What DO you think

jaffacakesyum

Kold wrote: »

Why can everything else in this world be a commodity except for sex?

Cigarettes are a commodity yet plenty of people choose not to be in relationships with smokers. Why can't sex be the same?

eviltwin

Kold wrote: »

Why would it be any of your business? Do you check up every partner's history?

Don't most people ask their partners what their previous sexual history is??

l

Kold

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Cigarettes are a commodity yet plenty of people choose not to be in relationships with smokers. Why can't sex be the same?

I would say that it's quite irrational to choose to not be in a relationship with someone who used to smoke.

Kold

eviltwin wrote: »

Don't most people ask their partners what their previous sexual history is??

l

Um. No? I don't think so anyway.

ash23

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Cigarettes are a commodity yet plenty of people choose not to be in relationships with smokers. Why can't sex be the same?

For me personally I think the past should be in the past. So if I'm entering a new relationship their past relationships don't bother me. All I care about is how they treat me.
If they were a smoker then that is current and impacts on me. If they were an ex-smoker it wouldn't bother me.

I like to take new boyfriends on their current behaviour. I appreciate that the past matters to other people but it's one reason why someones sex life wouldn't bother a new partner where smoking would.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

Don't most people ask their partners what their previous sexual history is?? l

Sexual history wouldn't be important to me. Relationship history would though.

meeeeh

eviltwin wrote: »

Don't most people ask their partners what their previous sexual history is??

l

And I'd say most people lie. Or at least don't tell everything.

I actually think it's naive to think you know everything about your partner's past. Prostitutes are prime example, anybody with a bit of brain would not disclose that at the beginning and not at all if their partner is against it.

eviltwin

Kold wrote: »

I would say that it's quite irrational to choose to not be in a relationship with someone who used to smoke.

I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who had used drugs in the past. Or someone who used to have a drink problem. I wouldn't get involved with someone who had done time in prison for murder etc or who had been violent to an ex. I don't consider that to be irrational, there are just some things I don't want in a potential partner, those and the use of prostitutes are just some of them.

eviltwin

meeeeh wrote: »

And I'd say most people lie. Or at least don't tell everything.

I actually think it's naive to think you know everything about your partner's past. Prostitutes are prime example, anybody with a bit of brain would not disclose that at the beginning and not at all if their partner is against it.

I don't know everything but I trust my instinct and having been with him a long time and knowing him I trust him not to be the kind of man who needs to pay for sex. Of course you can never know 100% but you can't make a decision on something unless you know it actually exists in the first place.

jaffacakesyum

Kold wrote: »

I would say that it's quite irrational to choose to not be in a relationship with someone who used to smoke.

Fair enough, I was talking about current smokers. Ex-smokers I would date but there are still many reasons why one wouldn't date ex-smokers or ex-drug addicts or ex-alcoholics. Wouldn't call it irrational.

Kold wrote: »

Um. No? I don't think so anyway.

Really? So your partner could have had unprotected sex for 20 years yet you would be in a relationship with them and not know.

MaxWig

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Really? So your partner could have had unprotected sex for 20 years yet you would be in a relationship with them and not know.

Without a break?

Kold

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who had used drugs in the past. Or someone who used to have a drink problem. I wouldn't get involved with someone who had done time in prison for murder etc or who had been violent to an ex. I don't consider that to be irrational, there are just some things I don't want in a potential partner, those and the use of prostitutes are just some of them.

Like any drugs? It's your prerogative and I can't say you're wrong but you're narrowing down your list of potential partners by a huge amount just with that. But you know, you could be very happy with an Anglican minister. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone as judgmental as you.

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

Sp you have decided to relegate the 'woman' to a completely passive aspect of the transaction.

Being paid = unwilling????

No, and I specifically used the words 'chose to participate' in my post to show that she doesn't have to be passive.

My point is simply that if a man pays a woman to sleep with him and doesn't care that she's only there, in part, for the money then his attitude to sex is too different to mine for me to want to be in a relationship with him.

Kold

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Really? So your partner could have had unprotected sex for 20 years yet you would be in a relationship with them and not know.

I think I'd figure out from the stretch marks, the gigantic vagina, her being at least 10 years older than me, and the 17 babies. I like to get to know people before doing the deed.

vitani

Kold wrote: »

Why would it be any of your business? Do you check up every partner's history?

Hang on. I haven't claimed it's my business. But if they volunteered the information - like the OP describes - then yes, I would use it to decide whether they're someone I could be in a relationship with.

eviltwin

Kold wrote: »

Like any drugs? It's your prerogative and I can't say you're wrong but you're narrowing down your list of potential partners by a huge amount just with that. But you know, you could be very happy with an Anglican minister. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone as judgmental as you.

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

No, and I specifically used the words 'chose to participate' in my post to show that she doesn't have to be passive.

You then went on to say "his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner."

Bit rapey, no?

Kold

vitani wrote: »

Hang on. I haven't claimed it's my business. But if they volunteered the information - like the OP describes - then yes, I would use it to decide whether they're someone I could be in a relationship with.

I personally think the fact that he volunteered the information shows that this is a very honest man. Daft, but honest.

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

Currently using drugs?

Any ones in particular?

Illegal ones?

Or is there a specific chemical compound you have it in for?

Or is it that you just don't like those who do not comply?

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

Currently using drugs?

Any ones in particular?

Illegal ones?

Or is there a specific chemical compound you have it in for?

Or is it that you just don't like those who do not comply?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

It would depend on the situation. If I met a man who was currently using drugs or who was an ex addict then no. I'm too long in the tooth to settle. I'd rather be alone that be involved with someone like that. I'm not judgemental in the slightest, its one thing to have people with these issues in your life as friends etc, when its someone you are getting involved with, possibly having a family with its totally different.

But it's an extreme though. I wouldn't go out with someone who is currently using prostitutes or who was addicted to using them in the past.

That's very different to someone who used one a couple of times in the past.

We all draw lines in different places and we are all entitled to do that. But I do think it's unfair to lump anyone who has ever used a prostitute in with all people who use them. There are varying levels. Much the same as there are varying levels of drug use or being in trouble with the guards or relationship history etc.
A blanket ban just seems a bit unnecessary.

jaffacakesyum

eviltwin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

Apparantly you're not allowed. It's almost as if you shouldn't have a choice in the matter of who you get into a relationship with. Very odd.

Fighting Irish

vitani wrote: »

No. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who had so little respect for women that they believed they were a commodity to be bought and sold.

what is the pros wanted to be a pros? Would you be ok with it then?

Kold

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Apparantly you're not allowed. It's almost as if you shouldn't have a choice in the matter of who you get into a relationship with. Very odd.

I'm a fussy eater. I have the right to not eat what I don't want, I can't complain when others see this as irrational though.

By all means you can say yes or no to anything in this world, but don't expect to not have your views challenged when you volunteer them.

eviltwin

ash23 wrote: »

But it's an extreme though. I wouldn't go out with someone who is currently using prostitutes or who was addicted to using them in the past.

That's very different to someone who used one a couple of times in the past.

We all draw lines in different places and we are all entitled to do that. But I do think it's unfair to lump anyone who has ever used a prostitute in with all people who use them. There are varying levels. Much the same as there are varying levels of drug use or being in trouble with the guards or relationship history etc.
A blanket ban just seems a bit unnecessary.

Maybe my opinions are harder because I am older and I'm a parent, I would have to think very carefully about anyone I get involved with because my decisions would affect my children too. I'm entitled to have those limits though, just as I am sure there are things about me that would make rule me out as a potential partner for some men. Its just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it.

MaxWig

eviltwin wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have my deal breakers just like everyone else.

I'm talking about wildly judgemental assumptions.

I'm glad you have 'deal-breakers', it implies a certain self-respect.

It's just that terms like 'drugs', and 'prostitution', when used in a certain context, suggest a pretty rigid and uninformed perception of the phenomena in question.

Alcohol is a drug, and at the risk of diverging from the topic or starting another debate, it is the most damaging and widely used narcotic in town.

Just as an analogy, I think its useful in this case.

I think what's in question for you is not specific acts, but acts that suggest a willingness to be less orthodox than you would like.

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm talking about wildly judgemental assumptions.

I'm glad you have 'deal-breakers', it implies a certain self-respect.

It's just that terms like 'drugs', and 'prostitution', when used in a certain context, suggest a pretty rigid and uninformed perception of the phenomena in question.

Alcohol is a drug, and at the risk of diverging from the topic or starting another debate, it is the most damaging and widely used narcotic in town.

Just as an analogy, I think its useful in this case.

I think what's in question for you is not specific acts, but acts that suggest a willingness to be less orthodox than you would like.

I think when I talk about someone who was a drug addict its clear I'm not talking about drink. I did mention people who had alcohol problems as well in an earlier post. I think fair play to someone who can see past that and give someone a chance, its a big risk, sometimes it pays off, sometimes not. I have seen enough heartache caused to partners of people who have issues with alcohol or drugs and thats not the kind of life I want for myself. Its not a risk I am prepared to take.

meeeeh

Everyone can have their own list of priorities and with addicts there is constant "what if he/she slips" question, so it is risky to get into relationship with someone like that. Prostitutes is a bit different but when somebody puts in more effort visiting hookers than finding even friends with benefits relationship then alarm bells would start to ring on my end. It would be hard for me to believe that somebody like that can be in a committed relationship. It's a risk management exercise and when you are planing a long therm relationship then it is smart to consider what could happen long therm.

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

You then went on to say "his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner."

Bit rapey, no?

No. Somebody exchanging money for sex is completely different to rape.

I explained my point a bit further in the second half of the post you quoted.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe my opinions are harder because I am older and I'm a parent, I would have to think very carefully about anyone I get involved with because my decisions would affect my children too. I'm entitled to have those limits though, just as I am sure there are things about me that would make rule me out as a potential partner for some men. Its just how it is and there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm also a parent. But I'm open minded enough to appreciate that while I do have limits, I can also take them in context.

I was quite liberal when I was younger and have experimented with drugs, I've had quite a few partners etc. I'm not ashamed of it but it doesn't reflect who I am now, 10 or so years later. I would have reservations about extremes. An ex addict or an ex alcoholic would have me wary. But that doesn't mean I should shy away from anyone who has ever tried drugs or drank alcohol.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

No. Somebody exchanging money for sex is completely different to rape.

I explained my point a bit further in the second half of the post you quoted.

"I'm not a prude, but I believe sex should, at the very least, be something that both parties enjoy. If a woman is only doing it because she's being paid, then regardless of why she chose to participate, it bothers me. It may not be a traumatic experience for her but it does indicate that a man who pays for it thinks that his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner"

That is thew context of what you said.

I was simply pointing out that the manner in which you suggested it, it sounded a bit rapey.

I'm quite aware that one has nothing to do with the other.

I would be very concerned about any situation where a prostitute was not "completely willing". It sounds very dodgy. Just pointing out what you said

vitani

MaxWig wrote: »

"I'm not a prude, but I believe sex should, at the very least, be something that both parties enjoy. If a woman is only doing it because she's being paid, then regardless of why she chose to participate, it bothers me. It may not be a traumatic experience for her but it does indicate that a man who pays for it thinks that his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner"

That is thew context of what you said.

I was simply pointing out that the manner in which you suggested it, it sounded a bit rapey.

I'm quite aware that one has nothing to do with the other.

I would be very concerned about any situation where a prostitute was not "completely willing". It sounds very dodgy. Just pointing out what you said

'Completely willing' in that context means whether she'd sleep with him if there was no money involved.

To be honest, I thought that was clear enough.

eviltwin

ash23 wrote: »

I'm also a parent. But I'm open minded enough to appreciate that while I do have limits, I can also take them in context.

I was quite liberal when I was younger and have experimented with drugs, I've had quite a few partners etc. I'm not ashamed of it but it doesn't reflect who I am now, 10 or so years later. I would have reservations about extremes. An ex addict or an ex alcoholic would have me wary. But that doesn't mean I should shy away from anyone who has ever tried drugs or drank alcohol.

I never mentioned not dating someone who had ever taken drugs or ever drank alcohol. Don't misquote me.

I mentioned not being interested in dating an ex addict or someone who was using drugs at the moment.

Those are my limits and if that makes me close minded so be it, I personally think its too risky to take a chance on but thats just my personal choice, it doesn't mean I am right.

Morag

Depends on his attitude to wards the transaction and sexworkers in general.

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

I never mentioned not dating someone who had ever taken drugs or ever drank alcohol. Don't misquote me.

I mentioned not being interested in dating an ex addict or someone who was using drugs at the moment.

Those are my limits and if that makes me close minded so be it, I personally think its too risky to take a chance on but thats just my personal choice, it doesn't mean I am right.

I'm not actually misquoting you. You did flat out say you wouldn't date someone who used drugs in the past.

You said

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who had used drugs in the past. Or someone who used to have a drink problem. I wouldn't get involved with someone who had done time in prison for murder etc or who had been violent to an ex. I don't consider that to be irrational, there are just some things I don't want in a potential partner, those and the use of prostitutes are just some of them.

My point was that people saying they would never date someone who had used a prostitute is akin to saying they'd never date someone who had tried drugs or drank.

I was pointing out that saying you wouldn't date someone who ever used prostitutes is pretty much the same as saying you'd never date someone who used drugs. It's a blanket ban, no wiggle room at all for context or understanding.

You went on to compare it to addicts etc which is a different kettle of fish altogether as you said yourself.

MaxWig

vitani wrote: »

'Completely willing' in that context means whether she'd sleep with him if there was no money involved.

To be honest, I thought that was clear enough.

Maybe it seems pedantic, but the language in these conversations always seems to imply a helplessness on the part of the prostitute (woman).

Or worse, a victim status.

MaxWig

MaxWig wrote: »

Levinas was discussing the ethics of the encounter with the other, and the responsibility of one to the other.

This does not preclude the business encounter.

There seems to be an assumption that it is gnomes, ogres and monsters that are using the services of prostitutes.

They are, I imagine, often very decent and honourable characters.
They are also, I imagine, often the opposite.

But it is not the act itself that determines these things.

In fact, in making any assumption about the client of a prostitute, one misses Levinas' point completely.

That depends on whether you think paying for sex is simply a business transaction.

The ACT of paying for sex changes the sexual encounter not the actual sex.

People are free to do as they please to accept or reject the possibility of a relationship based on any criteria they have and often the criteria are contradictory or irrational, however they are still free to have them.

Men who use prostitutes are good, bad and in-betweens, like all people.

I don't make any assumption about men who use prostitutes what I am making some assumptions about is how that ACT of paying changes that sexual encounter and other sexual encounters the man has. If all sex is the same who do most men who use prostitutes have difficulty looking them in the eye during the act and apparently will often ask the woman to look away form them.

I do realise that not all are trafficked nor victims and are prostitutes for a variety of reasons.

Not all objections to prostitution are morally religiously based.

starling

There's a clear difference between "judging" someone and having things that you don't want in a partner. It's not automatically hypocritical to say "I don't have a problem if two consenting people have sex and there's payment involved, but I don't want a man who vists prostitues as a partner."

Judging someone implies that you are better than them in some way, that you are qualified to decide what they should and shouldn't be doing. Now it's human nature to do that. We all judge each other, and ourselves, all the time. But that judgement is coloured by our own ideas of how people should act, and sometimes that's not fair.

For example if someone said something horribly racist, I would totally judge them. I would think "I'm better than you because I'm not a racist." And I would tell them that they were a racist and that they shouldn't go around saying racist stuff. I certainly wouldn't want a racist as a partner. 

But at the same time I would be aware that I don't know how this person was brought up and what ideas they absorbed from their parents or from the society they lived in. I would be aware that perhaps they didn't realise what they said was racist. Like if they genuinely believed that the reason more people of colour get custodial prison sentences in the US is because they commit more crimes. In which case I would point out to them that there is a bias in sentencing, that White people and rich people are much more likely to get suspended or non-custodial sentences or even get found not guilty.

In other words I'm aware that people believe common misconceptions about race issues more out of ignorance or a failure to really examine their beliefs than simply being a total d1ck.

In the area of sex a lot of people feel they have the right to judge someone for doing something they wouldn't, something that in and of itself isn't necessarily morally wrong. Despite how much sex seems to saturate our media we actually talk very little about the ethics of sex.

And often this judgement tends to fall most heavily on the shoulders of women. People assume they have the right to judge a woman based on how much sex she has or who she has it with, and it's usually based on their own attitudes towards sex. That's one of the reasons why I think we should always think very hard about whether we really have the right to judge somebody in matters of sex.

That doesn't mean you can't have things that put you off a potential partner. Knowing what you don't want and being able to say so is a sign of self esteem as another poster has pointed out. I don't want a partner who drinks heavily. Doesn't mean I'm judging them, doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. It just means our lifestyles are not going to mesh well and might mean that they have an unhealthy way of dealing with their emotions that I can't accept in a partner. I have friends who are fond of a jar, that's their business. But I'm not sharing my life with them. I'm not thinking about raising kids with them. I'm not going to be the "bad guy" who they get to resent when I ask them to cut down on the drink, and I'm not going to be the one who has to hide money to feed the kids because they spend everything on drink.

Everyone is entitled to have things they don't want in a partner. And everyone is entitled to have their own attitude to sex. Maybe you see sex as a very intimate thing that you only want to engage in with someone you know well and are very close to. Maybe you strongly believe that sex should not be a commodity that one can buy or sell. And that's your right. Maybe you get enjoyment from casual encounters or one night stands with people you don't really know all that well. That's your right too. But if you have the former attitude towards sex, it doesn't mean that you have a right to judge anyone who has the latter. If you hate the idea of commodifying sex, it's okay to want a partner with a similar view of sex. For a relationship to be successful, you don't have to free on everything, but having similar attitudes to important things is often a sign that your relationship will be more successful. 

So if a partner told me he'd been with a prostitute I would wait to learn more about the circumstances before deciding whether it was a deal breaker. It would depend on his attitude toward women and that would be something I'd pay a lot of attention in any case.

There are different reasons why men go to prostitutes and some of them are more worrying than others. Some of them are genuinely lonely and need physical contact. 

(I mean, if you think about it, some men get very little physical contact during their daily life. When I meet a friend or relative I greet them with a hug. We express affection physically without any reservations. But how often do you think a man can say to his mates "I feel down, can I hav a hug?" For a lot of men physical contact is limited to handshakes, pats on the back and sex. I'm not saying men go to prostitutes for hugs, that's stupid. But one of the differences between masturbation and having sex is that there is affectionate physical contact and that is very important for human beings, even if society has conditioned us not to admit it.)

Or they might be going to prostitutes because they want to mistreat someone and they think that payment entitles them to do that. Obviously that's an entirely different kettle of fish and would make me run a mile if I sensed it. 

There's a poster on boards who has posted about how he'd still be a virgin if it weren't for prostitutes. He says, and I think he really believes, that his looks put women off him. But it's pretty obvious that he's a very angry, bitter little man with some horrific views about women and that's probably what puts them off. 

In that case I'd run a mile. But the prostitute issue would be only a small part of a much bigger problem.

 

clairefontaine

I wouldn't like it no, but my understanding would depend on the context and the attitude.

Brevestroke

Brevestroke wrote: »

Those positions don't contradict each other.

I believe people should be free to clean toilets in return for money. That doesn't mean I'd want my family members to do it though.


I.

Okay maybe its just double standards then, it okay for other women to do something I would not like the woman in my family to do.

I would much rather clean toilets to make a living that be a prostitute.

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

Okay maybe its just double standards then, it okay for other women to do something I would not like the woman in my family to do.

I would much rather clean toilets to make a living that be a prostitute.

I think there is a very wide gap between personal discriminations and how much you want the law to control other people's lives.

starling

Brevestroke wrote: »

I never consider myself better or worse than anyone else, I find that mindset can lead to unhappiness or even depression. If someone says something racist, I don't think "I'm better than them". I think " they just said something racist, I wonder what made them say that". My relative worth to another person is irrelevant IMO.

Which means you're not judging them. But it's something that most of us do unconsciously and for many of us the best we can do is be aware of it and remind ourselves that it's unfair.

I think what you're referring to there when you mention it causing unhappiness is a slightly different thing; it's measuring our own self worth in comparison to others. A subtle difference, I'm not sure if I can explain it well, but it's more "That person is better than me and therefore deserves to be happy or loved more than I do" than "I am better than this person in a particular aspect of life because they would beat up an old lady for her purse and I wouldn't."

Edit: Like you can be aware that the person was motivated by their desperate need to get money because they have an addiction; you can be aware that they didn't have the same upbringing as you and may have serious problems you don't know about. But even keeping those things in mind, being human and fallible it's understanable to have the reaction "I'm better than that".

Kold

Kold wrote: »

I'll share my opinion but I fear it will be completely lambasted.


First of all, I don't use prostitutes. However I have lived in areas where prostitution is endemic and I would not judge a man who does go to them as long as he treats them with respect and I also don't judge prostitutes as long as they aren't thieves.

The problem with a lot of Asia is that there isn't much in between the 'proper' girls who you have to see for ages until you get a whiff and then they expect marriage and kid and actual working girls. I've been rather sexless for a little while as I try to seek a girl who likes to keep things casual and on top of all my other criteria for a suitable partner, this is difficult. I have friends who often go with customers to make a little extra money but the fact is, in almost every case the girl can say no. You need to realise that being a working girl is actually easier and more lucrative than working in a rice field, a restaurant or whatever. Often these girls are actually looking for a western boyfriend because a) they have money and b) they often treat girls much better than the locals.

So a lot of the time, it's easier for a man to see a working girl than to court a young lady and then get seen as a scumbag when they don't put a ring on their finger. Personally, I don't really like that option as it's so short term and blowing my load once mechanically is not the sexual relief I'm seeking.

I'm not saying all but a lot of Western women are so hung up on prostitution but have no problems with getting their smelly feet soaked and massaged, or buying knock off clothing and handbags made in sweatshops. It's all exploitation. I think it boils down to a sexual politics thing, the fear of rape, or else women think men need to earn sex. The men do earn sex. Only whereas at home they might earn it from charm and good looks, over here they earn it from having money. Although money matters at home and charm and good looks also gets you far over here.

People complain about the old men who come out here and take advantage of the young girls (and boys). I've met a lot of punters, arseholes exist, but I've also met lots of lovely older men who worked all their lives, never married, come out here and maybe find a wife 10 or 20 years younger and I honestly see no wrongdoing. By Western standards this man is a loser, well f*ck judgemental sheltered people who point the finger. If a man provides, respects and is good to a woman, let him eat cake.
Fairy tales rarely exist out here.

That sums it up perfectly it is not the actual sex but the attitude that you ( as a man ) are paying for sex one way or another the mere fact of a man having that mind set would mean they would not be the person for me plus our thoughts and action do not exist in isolation from each other, the sort of thinking you are talking about permanents all you life not just relationships with the opposite sex.

starling

mariaalice wrote: »

That sums it up perfectly it is not the actual sex but the attitude that you ( as a man ) are paying for sex one way or another the mere fact of a man having that mind set would mean they would not be the person for me plus our thoughts and action do not exist in isolation from each other, the sort of thinking you are talking about permanents all you life not just relationships with the opposite sex.

+1
Thanks for sharing your story Kold. And you do make a good point that in the west we all benefit in some way from exploitation of others, I'm sure half the stuff I own was made in China by people who get paid f*ck all and live really hard lives. It's true that we judge it differently when sex is involved, rightly or wrongly.

But as mariaalice says, the "I pay for it one way or the other" attitude is very disturbing and it ties into the notion that men are "owed" sex if they do certain things, which is already disturbingly widespread and very, very dangerous.

I got the impression from your story that you view paying a working girl as more honest than courting someone you don't intend to marry. You may well be right if courting for you involves not being upfront about where you would like the relationship to go, and if so it's probably better that you're not giving some girl false expectations.

Yet you mention that sex with a prostitute doesn't really satisfy you, that you find it mechanical and would like something more.

Is it a cultural issue in that where you're living women don't feel able to have a relationship that isn't leading up to marriage, or don't want to?

Tiddlypeeps

Princess Peach wrote: »

I will agree. They might say they did it somewhere it was legal, and she was clean and not trafficked and not on drugs and chose her job, but its still supporting an industry I really dislike.

The only reason prostitution gets lumped in with trafficking and drugs is because in a lot of the world it is illegal. When you make things illegal it forces them underground where it mixes with all the other nastiness down there. Prostitution, trafficking and drugs are entirely separate things and judging a person who used a consensual prostitute in a legal and clean setting on the merits of the others would be as insane as judging a doctor on the same level as a street drug dealer because they both supply the same stuff.

mariaalice wrote: »

Its okay to say I am for legalising prostitution, but I would not want my father, my son, or my lover to have used a prostitute and it is okay to say I would not want my daughter or sister to be a prostitute, yes those position do contradict each other and you should be called on it, but at least it is honest.

Those positions do not contradict each other. I have no problem with prostitution but I wouldn't want my sister to do it. It's a hazardous job, you open yourself up to STD's, unwanted pregnancy and violence from customers. Even in a fully regulated industry you can only minimise those risks. The same way I wouldn't want my sister to be a bouncer in a night club or any other job with dangerous occupational hazards. Nothing to do with the perception of prostitutes being scum.

Princess Peach wrote: »

I just don't like an industry that has a high rate of crime, rape, violence and abuse of humans. I know that these aren't affecting everyone involved in it, but it is common enough for me to not like it as a whole. It's not going to go away, and I'm not going to try and change that, but I still won't ever support it.

Again this is because it is illegal in most countries. If it was regulated the instances of crime related activities would drastically reduce. Using the example above do you have an issue with the security industry? Bouncers and security guards encounter an above average amount of criminal activity going about their business so based on those conditions do you not support the security industry? Crazy logic

mariaalice wrote: »

I think what's at the heart of the argument is this idea of an entitlement to sex and if you cant get It by being in a relationship well then you just pay for it, lots of men ( and women ) with strongly sexual personalities and who are secure in their attractiveness to the opposite sex spend years being celibate not by choice but by circumstance and they do not pay for use of a prostitute, thats often forgotten about I think.

You are the only one who used the word entitlement. Nobody is entitled to sex. But who are you to judge someone who can't get it through conventional means? The example of the disabled guy who's mother set him up with an escort, do you think he is scum for using it, or the mother scum for setting it up?
So what if some attractive people who can't find sex don't opt for the prostitute option, some do, it's not forgotten about it's irrelevant.

ash23 wrote: »

His attitude to women would concern me more. There are plenty of guys who use money to control women, or to punch above their weight in the dating pool. I wouldn't like that attitude at all because I want to be seen as an equal. If they looked at women as something to be bought and sold, or had a poor opinion of them or felt that money was the way to get and keep a girlfriend then I wouldn't respect them. For me it's less about the act and more about the overall view of women.

You are putting your views on other people. How do you know all guys, or even many guys use prostitution as a means to control women? And "punch above their weight in the dating pool", seriously. What a conceited thing to say. I too wouldn't like any of those traits in a boyfriend, but why are you applying any of those traits to a guy who uses prostitutes? Sure, some of them might do it to feel a sense of control, but you cannot say they all do or even any sort of majority.

Emme wrote: »

This speaks volumes about the guys attitude to women. He probably treats women from the dating site in the same way. He was telling you in not so many words that he only stays with a woman until he gets fed up with her and then moves onto the next one. I daresay if you went on another date with this guy he would expect sex. There's nothing wrong with that but I don't like his attitude to women, he seems to see them as commodities.

All this speaks volumes about is the attitude the OP ascribed to the guy. There is nothing wrong with someone only seeing someone for a couple of weeks and then leaving them because they don't have the qualities they want. This is just as likely as the views the OP ascribed to the man. He could be a pig, I have no idea. But based on the facts presented I've been given no reason to believe he is.

vitani wrote: »

It indicates that he doesn't respect women, as far as I'm concerned. And it shows an attitude to sex itself that I'm not comfortable with.

I'm not a prude, but I believe sex should, at the very least, be something that both parties enjoy. If a woman is only doing it because she's being paid, then regardless of why she chose to participate, it bothers me. It may not be a traumatic experience for her but it does indicate that a man who pays for it thinks that his 'need' for sex is so important that it comes above having a completely willing partner.

How does paying for sex show a lack of respect for women? If a lesbian pays for sex with a woman does that mean she doesn't have respect for women? Or a woman with a man? Or a man with a man? Or does it simply mean they need less of a personal connection from sex to get off? Even if (and that's a big if) paying for sex showed a lack of respect for the prostitute then surely it only shows a lack of respect for that person. Why would you assume it colours their opinion of an entire gender?

No matter how much you try to beat around it saying that a person who is being paid to have sex is not willing because they are being paid is saying the person paying them is raping them. You can jump around that all you like, but that is what you said.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not judgemental in the slightest

:rolleyes:

meeeeh wrote: »

Prostitutes is a bit different but when somebody puts in more effort visiting hookers than finding even friends with benefits relationship then alarm bells would start to ring on my end. It would be hard for me to believe that somebody like that can be in a committed relationship.

Why is one of these things worse than the other

Surely both are just meaningless sex so why does it matter if they pay to do it or do it with a friend. Maybe they don't believe that two people can really be friends and have a sexual relationship, why would that have any bearing whatsoever on their ability to be in a committed relationship?

Sorry about the long post, I just think some of the views in this thread are shockingly narrow minded.

Kold

starling wrote: »

Is it a cultural issue in that where you're living women don't feel able to have a relationship that isn't leading up to marriage, or don't want to?

I view myself as too young for marriage and kids. I view my 2 or 3 years abroad as bachelorhood. Time to develop myself and not have to pour too much of myself into a serious relationship. On top of that, cultural differences mean that whilst I can enjoy friendship here, I have a hard time having a conversation over 20 minutes with girls here. I've had a couple of girlfriends throughout my travels but I refuse to lie to a girl, I tell them that I will be moving on at sometime. I had a short relationship with a 'nice' Chinese girl (like 5 or 6 weeks sexless until the end) where she was unbelievably upset at me for leaving even though I always said I would, not something I care to repeat. At the moment I'm trying to settle with steady employment so whilst I'm all for having a relationship, I need to see that they're cool with my mindset. If I was home I'd find girls who liked the music I like and the movies I like and enjoyed having sex for the enjoyment without having to have any guarantees of us being together forever. Over here that's rare.

Honestly, I have the utmost respect for women but as a male (it may or may not be for women), sex is a necessity. Half the sh!t we do is motivated by sex in the long run. I am certainly more relaxed when I'm getting it regularly, I just.. don't want to go the pay for play route. Until then I have to be satisfied with the odd one night stand and hope a girl comes along that I feel I can bond with, but I won't hold my breath, when she comes she comes. I can certainly see why men opt for it, I can see the benefits for the ladies involved, as long as nobody gets hurt, I won't stand in judgment.

starling

Kold wrote: »

I view myself as too young for marriage and kids. I view my 2 or 3 years abroad as bachelorhood. Time to develop myself and not have to pour too much of myself into a serious relationship. On top of that, cultural differences mean that whilst I can enjoy friendship here, I have a hard time having a conversation over 20 minutes with girls here. I've had a couple of girlfriends throughout my travels but I refuse to lie to a girl, I tell them that I will be moving on at sometime. I had a short relationship with a 'nice' Chinese girl (like 5 or 6 weeks sexless until the end) where she was unbelievably upset at me for leaving even though I always said I would, not something I care to repeat. At the moment I'm trying to settle with steady employment so whilst I'm all for having a relationship, I need to see that they're cool with my mindset. If I was home I'd find girls who liked the music I like and the movies I like and enjoyed having sex for the enjoyment without having to have any guarantees of us being together forever. Over here that's rare.

Honestly, I have the utmost respect for women but as a male (it may or may not be for women), sex is a necessity. Half the sh!t we do is motivated by sex in the long run. I am certainly more relaxed when I'm getting it regularly, I just.. don't want to go the pay for play route. Until then I have to be satisfied with the odd one night stand and hope a girl comes along that I feel I can bond with, but I won't hold my breath, when she comes she comes. I can certainly see why men opt for it, I can see the benefits for the ladies involved, as long as nobody gets hurt, I won't stand in judgment.

Hm it does sound like the culture you're in at the moment gives you a much smaller chance of meeting someone who wants the same kind of relationship you do. That kind of sucks, I don't really know what you can do about it.

Though personally I think that if you did go with a working girl there'd be nothing wrong with it, given the circumstances and assuming that you treated her fairly. I can understand why a paid sexual encounter without much emotional involvement wouldn't do it for someone though. I mean I'm not sure it would do much for me either, and I definitely think it's unfair to expect all men would enjoy it.

Kold

starling wrote: »

Hm it does sound like the culture you're in at the moment gives you a much smaller chance of meeting someone who wants the same kind of relationship you do. That kind of sucks, I don't really know what you can do about it.

I don't think it sucks. There are an incredible amount of advantages to living out here and I also feel like hot property which is nice for the ol' ego. I've little doubt that the right girl will come along.

meeeeh

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Sorry about the long post, I just think some of the views in this thread are shockingly narrow minded.

Oh give me a break... We all have different priorities. I also wouldn't date serial dole offender, someone who has extreme religious views or even someone who I think is much dumber than I am. Does that make me judgemental? Possibly but I have to judge who would make me happy. And I don't believe that someone who takes his wallet out as soon as he has an itch that needs to be scratched is a man for me. As I don't think someone who gets hammered whenever there is a problem in his life is a man for me. Some don't date people who are overweight, underweight, are missing a tooth, are short, tall or whatever. You think you might be so much more open minded but I bet you are dismissing potential partners in just as "judgemental" ways as everybody else here.

And the question is who would you date not are men who are using prostitutes scumbags.

vitani

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

How does paying for sex show a lack of respect for women? If a lesbian pays for sex with a woman does that mean she doesn't have respect for women? Or a woman with a man? Or a man with a man? Or does it simply mean they need less of a personal connection from sex to get off? Even if (and that's a big if) paying for sex showed a lack of respect for the prostitute then surely it only shows a lack of respect for that person. Why would you assume it colours their opinion of an entire gender?

No matter how much you try to beat around it saying that a person who is being paid to have sex is not willing because they are being paid is saying the person paying them is raping them. You can jump around that all you like, but that is what you said.

Yes, to your first three questions. And if they need less of a personal connection then fair enough. As I've said, it does however mean that their attitude to sex is then incompatible with mine.

There's no proof that their attitude to an entire gender is coloured, but it's enough of an indication to give me reservations.

I am not accusing someone who pays for sex of raping someone. I've already clarified that by 'completely willing', I meant that they wouldn't sleep with the man if there was no money involved.

Analogy time.

Say I'm getting married. I invite all my cousins. They all show up and have a wonderful time but I subsequently find out that one of them only came because his mother (my aunt) paid him €50 to do so.

I would be deeply hurt to learn that the only reason they were there is because they got paid to show up. Even if they enjoyed themselves, it would sour the entire experience.

I view sex the same way. It's more than just something physical. I'd want to know that anyone in my bed is there because they want me, even if it's just for that night. And if I'm going to enter into a relationship with a man, I want him to hold similar views and values. I don't want to be with someone who desires sex so much that he doesn't care about the reason a woman is having sex with him.