marrying a provider...a question for the gentlemen(and ladies too)

Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#81
#81
Happy Guy,

Of course I agree with you about what folks should be doing. Of course, you understand that very few people ever abide by what they should be doing. And when it comes to having fights with loved one's, we're often at our worst. Rmember, the opposite of love isn't hate....the opposite of love is indifference. So, it's when we fight with those we love, or loved, we end up at our most immotional, irrational and meanest. That's when we bring out the largest clubs we can find to hit the other side with.

Judge,
Occam's Razor ( one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything ), while often stated as you did, actually it is closer to "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better". One should not conclude, however, that "the simplest explanation or theory is always preferred". There are many instances where a more complex theory is correct. One of the main tenets of Occam's is the we must be choosing from a set of otherwise equivalent models. Only then do we pick the one with the least assumptions/simplest explanation. It does not override the "goodness" test of a set of non-equivalent models. As such, I must respectfully disagree with your logic again, which seems to be that since you deem your theory to be the simplest, it must therefore be correct. To use Occam's here, you must first show the theori to be equivalent, which I do not believe has been accompished yet.

Don't forget Einstein's warning: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."



[Edited by slinkybender on 06-30-2001 at 02:09 AM]
 
B

badz

Bronze
#83
#83
okay so i did go out again earlier tonight, but it's better than staying home infront of computer debating razor or no fucking razor. so my preferred theory was to get laid, and just chill afterward....

since i was so stressed out with my blue balls, and it was indeed "fucking" TGIF after all. so i decided to meet up with someone that i've known before, and she did help me tremendously to relieve all my tensions. then to the jazz festival at the carnegie hall and drown in the most beautiful voice of diana krall... what a way to end this "fucking" TGIF!

well, sometimes we lost our perspective in this hobby, sometimes we fall in love, sometimes we fall out of love, sometimes we want to hurt others feeling, and sometimes we let others hurt our feelings..but that's not a bad thing.... it's all good my friends! we just need to realize that life is too short, and we need to enjoy the moment to the fullest... and that's what tonight feels like for me.... lights out! badzzz..zzzz.zzzzzzz
 
O

Ozzy

#84
#84
jenn,

i'm learning to stay out of threads that could be hazardous to my health....



ps.....you disappointed me at the last UG party. i was left to hang with slinky, rob and I1 most of the night.......whats up wit that?

;)z

[Edited by Ozzy on 06-30-2001 at 04:28 PM]
 
R

robnotbob

#86
#86
Hey Oz....

Don't think I wasn't bummed jen was a no show.

Also, don't think that I was so enthalled by your scintillating conversation...I noticed slink tuned out and I1 is always ....OUT. :)

More ladies next time.
 
M

mercydancer

#88
#88
Originally posted by Judge Crater

***Different skill set required to be a parent. Venture to say that it is probably easier for johns and prostitutes to be good parents than good spouses because there is little or no emotional need involved in being a parent. Its more the doing for others that is at stake (or should be at stake) in a parent-child relationship.

[Edited by Judge Crater on 06-29-2001 at 07:00 PM] [/B]
Click to expand...


No emotional need......do you have any kids?? The parent child relationship is one of give and take.We give our lives, love, hard work,and sometimes sufferring for our children.We receive, love,admiration, companionship and a whole lot of other things. At least, I do from all 5,yes, 5 of my kids. There is a mutual need between parents and children that can never be put into words because there are no words to describe it.

Now I know that no matter what anyone tries to explain to you, you only see preception of things. So I'm not going to bother myself with explaining anything because you won't see it.

There's an old gypsy saying:

Some people can't see the ocean even when they're drowning in it.
 
W

wsb

#90
#90
Originally posted by Judge Crater
After a year of intense therapy* and making a living outside of commercial sex some prostitutes might be worth marrying. Basically too hard as human beings otherwise. And there is the lying as well at which they usually excel like politicians. And they have to lie. Otherwise there is no profit.

Small children are constantly needy. Since prostitutes' own emotional needs were typically never attended to, it would be hard for them to be the kind of mother you'd really want for your children if you had a choice about such things. Not saying that it would be impossible. Just very difficult.

Also think that most "good" prostitutes really crave sex with a large variety of men. Fills an emotional void for them that is even larger than the emotional void commercial sex fills for men. That also would have to be coped with and resolved successfully for any real relationship to have a chance to work. Cause its not really about the sex for any of us (prostitutes or johns) who have had sex with hundreds of different people. Its about the control over the symbol of intimacy, sex.

Good to remember that prostitutes are as fully human as anyone's daughter, sister or mother and deserving of respect on that basis. Such threads are beneficial for that reason. Also good to remeber that prositutes usually have severe character flaws (just like johns) that make intimacy difficult if not impossible.

Certainly don't mean to come off high and mighty about this. Have given it some thought. Only reason that I have been able to stay married is that my wife is a saint with an extremely bad temper who does not take any shit from anyone even if they are over-educated semi-wealthy professionals like myself. Compensates for my severe character flaws and goads me to being (usually) a fairly decent father and husband. Vast room for improvement, it goes without saying.


*Two years of therapy and a complete stop to buying commercial sex, I think, would also be required for the john. Someone with so little self-esteem that he has to buy sex from women who view him as an asshole with a cash machine implanted on his right ass cheek clearly has issues that would have to be dealt with before becoming a father who could cope with the needs of small children.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very interesting thread.

I'm always a little disappointed by the need for some people on these discussion boards to constantly attempt to dumb-down the level of conversation when they disagree with someone, suggesting that they "need to get laid" or spend more time focusing on the ever-popular "where to find greek in NJ". In my view, it is discussions like these that make a board interesting and offer a glimpse into the psyche of some of the participants.

More on point, I completely disagree with the Judge, though I appreciate his well-stated views and the patience he has displayed in explaining them to some of the participants.

I think the issue of provider "dysfunctionality" (a term which I'll use to summarize the Judge's assertions concerning providers as stated above and in his follow-up posts) is too inflamatory to have a truly fair and open discussion on a mixed board, so I'm not going to even address that point. I think the issue of control and commercial sex is too highly subjective and has also already been addressed at length by various contributors, so I see no need to belabor that point. Rather, I thought I would address his assertion, as articulated in his footnote in the above post, that johns are, for lack of a better word, dysfunctional. Indeed, in reading his posts throughout this thread, one gets the sense that he lumps providers and johns into the same dysfunctional catagory, whereas one is a career choice and the other is simply - for most johns anyway - a practical, cost-effective and time-saving means by which to obtain sex.

While I am sure that there are quite a few messed-up johns in the commercial sex universe, I think many johns lead very normal lives and simply use providers to: (i) supplement the amount of sex obtained from one's spouse or partner(s), especialy when one has an over-active libido, (ii) obtain sex when a partner or spouse is unwilling, lacks interest or is unwilling to perform certain acts, or (iii) obtain sex if one lacks the looks or social skills by which to obtain it regularly from non-providers.

In short, I think most johns are just being practical. While I'm sure there are some providers who view their clients as "an asshole with a cash machine implanted on his right ass cheek", I don't think that is indicative of the john having "issues" (self-esteem or otherwise) if he realizes that this is simply a commercial transaction and that the provider's personal feelings about the client aren't what is important. I'm sure there are quite a few attorneys who view their clients as "an asshole with a cash machine implanted on his right ass cheek".

--WSB
 
W

wsb

#92
#92
Well, where I think you go wrong is when you assume that every john analyzes their commercial and non-commercial sexual encounters to the extent that you seem to. Personally, I think most johns, indeed most men, simply want to have as much sex as possible with the prettiest woman they are able to convince to sleep with them. Since most johns have had intimate relationships prior to having commercial sex, and continue to have non-commercial intimate relationships even though they may become a regular user of providers, I dont' see how paying for it becomes a barrier to intimacy unless that is the only type of relationship you have ever known.

In any event, true intimacy is attainted through many different aspects of the relationship, not simply through sex - though sex is part of it. So, I don't see having commercial sex as a barrier to forming an intimate, non-commercial relationship. The two really have nothing to do with one another.

--WSB
 
J

justme

homo economicus
#93
#93
I think discussions comparing the dysfunctionality of providors and johns are a bit pointless. By and large the nature of dysfunction is different to the point that it is an apple/orange situation and thus difficult to assess 'quantity'.

However, I disagree with WSB's (implied) assesment that (most/many) johns can partake in commercial sex without at least some level of dysfunctionality. This is a good thread for people that think that WSB and I never disagree.

WSB states:

While I am sure that there are quite a few messed-up johns in the commercial sex universe, I think many johns lead very normal lives and simply use providers to: (i) supplement the amount of sex obtained from one's spouse or partner(s), especialy when one has an over-active libido, (ii) obtain sex when a partner or spouse is unwilling, lacks interest or is unwilling to perform certain acts, or (iii) obtain sex if one lacks the looks or social skills by which to obtain it regularly from non-providers.

I'm sure that these aren't the sole 'functional' cases in WSB's mind, but for now I'll stick to addressing the ones he states. All three examples really boil down to: a john could just be buying sex because he has a greater desire for sex than he can fullfill without buying it. Now, were we to live in a culture that accepted commercial sex as a normal business then I might begin to agree with WSB. However, we do not. Commercial sex is highly stigmatized (and some people tell me it's illegal) and so there is a certain amount of risk in the endeavor. Many of us risk losing our jobs, our wives or girlfriends, and our reputation when we engage in commercial sex. To a certain extent, the fact that so many of us are professionally succesfull makes this risk even more insane. And what is the benefit of taking on this risk? A little sex. For a two hour romp in bed, many of us risk having our entire lives ruined. For sex we risk hurting people that we love (think of how your parents or children would feel) . For an orgasim we risk the humiliation that public disclosure of our activities would bring.

To me, having so little control of your own libido that you'd be willing to gamble with all of that belies a certain degree of dysfunctionality.
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#95
#95
WSB,

I think I'd add something which might turn out to be 3a), which is guys wanting the self "fullfillment" of being with some beautiful "chic" who otherwise might not give them the time of day ( and cerainly didn't when they were in HighSchool/College ). To some extent, it similar to when guys go out and buy sports cars which they have no intention of driving like sports cars ( or perhaps grow ponytails ). It's a way of dealing with an "issue", bu tnot necessarily a "control issue". It's a way of pretending that they are still young and vital ( and it's more affordable than marrying an Anna nicole Smoith ).

To some extent, these are the same reasons that both men and women go out and have extramarital affairs. There are "issues" involved when that happens, too, but as previously stated, they aren't always control issues.
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#96
#96
I will also agree with JC about "buying commercial sex harms a man's ability to commence and sustain intimate relationships", but for a different reason. Too many relationships are entered into by men for the sex, and by women using sex as the bait. As aresult, the man having commercial sex poisons the only thing the relationship had going for it.

Even if it is not the "only thing" in the relationship, it often mkes it harder to endure some of the "downers" when you don't have the carrot ( or stick ) of "this is the only way you will get laid" to keep things moving along.
 
Thorn

Thorn

#97
#97
Umm, not quite...

Originally posted by Judge Crater
MD:

The subject of this thread concerns marriage and whether johns and prostitutes make good spouses and are persons capable of intimacy. Since commercial sex is essentially about control over other human beings whether you are buying or selling and is thus opposed to intimacy, I still believe my comments are still generally fair and accurate.

No harm intended.
Click to expand...
Goodly Judge C.

I can only speak for myself. While I don't claim superior self image, I don't think I am horrible either.

Frankly, the reason I see providers is because I use to be a swinger. [Wait, what did he say?]

Let me explain. I liked swinging. At least the way I did it, though good friends sharing good times. I use to help run [I provided tech support] an adult network geared to that life style and met some good people that way] .

The problem. I broke up with the woman with whom I practiced the life style [swinging was NOT the reason for the break up, it was her constant trying to place us in receivership that was the issue]. Later I got married to a woman who didn't practice the life style.

I tried to stay monogamous, I really did. I found myself missing the spontaneity, the "will we or won't we" [call it the hunt, for lack of something better to call it], and the variety in my sex life.

Swinging, at least the way we did it, was not with out intimacy. These people are your friends. You do more then just have sex together. You hang out. Have parties. Perhaps go to the theater together. You get the idea.

Friends that fuck, without the presence of a consenting S.O. or wife/husband, is not considered a good thing in the swinging community I use to travel in. So, the only way to get some of that back was to start seeing providers. Not just any provider though. A provider where there could be friendship, at least.

That requires befriending providers that are rather stable and can handle that [which, as an aside, is why I greatly appreciate a provider like Mercy. Whose company I have shared and whose just great to pal around with and shoot the shit as well :) ]

Anyway, back to my now getting longer by the minute tale.

Though I date I haven't come to find another partner seriously into the life style. I don't have to tell you how single men are perceived within the swinging community. So, I'm still left handling my desire for friendly, non-commited, sexual activity though the use of providers who can... well, provide me with that.

Maybe if I still helped run an adult network, meaning I had the kind of presence in the community that Allen or SB have in this community, it would be different. However, I haven't been involved in that for ages.

And so it goes... Judge, there are many reasons folks get into this "hobby". What you discribe is certainly one of them. Its just not the only reason.

Happy hunting.
 
Thorn

Thorn

#98
#98
Now to answer the question...

*IF* I found myself in a situation where I experienced real affection for a provider that extended beyond the desire to simply be friendly, I would explore that avenue.

*IF*, in exploration of avenue, I found that person to be a stable, positive, presence in my life with whom I started to fall in love, I would be open to a relationship.

*IF* that relationship showed that we wanted the same things, and could achieve them in such a way as to not cause each other emotional damage, I'd certainly want to remain in it.

Translation. If I got involved with a women who was a good match for me intellectually, emotionally, and physically; and she wanted the same things I want, which would include an open/swinging relationship, a desire to excel and prosper, and live a full life, and she was prepared to deal honestly with me, as I would with her, why not. [pardon the run on sentence]

That's a tall order though. Maybe too tall to ever fill.

Still... one never knows.
 
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#100
#100
Some "swing clubs" you would go to and it seemed like half the women there were providers ( and no, I'm not talking about the one's where they were all providers like Acquiesce ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top