying, less needing attention, less credibility put towards feeeeelings
Virtue?
See what I'm getting at?
I think I'm missing something.
~~~
My understanding was that there was a hormone interchange between the partners, but only if you aren't using barrier protection, naturally.
Phew, I'm safe, a shot to the face counts right
Actually, I do feel closer to him after sex & don't feel worse off for it. Because that's the reason I wanted to have the sex in the first place.
Suppose I'm just chatting about the :injustice of all: (dramatic voice)
MeganNJ at April 16, 2009 11:29 AM
MeganNJ - "So is there anything then that fills the MAN with love & trust? Food?"
I think achievement does it. Overcoming difficulties. If it's a team effort, then this brings great feelings of camaraderie.
There's lots of films that show this - Apollo 13 comes to mind, and war films, where there is a small band of men who face up to the enemy (whatever the enemy is) and overcome it to achieve their goal against the odds. With cleverness and bravery.
This is nothing to do with relating to a woman, but if she is one of the team, then sex together would be special. I have not had that experience, however.
This is the opinion of a sample of 1, after 5 minutes introspection. Keep salt handy.
Norman at April 16, 2009 12:58 PM
"Phew, I'm safe, a shot to the face counts right" M
not that I've heard... everything happens internally...
MeganNJ - "So is there anything then that fills the MAN with love & trust? Food?"
different tangent... why do you want him to have that, and what do you mean? D'ya think that maybe if he falls asleep in your arms after, that's trust? Just because men don't articulate these things the same way, doesn't mean they don't feel them. Just so's you know? If he lets you drive his car? That's trust.
SwissArmyD at April 16, 2009 1:40 PM
why do you want him to have that, and what do you mean? D'ya think that maybe if he falls asleep in your arms after, that's trust?
Oh of course! (nevermind that we don't cuddwwwle for sleeping.)
I'm so grateful, men are not like women, dealing with women is tiring!!
(& yes, I'm sure I'm just as tedious, thank you for noticing)
Just that ... women are always portrayed as cottenheaded ninnymugins, prone to attachments & whatever. Hormones this, hormones that.
There just doesn't seem to be a correlation for men. You all get to be so logical & in control.
There was some study about skimpy clothing "making" you make bad decisions. Like yes, I need that car, look at the ass on her leaning on it.
~~~
There's lots of films that show this - Apollo 13 comes to mind, and war films, where there is a small band of men who face up to the enemy (whatever the enemy is) and overcome it to achieve their goal against the odds. With cleverness and bravery.
True stories & war movies, underdog-excels-in-sports movies make me cry. I hated things like Pay it Forward, with it's overdone sadness. Cue the music, time to cry now.
MeganNJ at April 16, 2009 2:33 PM
MeganNJ - men are driven by hormones too. That's why so many die young - testosterone makes them do crazy things.
Overnight thoughts about post-coital feelings for men (apart from overwhelming sleepiness): tenderness and protectiveness.
Norman at April 17, 2009 1:33 AM
Leave a comment