In article ,
 GoddessBaybee  wrote:
> In article ,
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >the Danimal wrote:
> >> GoddessBaybee wrote:
> >> > If I was in this situation, I'd seriously consider
breaking up with
> >> > the guy. IMO, if a guy goes to a prostitute that says
there is something
> >> > fundamentally wrong with his view of sex.
> >>
> >> Sobolewski wept.
> >
> >McGruff the crime dog says:
> >> I would be more concerned with the john's view of the law, if he
> >> hired a prostitute in some jurisdiction where prostitutes are
> >> illegal. Even when we do not agree with a law, choosing to break
> >> it is a serious decision. A person who thinks it is OK to break
> >> one law might break others, and I would want to know which other
> >> laws that person considers OK to break. Just so as to be ready
> >> if the cops kick down the front door.
> >
> >So if someone speeds or jaywalks, they are also a potential
> >crack dealer... Sounds like a slippery slope.
> >
> >In most cities, it's possible to get prostitutes by going
> >to massage parlors or to some places that have a clever
> >arrangement (you wait for her to go to the bathroom,
> >you leave money hidden under the lamp, you go to the bathroom,
> >you come back and suddenly you have a hot woman who
> >wants you in bed!  Who knows who took the money?)
> >
> >> So, GoddessBaybee, why do you think there is something
> >> "fundamentally wrong" with the john's view of sex?
I think most
> >> men would be in the market for a hooker if she looked
> >> breathtakingly hot and the total cost was sufficiently low.
> >> Even guys who claim to be religious (see: Jimmy Swaggart and
> >> Jim Bakker). Even "happily" married guys.
> >>
> >> For example, suppose I could hire Halle Berry to make sweet
> >> love to me for a dollar, all completely legal, with Halle
> >> Berry checked out thoroughly by doctors and declared
> >> disease-free. How many men could say no to that offer?
> >> How many could even formulate the concept of saying no?
> >>
> >> I think there would something fundamentally gay about a man
> >> who could shrug off that offer.
> >
> >This is especially a strange concept when so many men
> >engage in pseudo prostitution by paying for a date
> >in the hopes of getting into a woman's pants.  How
> >is this better?  I suppose GoddessBaybee would say
> >that the man is paying to BEG for sex, so that makes
> >it somehow better.
> 
> I don't think paying for a date equals begging for sex. 

You certainly don't like thinking of it that way. 

Part of the begging for the man involves putting
on a charade about his motives.  If the man pays
and tells such a woman he's doing it for the chance
to get her in the sack, that kind of defeats the
purpose, doesn't it? :-)

One of the differences between men and women is that men
largely don't need these charades.  Men can pay
for prostitutes and enjoy sex with someone who
finds him repulsive.  You may consider that masterbation
but the fact is that if men weren't so flexible, 
most wouldn't play the dating game either.  How many
women are caapble of asking out a man they find
somewhat attractive (not exceptionally attractive,
but merely somewhat attractive) and putting up
with nonsense from him for a play of the nookie lottery?
 
> Actually, Mark, this says a lot more about you than about me.  
> You seem to think treating a women to dinner demeans you horribly in some 
> way. 
> I don't quite get it.   

You "don't get it" because you've made a clearly intellectually
dishonest argument by including such situations as me
taking out my sister for a birthday dinner in this discussion.

As I said, you're putting on a charade.  What makes that
really F'd up is that at a certain sub-conscious level,
you're fully aware of this and you sell chances at sex
to maintain it.  

If you're going to prostitute your sexuality, shouldn't
you do it for something real?  Hmmm?

Not only do you sell out your own sexuality, you also
undermine the sincerity of the men in this situation.
You will always have some kind of nagging, sub-conscious
doubt, of his motives.  Or in the very least, you won't
want to dig too deep.  "Honey... You aren't anything
like those awful soc.meners, are you?"  "No dear!
Of course not!  What's their awful opinion again?"

You wind up with a wuss.  In a way, your cost for
gratification is far higher than the 100 bucks
for hookers at L.A. brothels.

> I think when you like someone, it is natural to *want* to do nice things for
> that person which will make them happy.

So such women can offer to pay for the WHOLE first date AND tell
the men they find them sexually attractive.  

Their failure to do so suggests they like the men they 
are dating less than the men like them.
See what I said about the real cost of prostitution above.
Is a free meal worth SETTLING for someone less than
ideal in exchange for an emotional edge?  What woman
wants such a man anyway?  Isn't being with
such a man emotional masterbation?

What if I told you that all the prostitutes I had seen
told me I was the best lay they had.  You wouldn't take
that opinion very seriously because their motives
are questionable.  

However, not all prostitutes gave me a gold star.  Most
treated it as a job and said so and I was ok with that.
Some prostitutes had extensive, fun conversations afterward
and some didn't.  

What was exciting, far moreso than a normal dinner date,
was that we were truly ourselves.  In many ways,
it was a relationship that makes it unique to any
other experience I have had.  It was quite
enliving and far away from masterbation.

> I've paid for dates (though not
> typically the first date), and I've cooked for dates, bought dates gifts etc.

Whoop dee doo!

So you did something for the man only after you were sure you
liked him and you'd gotten something out of him.  
 
> I think of it as liking someone and wanting to do something nice for that
> person. 

So does this mean that when you aren't sure you like a man,
you can roll him for free meals?

That's quite a gift you give yourself: Before you even
know whether you like a man or not, you taint the relationship
by exploiting him.  Good going!

> You think of it as "begging for sex".   We clearly have very 
> different
> outlooks.

That's what logic and REALITY dictates.  At a sub-conscious
level, you know this too.
 
> Baybee
> 
> 
> PS   Mark, how'd that "foreign internet bride" thing work out for you?

The "foreign internet bride" (are you Dr. Evil or something
with the double quote action?) worked out fine.  
  
> PPS  I've heard this is quite a costly endeavor with serious risks of fraud 
>      and other financial risks.  Sounds unusually risky (and costly) for 
>      someone
>      who's concerned about being 'ripped off' the meager cost of a dinner     
>       
>      date.    

I've heard some horror stories as well.  I've also heard that
overall, provided the relationship appears reasonable (total
loser guys not coming back with a supermodel), the divorce
rate and risks are actually LESS than marrying a native American
woman.

You bring up an interesting point though: Courting a single such
woman using these means would pay for at least 50 dinner dates.
So where's the incentive?

Part of the reason is principle.  Let's look at it this way:
Let's say a man told you he'd slept with a hot slutty woman
after spending 100 bucks for dinner on her.  I guess that's ok.  
But if he paid 100 bucks for hooker of similar background, 
you'd be repulsed.  But the only difference between
the two situations is a matter of principle (and not
difference at that.)

20 to 50 bucks seems cheap, but you (and by "you", I mean the
man) gets what he pays for: A very low quality relationship
where he has to pay for her company because she doesn't
consider his very valuable.  Even then, it wouldn't be such
a bad deal if he didn't have to engage in a charade of
pretending to "enjoy" paying and apologize for being there.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/5/05 12:57:43 PM ---