"Visiting escorts can save a marriage"

Means Of Escape

SV wrote: »

It involves insertion or receiving of body parts and other bodily fluids. It's always going to be pretty intimate.

Until you get a burning itch two days later

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Chefrio

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hmm, quite a leap there CK to suggest that if a doctor can't solve your issues, then visiting an escort can! There are a vast number of options in between both before you go down that route.





Indeed they do, sacrifices need to be made too before there can be any compromise, and if you view visiting escorts as a compromise in a happy marriage, I'd say it was a compromised marriage alright, though not in a good way.





Their partner needs them to visit escorts? Well I can see how that would be just what the doctor, marriage guidance counsellor, therapist escort ordered.





Absolute nonsense tbh. The very definition by your own admission is that if something isn't workable, then it's NOT functioning. That goes for a marriage too, whatever way you want to paint it. Which brings us back to my original point that if something isn't working, then you either make it work by working on it, or kid yourself by thinking that distracting yourself from the issue will fix it.

Issues don't have a habit of fixing themselves, they need to be worked on, and if you're not prepared to work on it, then thinking you only need to fix one aspect of the marriage for your own sexual gratification is hardly viewing your partner as a whole person.

What is this jibberish I see before my eyes?

If one partner just doesn't fancy the other partner you can "work on it" all you want but that won't make someone fancy their partner.

Czarcasm

UCDVet wrote: »

Your biases are pretty clear in your assumptions here. Someone with a different opinion that you must be BAD at sex or NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING. Clearly, anyone who knew as much as you do; would clearly agree with you.

You're comparing reading books to having sex? Hell I love reading books too, but sex? Bloody hell UCD there's nothing compares to it in all fairness! I don't mind that you don't agree with my opinion, but my god man to reduce sex down to merely the physical act that the whole family can play, come on like! :pac:

If I say I am tired of eating carrots, you'll just imply that I don't know how to properly cook carrots....

My favorite food is pizza. I could eat a lot of pizza, but sometimes I want ice cream. I don't always want ice cream though. I want pizza most of the time, but sometimes ice cream; in a world where pizza IS NOT ice cream.

Your favorite foods are pizza and ice cream? Easily pleased I'd say, which would also explain why you think there's nothing more to sex than the basic physical act.

That doesn't mean the pizza is bad. That doesn't mean I don't know how to properly eat pizza or that I'm not 'man enough' to always eat pizza. I'm just a normal person who can admit that sometimes I like different things. And, I'll repay your favour and say - IF *YOU* CAN'T APPRECIATE MORE THAN ONE FOOD; YOU MUST HAVE SOME PRETTY BAD TASTE BUDS!

I can appreciate all manner of foods and I have a voracious sexual appetite, that still doesn't mean I'd be happy to let my wife play pass the pitta pocket with half the fcuking neighbourhood!

Czarcasm

Chefrio wrote: »

What is this jibberish I see before my eyes?

If one partner just doesn't fancy the other partner you can "work on it" all you want but that won't make someone fancy their partner.

I see, and visiting escorts will make them FAR more attractive, and it'll fix everything, right? All fairness Chef while I may come out with some classics, I'd say subscribing to your newsletter it'd go in the same folder as those magic beans e-mails I mentioned earlier.

Daqster

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

I'd imagine that discretion is a serious part of an escort's business.

Well Divine Brown revealed all about Hugh Grant but the Hollywod madam, Heidi Fleiss, did time, made a documentary, wrote a book, took part in many interviews, but yet still never named her apparently long list of famous clients, let alone their sexual peccadillos.

Although, some suggest that she is just keeping a lid on those revelations as a form of a pension fund and will reveal them one day. In the second part of the following interview she is asked if she ever will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQrMGWlRDGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obZqkYHVjZk

looking_around

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Or both partners just enjoy sex and want to experience it with whoever they want to and not just one person all the time, not necessarily to add excitement to their relationship just a choice they make as a person, no person to "blame" or lacking anything, just a personal choice.

looking_around

Tasden wrote: »

Or both partners just enjoy sex and want to experience it with whoever they want to and not just one person all the time, not necessarily to add excitement to their relationship just a choice they make as a person, no person to "blame" or lacking anything, just a personal choice.

That was nitpicking.
They want to experiences others for a reason, much like you'd want to do any experience, it's fun, exciting, enjoyable..etc etc.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

That was nitpicking.
They want to experiences others for a reason, much like you'd want to do any experience, it's fun, exciting, enjoyable..etc etc.

It wasn't nitpicking, you basically said people want an open relationship because one partner won't do something or to add something to a relationship. Sometimes the relationship you have is perfect but as a person you want to enjoy sex with other people, not that it adds anything to your current relationship with your partner but because you just enjoy a varied sex life as an individual. If you feel that's nitpicking fair enough but I thought it was worth pointing out that its not always because a relationship is lacking something, sometimes its just a personal choice because you'd enjoy having sex with more than one person.

looking_around

Tasden wrote: »

It wasn't nitpicking, you basically said people want an open relationship because one partner won't do something or to add something to a relationship. Sometimes the relationship you have is perfect but as a person you want to enjoy sex with other people, not that it adds anything to your current relationship with your partner but because you just enjoy a varied sex life as an individual. If you feel that's nitpicking fair enough but I thought it was worth pointing out that its not always because a relationship is lacking something, sometimes its just a personal choice because you'd enjoy having sex with more than one person.

*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.

I thought by the bolded part, it was fairly obvious what I meant.
I also did say 1 or both want it.
That point had nothing to do with one partner unwilling to do something.

Tasden

looking_around wrote: »

*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.

I thought by the bolded part, it was fairly obvious what I meant.
I also did say 1 or both want it.
That point had nothing to do with one partner unwilling to do something.

I'm referring to the "add excitement to their relationship" bit. Which implies the relationship is lacking excitement. Sometimes its a personal need/want in general and nothing to do with not being fulfilled/satisfied/excited in your current relationship.
I wasn't saying that point related to a partner unwilling to do something. Your post limited the want for an open relationship as being due to either the relationship lacking something (excitement) or a partner not doing something. Which isn't the case.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.
Both know what is going on. They are ok with it. (This being the most important factor).
Reasons why one would want an open relationship?
*1 partner can no longer perform sexually (due to illness/disability).
*1 partner is asexual.
*1 or both, use it as a way to add "excitement" to their relationship. Similar in the way swingers do.
*1 partner cannot do something the other needs. (the likes of pain/power play)

The main point out of all this is, deceit is bad m'kay, honesty is good.
And whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

Not everyone is talking in theory though looking_around, and when you said you wanted to throw in some reality, you finished your post with a couple deluding themselves. A marriage or marital relationship is generally understood to be a relationship and legal contract between two people, not involving a third party. When a third party is introduced into the relationship or when one party goes outside the relationship seeking sexual fulfillment with another person (the crux of this thread is about visiting escorts), that immediately redefines the relationship and it's no longer the generally understood definition of a marriage. Now you could be pedantic and play around with phrases like open marriage, polygamous marriage, etc, but those types of marriage are hardly statistically significant in comparison to the number of relationships that are sexually exclusively mutual between two people.

TL;DR: It takes two people to make a marriage, it takes one person to break it, and the involvement of a third person in the marriage isn't going to save it. It'd be like a person who couldn't swim, jumping into a river to save a person who was drowning. If it makes a person believe they're about to be saved though, I can see how allowing them to kid themselves might be helpful - gives them blind hope in the short term at least.

B.A._Baracus

One thing i've realised in life is that a person can justify anything. Doesnt matter if its cheating, screwing a person over, sure even murder.

aidan24326

Candie wrote: »

I wonder what take their partners have on it, except I doubt they know for the most part.

I'm sure it happens, but it's also a self serving statement.

Totally. For a cheating* husband who visits hookers, saying it 'saved his marriage' is as obviously self-serving as turkeys voting to ban Christmas. The obvious response to a guy who claims that would be 'what does your wife think about all of this'? and I'm guessing in most cases the wife wasn't actually consulted about this ingenious plan to save the marriage.

*I accept there are exceptions, open marriages and such, but in the majority of cases where a married man visits an escort we can assume he is cheating.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

aidan24326

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? I think we can safely assume that there aren't loads of wives out there who would be perfectly ok with their husband visiting a hooker. A smallish minority perhaps, depending on circumstances, but most wives would surely be horrified at the idea. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make as it tallies with reality. (and I did say that I know there are exceptions and different situations for different people etc etc).

looking_around

Czarcasm wrote: »

TL;DR: It takes two people to make a marriage, it takes one person to break it, and the involvement of a third person in the marriage isn't going to save it. It'd be like a person who couldn't swim, jumping into a river to save a person who was drowning. If it makes a person believe they're about to be saved though, I can see how allowing them to kid themselves might be helpful - gives them blind hope in the short term at least.

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. It also doesn't make the people who involve a 3rd party and less married or wrong.
Like you said, it's an agreement between 2 people, if they agree to involve someone else, is that not still between them?

I couldn't count the amount of marriages who are unhappy because of sex. Normally more so one sided, but they still love the other person. They don't want to break up with them over sex, but some people need sex, hence the introduction of a 3rd party.
If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. It also doesn't make the people who involve a 3rd party and less married or wrong.
Like you said, it's an agreement between 2 people, if they agree to involve someone else, is that not still between them?

I couldn't count the amount of marriages who are unhappy because of sex. Normally more so one sided, but they still love the other person. They don't want to break up with them over sex, but some people need sex, hence the introduction of a 3rd party.
If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

Clearly reality goes out the window very quickly when it doesn't suit your theory either.

looking_around

Czarcasm wrote: »

Clearly reality goes out the window very quickly when it doesn't suit your theory either.

care to clarify?

The_Valeyard

Just personally thinking,

but,

if you are married and feel the need to visit an escort, surely the marriage is already dying? This could just be a faux solution, thinking it will save things, when it could just drag it out longer.

looking_around

looking_around wrote: »

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way. It also doesn't make the people who involve a 3rd party and less married or wrong.
Like you said, it's an agreement between 2 people, if they agree to involve someone else, is that not still between them?

I couldn't count the amount of marriages who are unhappy because of sex. Normally more so one sided, but they still love the other person. They don't want to break up with them over sex, but some people need sex, hence the introduction of a 3rd party.
If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

Plenty of three way marriages and all I'd say
Well okay not fully legally but still

looking_around

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Just personally thinking,

but,

if you are married and feel the need to visit an escort, surely the marriage is already dying? This could just be a faux solution, thinking it will save things, when it could just drag it out longer.

You might want to read some possible reasons on the previous page.
Sometimes it's simply about getting a need met, but they still want to live/cuddle/sleep(like actually sleep) with the OH.

The_Valeyard

looking_around wrote: »

You might want to read some possible reasons on the previous page.
Sometimes it's simply about getting a need met, but they still want to live/cuddle/sleep(like actually sleep) with the OH.

Have read all previous pages before posting. Still came to my conclusion. But im sure others like your good self will differ. Just a personal opinion.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

care to clarify?

Not really looking_around tbh, and I mean this with the greatest of respect but I don't think you're prepared to listen to or discuss anyones opinion that differs from your own in this regard. I'm ok with that too though as I am with people who choose to define their marriage or do within their marriage whatever they want. It's only if I was personally affected by their decisions I'd give a ****e tbh, but you're hardly going to believe that when you have your mind made up already about what you choose to believe. I'm also ok with not winning an argument on the internet in what is most times in AH merely an academic discussion that quickly descends into petty jibes and point scoring for "thanks" or "likes".

justforlaugh

why would you pay to have sex with escorts where hundreds of men have been, you only have yourself to blame if your tongue and willy fall off

looking_around

Czarcasm wrote: »

Not really looking_around tbh, and I mean this with the greatest of respect but I don't think you're prepared to listen to or discuss anyones opinion that differs from your own in this regard. I'm ok with that too though as I am with people who choose to define their marriage or do within their marriage whatever they want. It's only if I was personally affected by their decisions I'd give a ****e tbh, but you're hardly going to believe that when you have your mind made up already about what you choose to believe. I'm also ok with not winning an argument on the internet in what is most times in AH merely an academic discussion that quickly descends into petty jibes and point scoring for "thanks" or "likes".

I'm not prepared? :rolleyes:

suit yourself.

Czarcasm

looking_around wrote: »

I'm not prepared? :rolleyes:

suit yourself.

Well you've laid it out pretty clearly that your opinion is to be the be all and end all when you come out with stuff like -

looking_around wrote: »

alright everyone is talking in theory.

Lets throw in some reality.

From people who are in open relationships.

...

whether it's saves a marriage or not, is between the married couple to decide.

looking_around wrote: »

Just because the majority of people of believe marriage is just between 2 people, doesn't mean everyone feels this way.

...

If the people have talked about it, and agree, it's their choice, and many live happily together this way.
You can't imagine that lasting? that's ok, it's not your marriage. It's theirs.

So the basis of your argument is what other people decide to do and what way they choose to define it, is their own business. How can anyone provide a counter argument to that opinion?

They simply can't, but by your own admission that opinion only works for a tiny minority of people as opposed to the vast majority of people for whom marriage means just the two people involved, and for whom the introduction of a third party redefines the marital relationship, which then means that the couple isn't saving the marriage they entered into as a couple, but redefining their definition of marriage to accommodate the introduction of a third party.

Now that I've elaborated for the nth time (must be the third or fourth time I've said it if you read back through the thread), I'm prepared to be told yet again that what other people choose to do and how they choose to define it is none of my business, end of discussion, etc, ad nauseam.

humbert

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well you've laid it out pretty clearly that your opinion is to be the be all and end all when you come out with stuff like -

So the basis of your argument is what other people decide to do and what way they choose to define it, is their own business. How can anyone provide a counter argument to that opinion?

They simply can't, but by your own admission that opinion only works for a tiny minority of people as opposed to the vast majority of people for whom marriage means just the two people involved, and for whom the introduction of a third party redefines the marital relationship, which then means that the couple isn't saving the marriage they entered into as a couple, but redefining their definition of marriage to accommodate the introduction of a third party.

Now that I've elaborated for the nth time (must be the third or fourth time I've said it if you read back through the thread), I'm prepared to be told yet again that what other people choose to do and how they choose to define it is none of my business, end of discussion, etc, ad nauseam.

At the risk of wading in half way through; is having a flexible definition of marriage a bad thing? Surely allowing their marriage to evolve in ways that were unforeseeable, or at least unforeseen, at the onset doesn't necessarily diminish it.

Czarcasm

humbert wrote: »

At the risk of wading in half way through; is having a flexible definition of marriage a bad thing? Surely allowing their marriage to evolve in ways that were unforeseeable, or at least unforeseen, at the onset doesn't necessarily diminish it.

We already have flexible definitions of marriage, no argument there, but for the purposes of this discussion, it was understood to be a monogamous marriage between two people. The whole crux of the discussion here is whether or not the involvement of a third party saves a marriage between two people that is already diminished due to unforeseen circumstances (marriages go tits up all the time, there's no denying that, but the question is whether involving a third party saves the marriage or not), and so far in this thread, the assumption has been that the third party comes NSA with no feelings or agenda of their own and only appears for sex and then disappears, and there are no negative consequences within the marriage whatsoever for this arrangement.

That might be a valid argument if human beings weren't human beings and didn't have emotions, feelings, thoughts and desires of their own, but that's merely an academic argument with set parameters and no acknowledgement of a rather complicated and complex reality of the situation. There's also been no discussion around what happens when one party decides a third party arrangement really isn't working for them and they'd rather try and work on the marriage as a couple without the additional complications of a third party, third party doesn't always conveniently piss off when they're told to!

But that's just messy and popular opinion on the internet often tends to ignore such complications in favour of just the facts and logic please, none of that messy emotional stuff.

Cienciano

Czarcasm wrote: »

If I were actually to take your merely academic argument seriously, I'd be thinking how shìt sex must be for you that you'll settle for being the cuckolded husband comparing having sex to reading books. Quite frankly, you're definitely doing it wrong (but I think tbh you're only using yourself to make a poor academic argument).





You can do incredible things with a carrot that you'll never be able to do with a pizza! A carrot is never just a carrot with a little imagination!





If you don't get why people treat sex differently to softball, then you're really not the open minded intellectual you think you are.

Ridiculous post. You're assuming everyone is the same as you (and probably the majority of people) and sex is of vital importance in a relationship. For some people it's not.
Newsflash: People are different, not everyone has the same tastes as you, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.

humbert

Czarcasm wrote: »

We already have flexible definitions of marriage, no argument there, but for the purposes of this discussion, it was understood to be a monogamous marriage between two people. The whole crux of the discussion here is whether or not the involvement of a third party saves a marriage between two people that is already diminished due to unforeseen circumstances (marriages go tits up all the time, there's no denying that, but the question is whether involving a third party saves the marriage or not), and so far in this thread, the assumption has been that the third party comes NSA with no feelings or agenda of their own and only appears for sex and then disappears, and there are no negative consequences within the marriage whatsoever for this arrangement.

That might be a valid argument if human beings weren't human beings and didn't have emotions, feelings, thoughts and desires of their own, but that's merely an academic argument with set parameters and no acknowledgement of a rather complicated and complex reality of the situation. There's also been no discussion around what happens when one party decides a third party arrangement really isn't working for them and they'd rather try and work on the marriage as a couple without the additional complications of a third party, third party doesn't always conveniently piss off when they're told to!

But that's just messy and popular opinion on the internet often tends to ignore such complications in favour of just the facts and logic please, none of that messy emotional stuff.

Thanks for the concise synopsis, I really wasn't willing to trawl through this particular thread.

If it's an escort surely the pissing off part is very easy?

I would have suspected that the secrecy of the arrangement was the main bone of contention.

Simply though, I think the common consensus on what a good marriage or relationship is is little more than the most polite and palatable version, not the reality. I think the reality is inconsistent, complex and frequently ethically dubious but, IMO, so are the people involved. I personally think attraction can take many forms, sexual being only one of them (though, as with all creatures, the one which must be in some way satisfied), and that no one from is more important than the rest.

Emotional stuff may provoke us to do irrational things but I think it can be discussed in a logical and factual manner.

Czarcasm

Cienciano wrote: »

Ridiculous post. You're assuming everyone is the same as you (and probably the majority of people) and sex is of vital importance in a relationship. For some people it's not.
Newsflash: People are different, not everyone has the same tastes as you, and not everyone has the same priorities as you.

Down off your soap box before anyone sees you, all fairness! Nothing in the post you quoted suggests that I think everyone thinks the same way as I do. I was providing a counter point to UCDVet who said he didn't see the big deal about sex, and if you were familiar with UCDVet's position on sexual relations, you'd know that they're a free-for-all kinda guy, quite the contrary to what you're suggesting I said (which I actually didn't say at all, so where you pulled that out of I have no idea, especially if you read this post from another thread -

Czarcasm wrote: »

OP if you and your OH or you mates and their OH's are happy in your relationships, that's the most important thing over what anyone else thinks or what works for them in their relationships!

or, how about this one, from another thread on sexless marriages/relationships -

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's not nearly enough information in the OP to be able to form any kind of an opinion on his friends immediate apparent issue that there is a lack of sex within their marriage.

Lack of sex within a marriage can be down to an infinite number of reasons and more often than not is never as easily solved as "Sit down and talk", "Up 'n' leave", "Get it somewhere else/they have to be getting it somewhere else" nor "Seek marriage guidance/counselling", etc.

Without knowing the people involved, it's impossible to comment with any authority on the circumstances of their relationship.

Newsflash: You really shouldn't make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people on the basis of one single flimsy post on the internet, so I won't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions about you either, other than to state categorically that on this one Cicerano, you're WAY off the mark.

Czarcasm

humbert wrote: »

Thanks for the concise synopsis, I really wasn't willing to trawl through this particular thread.

If it's an escort surely the pissing off part is very easy?

Absolutely, but only if you're working under the assumption that an escort doesn't charge for their services so there are no financial implications for the marriage first of all (how much as a couple are they willing to pay for play? How much is the agreed budget and what quality should they expect for their budget? Multitude of questions on a surface level that hasn't even been scratched in this thread). Secondly, the partner seeking sexual fulfilment outside the marriage (assuming they also get their way with the budget and quality and don't end up with Wayne Rooney's sloppy seconds!) may initially be ok with once a week, but then might want once a day, and you're into more negotiations again, and that's even before we get into the person developing an emotional connection with the escort (and there's nothing to suggest the escort will object to this, escorts are just as much human beings too, sometimes it's good for business, sometimes it's bad for business), geez tbh I could go on all night about the multitude of complex issues involved in just introducing an escort (or escorts!) into the relationship, but it's easier for some people to just ignore all that stuff or consider it facts not in evidence (or you could just do a Mythbusters on it - "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own").

I would have suspected that the secrecy of the arrangement was the main bone of contention.

You'd be surprised (maybe you wouldn't, I don't know, but at least you acknowledge the fact further down in your post!) how many partners will turn a blind eye to their partner's sexual pursuits outside the marriage if it means that because they pretend to ignore it, that's enough to keep their partner happy thinking that they're getting one over on that person if it means their partner isn't seeking sex from them! Then it's just a game of who's deceiving who and who's fooling who... Deception or the appearance of deception isn't always a sticking point. It is for some, not necessarily for others.

Simply though, I think the common consensus on what a good marriage or relationship is is little more than the most polite and palatable version, not the reality. I think the reality is inconsistent, complex and frequently ethically dubious but, IMO, so are the people involved. I personally think attraction can take many forms, sexual being only one of them (though, as with all creatures, the one which must be in some way satisfied), and that no one from is more important than the rest.

Nail on the fcuking head!

Emotional stuff may provoke us to do irrational things but I think it can be discussed in a logical and factual manner.

Absolutely, just... Not on the internet! :pac:

humbert

Czarcasm wrote: »

Absolutely, but only if you're working under the assumption that an escort doesn't charge for their services so there are no financial implications for the marriage first of all (how much as a couple are they willing to pay for play? How much is the agreed budget and what quality should they expect for their budget? Multitude of questions on a surface level that hasn't even been scratched in this thread). Secondly, the partner seeking sexual fulfilment outside the marriage (assuming they also get their way with the budget and quality and don't end up with Wayne Rooney's sloppy seconds!) may initially be ok with once a week, but then might want once a day, and you're into more negotiations again, and that's even before we get into the person developing an emotional connection with the escort (and there's nothing to suggest the escort will object to this, escorts are just as much human beings too, sometimes it's good for business, sometimes it's bad for business), geez tbh I could go on all night about the multitude of complex issues involved in just introducing an escort (or escorts!) into the relationship, but it's easier for some people to just ignore all that stuff or consider it facts not in evidence (or you could just do a Mythbusters on it - "I reject your reality and substitute it with my own").

While any one of those possibilities is entirely plausible I couldn't consider any of them more likely than not and so, while worth considering for anyone on the cusp of going down that route, don't really add weight to the argument in favour or against.

In the context of this thread, I don't have any particular difficulty believing that, for some people, seeing an escort allowed a relationship to continue and even possibly in a healthy fashion but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it is a general solution to marital difficulties.

Cienciano

Czarcasm wrote: »

Down off your soap box before anyone sees you, all fairness! Nothing in the post you quoted suggests that I think everyone thinks the same way as I do. I was providing a counter point to UCDVet who said he didn't see the big deal about sex, and if you were familiar with UCDVet's position on sexual relations, you'd know that they're a free-for-all kinda guy, quite the contrary to what you're suggesting I said (which I actually didn't say at all, so where you pulled that out of I have no idea, especially if you read this post from another thread -





or, how about this one, from another thread on sexless marriages/relationships -





Newsflash: You really shouldn't make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people on the basis of one single flimsy post on the internet, so I won't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions about you either, other than to state categorically that on this one Cicerano, you're WAY off the mark.

Are you for real? You post that after saying this:

I'd be thinking how shìt sex must be for you that you'll settle for being the cuckolded husband comparing having sex to reading books. Quite frankly, you're definitely doing it wrong (but I think tbh you're only using yourself to make a poor academic argument)

Maybe you should follow your own advice

Angry_Mammarys

Total bull****, an excuse to make these men / women who avail feel a small bit better about their disgusting behaviour.

Czarcasm

humbert wrote: »

While any one of those possibilities is entirely plausible I couldn't consider any of them more likely than not and so, while worth considering for anyone on the cusp of going down that route, don't really add weight to the argument in favour or against.

You're right Humbert, but some posters who argued in favor of introducing an escort or escorts into the relationship didn't seem to be considering any of these factors. For them it seemed to be simply a case of "they're having their need fulfilled" with no regard for the consequences and complexities that decision could introduce into a marriage that is already on the rocks.

In the context of this thread, I don't have any particular difficulty believing that, for some people, seeing an escort allowed a relationship to continue and even possibly in a healthy fashion but I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it is a general solution to marital difficulties.

Of course I'm willing to acknowledge that introducing a third party into a relationship will allow a relationship to continue between two people, now three people, but that's hardly what either person signed up for when their original intention was a monogamous marriage between just the two of them. The introduction of a third party (and this has been my argument all along) changes the definition of the marriage they originally signed up for, so is the introduction of a third party saving the monogamous marriage? No, it's redefining the parameters of the marriage from a monogamous one to an open one, and that marriage isn't considered saved, it's considered compromised, until the exit of the third party from the relationship and the marriage goes back to it's original definition - a monogamous marriage. That generally doesn't happen, not to my knowledge or experience anyway. Does that exclude the possibility that it can happen? I did use the word "generally" for a reason - because I'm also aware that it DOES happen, just not generally speaking. Usually with the introduction of a third party into a marriage already in decline, the marriage declines even further, to the point where separation or divorce becomes an inevitability.

Czarcasm

Cienciano wrote: »

Are you for real? You post that after saying this:

Maybe you should follow your own advice

Ohh right, took me a minute there to figure out what you were getting at. Basically the point I was making in that first post you quoted was that UCDVet was trying to make out like sex was nothing more than just a mechanical function that human beings engage in just the same as they would reading a book, and obviously like I pointed out in my subsequent post, UCDVet has a flair for the facetious, so my reply was in the same vein. You really shouldn't have read into it as much as you did tbh.

humbert

Czarcasm wrote: »

Of course I'm willing to acknowledge that introducing a third party into a relationship will allow a relationship to continue between two people, now three people, but that's hardly what either person signed up for when their original intention was a monogamous marriage between just the two of them. The introduction of a third party (and this has been my argument all along) changes the definition of the marriage they originally signed up for, so is the introduction of a third party saving the monogamous marriage? No, it's redefining the parameters of the marriage from a monogamous one to an open one, and that marriage isn't considered saved, it's considered compromised, until the exit of the third party from the relationship and the marriage goes back to it's original definition - a monogamous marriage. That generally doesn't happen, not to my knowledge or experience anyway. Does that exclude the possibility that it can happen? I did use the word "generally" for a reason - because I'm also aware that it DOES happen, just not generally speaking. Usually with the introduction of a third party into a marriage already in decline, the marriage declines even further, to the point where separation or divorce becomes an inevitability.

Well these are technicalities and semantics and I have nothing invested in this argument so I'm not inclined to take a side but would naturally allow people as much latitude as possible in so far as it doesn't affect me. If I was pondering it myself I would wonder if the escort was part of the relationship or not but trying to argue whether this is generally or technically the case would be utterly fruitless (to me).

Daveysil15

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ohh right, took me a minute there to figure out what you were getting at. Basically the point I was making in that first post you quoted was that UCDVet was trying to make out like sex was nothing more than just a mechanical function that human beings engage in just the same as they would reading a book, and obviously like I pointed out in my subsequent post, UCDVet has a flair for the facetious, so my reply was in the same vein. You really shouldn't have read into it as much as you did tbh.

In fairness it probably is for some people. You can't comment for everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuHI9-_Moig

Czarcasm

Daveysil15 wrote: »

In fairness it probably is for some people. You can't comment for everyone.

I wasn't commenting for everyone Davey, I was only saying that UCDVet trying to suggest that sex is some mechanical free-for-all akin to reading a book is complete nonsense. If anyone was trying to say we should all think their way it was UCDVet!

(Thanked your post because the video gave the old dear beside me here on the bus a giggle, good to know even at her age thinking about sex still gives her a laugh! )

howyanow

Are the websites the escorts use to advertise also illegal seeing that the services provided are illegal?

Czarcasm

howyanow wrote: »

Are the websites the escorts use to advertise also illegal seeing that the services provided are illegal?

The services provided by escorts aren't illegal in Ireland, and neither are the websites they use to advertise their services -

Q. Is sex work or prostitution illegal in Ireland?

Selling sex is not illegal in Ireland however, soliciting, living off the earnings of prostitution and organising prostitution are illegal as set out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993. Children are protected from prostitution under the Children Act 2001; in relation to child sexual abuse, for the purposes of the criminal law, the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 17 years.

Source: Sex Workers Alliance Ireland FAQ

howyanow

But would setting up a website and advertising services not count as solliciting on the escorts behalf?i always just assumed that the services were illegal and even possibly browsing an escort website would also be illegal.

Czarcasm

howyanow wrote: »

But would setting up a website and advertising services not count as solliciting on the escorts behalf? i always just assumed that the services were illegal and even possibly browsing an escort website would also be illegal.

It's a very grey area, is the best explanation I can give you tbh. There's a lot of ways a sex worker or an escort can word their advertisement without actually explicitly advertising sexual services for payment. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they mean, but without the advertisement explicitly spelling it out that they take payment for the provision of their services, it's actually not considered soliciting sexual services.

Browsing an escort website isn't illegal either, but there are many more sites and opportunities where escorts and sex workers will advertise their services without explicitly stating that they are soliciting for payment for sexual services offered.

B.A._Baracus

Czarcasm wrote: »

Browsing an escort website isn't illegal either, but there are many more sites and opportunities where escorts and sex workers will advertise their services without explicitly stating that they are soliciting for payment for sexual services offered.

Heard that dating sites, plenty of fish in particular, is used by escorts these days.

Makes perfect sense dont it? I mean an ordinary woman can have a profile and get dozens of mails from blokes looking for sex. All an escort has to do is reply with 'sure, give me 200 euro and you can do what you want'

Czarcasm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Heard that dating sites, plenty of fish in particular, is used by escorts these days.

Makes perfect sense dont it? I mean an ordinary woman can have a profile and get dozens of mails from blokes looking for sex. All an escort has to do is reply with 'sure, give me 200 euro and you can do what you want'

There wouldn't be anything illegal about the way that reply is worded B.A. as they haven't explicitly stated that €200 is for the provision of sexual services. "Do what you want" could mean anything, hence the grey area I mentioned earlier.

As for their use of dating sites and other sites to advertise their services, some sites would have terms and conditions that would prohibit this type of activity on their site, but it's almost impossible to police effectively.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

SoupMonster

Lyaiera wrote: »

I've listened to a lot of sex workers speak out against them.

Their fundamental position is that no-one is in sex work as a choice, which I know not to be true.

By making buying sex illegal they make it more dangerous for the people who willingly entered sex work and far more dangerous for people who have been forced into it.

Since you brought up danger... I don't mean to derail the thread, just ask you to sign a petition that should reduce such danger.

[Trigger Warning]
I assume you mean exposure to violent assault and rape. Its interesting to compare the reaction to these two petitions.

a. http://www.avaaz.org/en/justice_for_liz_loc/
16 year old Liz was walking home from her grandfather’s funeral when she was ambushed by six men who took turns raping her and then threw her unconscious body down a 6-meter toilet pit. Their punishment? Police had them mow their station lawn, then let them go free!
The 1.5 Million signatures.

b. http://www.change.org/merseysidemodel
In Merseyside crimes committed against people in prostitution are dealt with as hate crimes. The Merseyside model prioritises the protection of people in the sex trade over enforcement of the law when they have been the victim of a crime. The national average conviction rate for rape is a mere 6.5%. In 2010, a 67% conviction rate was achieved for those who raped sex workers in Merseyside, and even higher in Liverpool in 2009, reaching a 90% conviction rate.
447 Signatures

Prostitutes are often treated just as badly as Liz. (Dutch police are now searching for patterns in the murders of 150 prostitutes committed between 1985 and 2010. That's not a typo, 150.) http://www.omicsonline.org/2157-7145/2157-7145-S1.009-029.pdf

Why so few signatures for the Merseyside model, which is proven to reduce violence and increase convictions? Why have the police not rolled it out nationally already? Sadly, the only conclusion I can come to is that nobody cares, if Liz had been working as a prostitute, it would not even be news.

Please sign: http://www.change.org/merseysidemodel