I have a feeling that the comments are more instructive than the article itself.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-buy-sex
In fact, I'm certain of it. I buy sex because I've been a virgin for almost 3 decades, have no game, have no interest in a relationship and don't understand women. Plus, divorce laws and society is so stacked against men in relationships that I can't be bothered to enter into a deal where I am at such a huge disadvantage. Forget that noise. Pay for play is the way.
I also note the tone, the language and the general attitude expressed in the article. It hardly sounds like science to me. Then again it is Scientific "American" so I should hardly be surprised. God forbid that a bit of truth is expressed. That's why I appreciate the comments.
This idea that prostitution was invented by men to oppress women is retarded. Isn't that what marriage is all about. Honestly, and they put this malarky in a so called "science" magazine. Jeeze louise, what a load of horse manure!
I know a woman who has had a date with the same man every Friday night for the last fifteen years. He wants more; she wants sex. No lunches, no parties, no overnights, no other evenings - those are hers.
They meet every Friday night (all her friends know to not call), have dinner, screw themselves silly and then one of them goes home.
BTW, she makes more money than he but they split the cost of dinners! She pays for the pill.
Now, tell me you cannot find an unencumbered relationship.
The article, which I found quite good, is not science in the sense of original research. It merely lays out the possibilities and makes the point that different men go to prostitutes for different reasons. You are clearly one who goes for the sex and consider that a commodity to be purchased. OK, that is fine.
Brandye:
She has the perfect relationship! Now if I could find a man who would go along with that! WSO; there are women out there who want a nice date & sex..nothing more, just on a frequent schedule.
There are some women who have the attitude of; lets go out, have a nice date, sex, and go home...same for the next week...NSA.
Pathetic. Really. Very pathetic.
The answer is ego. Witness WSO there who cannot be bothered to put a bit of effort into any kind of relationship at all. "I don't understand women." BS - you have not thought about it at all. They want #1 security, #2 fun. DUH! That was hard. NOT.
The men who visit prostitues are 1. lazy, 2. incompetent/boring in bed themselves, 3. egotists. Witness the comments "variety" and "no hassles". Whine. Whine. Whine.
All in all - pathetic.
I'm going to need more bricks.
Sera, I keep telling you - join the Lifestyle! Problem solved!
Certainly, there's a distinction between having sex as a part of a full-on exclusive relationship (whether it's a marriage, a "spousal equivalent" deal, or a BF-GF relationship that's somewhere along the road to one of those), and having sex where the relationship is more limited or non-existent.
Once we're out of relationship territory: what's the difference between having sex with someone for free, and having sex with a prostitute?* All I can figure is that in the latter the guy's out some money, and the woman's up some. Take a really basic comparison: a couple who meet through the "casual encounters" ads on Craig's List vs. a couple who meet through the "erotic services" ads on Craig's List. I don't think there's a huge difference. In the latter, the guy presumably gets to pick a considerably more attractive woman. He's out whatever the fee is, but if he's not poor that may not be a major issue to him. In the former, the woman presumably thinks she's maintained her "self-respect," by doing something for free that she could make some money by doing if she were more attractive.
By the same token, I could say that people who eat in nice, expensive restaurants instead of cooking elaborate meals themselves are lazy, incompetent and egotists. Or maybe that's how they like to spend their money.
As for the notion that the #1 thing women want is "security:" Shoot ... providing a woman with security costs a hell of lot more than hiring a prostitute.
____
*I'm thinking of a heterosexual sex in which the female is the prostitute. Presumably other situations exist, but the homosexual case is different, and the male prostitute case is also different, and certainly much less common.
Has anyone else read the article?
EEK, why should I have to bother? Women don't have to. All they have to do is say "Yes."
Brandeye, as for the woman you are talking about, where O where do I find such a woman? There is far too small a supply for the demand, therefore, prostitution.
BTW EEK, what about women who visit prostitutes? What's your take on them?
At the risk of appearing to be obsessed with Craig's List, what made me think of it was an article I read a little while ago in one of the local "alternative" magazines.
They ran a little test in the "casual encounters" section by posting both a "woman seeking man" ad and a "man seeking woman" ad. Neither, as I recall the story, had any photo or anything other than a fairly generic come on. They made both the fictional male and female "seekers" the same age (early 40s). The result? The woman seeking a casual sexual encounter got over 200 responses in less than two hours, then they pulled the ad. The approximately equivalent male got 2 responses in three days.
Contrary to your opinion, WSO - women DO have to bother and more than merely by saying yes. Witness: me - I am not every man's favorite and I know this. Simply because I have more options than you do does not mean that it is any easier for me to find a suitable partner. Men reject women almost as often as women reject men and do not think they don't. You should bother because then you wouldn't be such a PITA about women. I bother and I like/love/adore men in general and a few in particular.
Prostitutes are fine for those who are handicapped in some way and cannot find someone sympathetic/compatible for reasons more than merely not trying. Females who frequent prostitutes are just as lame as their male counterparts if they do not fit the handicap proviso above.
Look, if you need sex that badly and that fast - do yourself. They sell what you need if you cannot use what you were born with. Costs less and no risk of infection/detection.
And of NizeGie's 200 responses to the female, I'd bet 199 were from married men, leaving only one possible.
EEK, 30 years doing myself got dull. I'm quite glad I had sex. Having sex with a beautiful woman is something else. Something I likely never would have gotten otherwise (at least not with a woman that beautiful. As for the whole infection and being found out thing, well, there are tons of other diseases that carry no stigma, what's so special about STD's? As for being found out, well, that's just part of the controlling sex negative attitude and laws that are pervasive in North America. That said, in my neck of the world, prostitution is legal if done correctly.
As well, NizeGie's study surprise me not in the least. It really is different for men and women. Women (or at least a certain subset of women, those who are considered the most desirable) decide. Some women choose to capitalize financially on their ability to say yes and reap the rewards. Imagine being paid $5,000.00 and hour to have sex. Not available to men, highly available to some women. Amazing isn't it.
Sometimes I wonder why more women don't engage in prostitution given how materialistic our society has become. Then again, from a certain point of view (a warped one I agree) marriage and traditional relationships are a form of prostitution (if you bend your mind and thoughts enough).
Also, what if you want to do something a bit out there, say like a threesome with two really hot chicks? Where the heck are you going to find that? If they do exist in the no professional world, they are so rare as to be a figment of one's imagination. Not so much in the pro world. Put your money on the table and fantasy fulfilled. This is to say nothing of the even more weird stuff out there (like say having a woman kick you in the balls).
Prostitution is totally normal (rather like war). We may not like it, we may seek to denigrate the activity, but it always has been and always will be, because it's easy money and men are willing to pay (up to and including foregoing all sex with any other woman, also known as the price to be paid in marriage to have sex with one woman. What the heck is that? Is any man thinking when he gets married? Is any woman? Yeesh!!!!)
Oh come on WSO - she doesn't have to even have sex with them! $750.00 per hour, tis a poor area, to just beat them up - so I've heard quoted. I'd imagine that would be hard on a girl's wrist after a while. "Whip-swinger's Elbow"? Check around - men will pay just to see pictures, to be insulted, humiliated, whatever. I could go on.
And yet, they'll complain about having to buy some woman dinner - PFFFT.
Lame.
For the vast majority, visiting prostitutes is laziness and ego. Perhaps we should put the industry under Medicare thus truly acknowledging who prostitution is really for - cripples, of one kind or another. From sex worker to medical professional. Hmmm co-pays! Appointments having to be made months in advance. But that would just feed into someone's fantasy.
EEK, that may not be such a bad idea in fact.
Also, why shouldn't men be lazy and have their ego stroked? You call it lame, I call it maleness. Not all indulge, but all can. There are all kinds of disabilities out there, why this one should be considered "lame" and the subject of name calling, I'm not sure.
Men complain about having to buy a woman dinner (repeatedly in some cases) and then not get sex. That's what the dinner was for (in some, not all, cases). All men pay one way or another. Of course, women pay too as they get men and all the associated costs (if nothing else, women pay with their time).
You can indeed go on about men and their various desires. Why is it that men's desires are so worthy of denigration? Do tell... I'm curious to know.
[quote=EvilEvilKitten;230318]
Sera, I keep telling you - join the Lifestyle! Problem solved![/quote]
Been out test driving a few models yet only found one who I really enjoy time with. Honestly, your option is looking as if the only true answer...looks as if there is one a few County's away. :)
WSO: I only date men I m pretty serious about getting to know. Meaning I have had some good interactions with them prior. On a date, yes, I do expect them to pay for dinner. However, if it becomes a routine ritual I will pick up the tab or cook a meal in for them in return. WHY? On a date I expect them to be a gentleman, as I am a lady. Usually the sparks fly, bed? Usually give it a try the first or second. WHY? I do not wish to waste his time or mine if there is nothing there. I do expect him to go out of his way on a date as I do mine. However, these are men known to me. If not...I am only meeting you out for coffee.
Why shouldn't they get their ego stroked - because from the looks of it - their egos don't need it.
No, the dinner is to have something to eat while enjoying her company. ONLY LOUTS expect a blow job in the parking lot afterwards. A date is doing something with someone you want to know better. Only Lifestyle playdates are for sex.
Women have expectations too - so why are you so adverse to meeting ours while also expecting us to meet yours without question?
By the same token, buying a car or taking a bus to get to work, instead of riding a bike or running, is just "laziness." Or, for that matter, hiring someone to fix your car, instead of cajoling some friend with a particularly good set of tools into doing it for you by plying him with compliments and gifts.
Men and women are quite different when it comes to sex between them. It is very easy for a woman who's at all attractive to find men for casual sex, IF she wants to (which she probably doesn't). Shoot ... prostitutes -- even ones who, apparently, are pretty plain looking -- can easily find men who not only want to do it, but will pay fairly dearly to do so (very dearly if they're not so plain, as Elliott Spitzer demonstrated).
Men and women in most other respects are not enormously difficult. Yes, it's easy to say things like: (i) men are egotistical, stupid, lazy, fat, boring, slow-witted, etc. or (ii) women are evil, manipulative, have bad judgment, lack leadership ability, bad at math, incapable of dispassionate analysis, etc. Aside from not being true, it's really not helpful or healthy.
Given that most men and women are capable of dealing with the world in a fairly capable manner in other respects, does the fact that they have very different abilities when it comes to convincing one another to have casual sex suggest that: (i) there's something peculiar about that particular interaction or (ii) a large percentage of men have a general disability (or are "crippled") in some manner that has import beyond that situation.
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230377]ONLY LOUTS expect a blow job in the parking lot afterwards.[/QUOTE]
Precisely the point. A guy who's seeking casual sex would be, in your own words, a "LOUT" to seek it through buying a typical woman dinner. That's not the understanding in the situation, and that's not what the particular form of interaction is really for. Dating is a way to try to start off a "relationship." Trying to get casual sex from a woman who's trying to get a relationship is a bad way to go about things for multiple reasons.
There are a number of ways to try to get casual sex. Hiring a prostitute seems, to me, to be one of the most practical and effective.
Keep in mind, as I mentioned in my first post, my point that (i) the distinction (practical, moral, whatever) between casual sex and a "real relationship" may well be a very significant one, while (ii) drawing a big distinction between seeking free casual sex and paid casual sex seems arbitrary and pointless. To put it another way: One who is steadfastly opposed to casual sex in general (whether for religious, moral, health, social stability or other reasons) might also be steadfastly (and consistently) opposed to prostitution. One who's permissive as to, or perhaps in favor of, casual sex in general is really hypocritical, or confused by some other agenda, in opposing prostitution.
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230377]Women have expectations too - so why are you so adverse to meeting ours while also expecting us to meet yours without question?[/QUOTE]
Again, precisely the point. The expectations of different women are different. Prostitutes expect a stack of currency. He's not averse to meeting that expectation. The person who's questioning it isn't him, it's you.
No Nie - WSO strikes me as a man who wants to scuba dive but doesn't want to get into the water because he may have to get wet.
He is not equipped to understand the complex because he cannot get over the trivial.
[QUOTE=NizeGie;230437]Precisely the point. A guy who's seeking casual sex would be, in your own words, a "LOUT" to seek it through buying a typical woman dinner. That's not the understanding in the situation, and that's not what the particular form of interaction is really for. Dating is a way to try to start off a "relationship." Trying to get casual sex from a woman who's trying to get a relationship is a bad way to go about things for multiple reasons.
There are a number of ways to try to get casual sex. Hiring a prostitute seems, to me, to be one of the most practical and effective.
Keep in mind, as I mentioned in my first post, my point that (i) the distinction (practical, moral, whatever) between casual sex and a "real relationship" may well be a very significant one, while (ii) drawing a big distinction between seeking free casual sex and paid casual sex seems arbitrary and pointless. To put it another way: One who is steadfastly opposed to casual sex in general (whether for religious, moral, health, social stability or other reasons) might also be steadfastly (and consistently) opposed to prostitution. One who's permissive as to, or perhaps in favor of, casual sex in general is really hypocritical, or confused by some other agenda, in opposing prostitution.[/QUOTE]
Wow, someone who's heard and understood me. It's so nice! I'm practically glowing! :D
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230446]No Nie - WSO strikes me as a man who wants to scuba dive but doesn't want to get into the water because he may have to get wet.
He is not equipped to understand the complex because he cannot get over the trivial.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... Someone who refuses to hear me and casts aspersions in my general direction without cause or justification in their self righteousness.
Par for the course I suppose. We are, after all, merely human... Sigh...
NizeGie,
In my view, thou hast a sharp eye for the truth of things. I commend you (for all that that is worth).
:D
No, I hear and understand you very well. You are the one who chooses to make light of what is his very real social handicap.
Prostitutes have financial expectations and he meets them without a qualm - he's getting what he's paying for sex. Automatic, fuck me and get out your time is up sex. Oh joy! Really, he'd save money if he just bought himself a robot and a mannequin and made a machine to take care of himself.
The day will come EEK, the day will come.
Until then you'll be in here saying things that get you called whiner? Okay.
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230508]Really, he'd save money if he just bought himself a robot and a mannequin and made a machine to take care of himself.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, and so would all the men who go on dates or pick up women in bars or get married.
It's not the same thing at all, and you know it.
For you and I, of course! We want the real deal.
But for WSO - right up his alley, baby!
Everyone talks about 'bitter older women' but no one talks about bitter whining men. Both are equally unattractive.
What is the "real deal"? Seems to me that the real deal can be purchased. I am not interested in a relationship, just sex. How does that make me a bitter whining man?
Review your posts as if someone other than you had written them. Your inability to see yourself as others see you leads you to ask such silly questions as "how am I a bitter whining man?". Because, truly, that is what you sound like. And no you cannot buy love.
Who says I wanted to buy love? To be clear, by "real deal" I meant sex, not love. I do not confuse the two.
No the real deal is love - sex is just play and that's fine. If you want to pay to play, okay. But stop slamming love and marriage when you know nothing about it.