A
male
age
41-50,
anonymous
writes:Every time a man complains about a woman's sexual past he gets told he has no right to talk about it. But a lot of women will judge a man if they hear that he has slept with a prostitute. It's hypocrisy. If the past can't be held against one gender then why can it be held against the other? I can understand that THE SAME man does not really have any call to be upset about his GF's sexual past when he has slept with prostitutes. But that's not the point of my question. Many women just judge men across the board for sleeping with prostitutes without knowing anything else about the man or the situation at all. I understand that not everyone agrees with prostitution - BUT LOTS OF MEN DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR GIRLFRIEND OR WIFE'S SEXUAL MORALS EITHER! This still about one gender expecting to judge the other one without being subject to the same kind of judging. Why are women allowed to take issue with a man's past for moral reasons but a man is not allowed to do the same? I understand that prostitution is a very nasty business on the whole. I don't mean to deny that fact in any way, but THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. It is legal in numerous places. It is not the only profession that some people do for money despite its sleazy image. Some women DO enjoy some parts of the job. Lots of men in this world also take dangerous and health-wrecking jobs all the time just for money reasons too. So please let's not have that debate here. Telling me why you are against prostitution is not an answer to my question. I am talking about judging people for their sexual experiences before you were together with them.
View related questions:
money, prostitute, sexual past Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
reader, anonymous, writes (17 March 2012): My first sexual encounter was with a prostitute.
I'm an above average looking guy who always treated women with respect, but for some reason haven't been able to find a relationship. One day I got tired of it and went to a hooker. Even though I despise the entire industry, I saw it as the only option.
Am I a disgusting rapist now ? Or a sad desperate loser ?
Maybe to some of you, but I know I never harmed anyone or comitted a crime (except for a bunch of feminists who think I'm a rapist who damaged a woman blablabla).
A
reader, anonymous, writes (17 March 2012): Cerberus:...."As for men who have "no other choice" cry me a river OP. Natural selection dictates that losers like that shouldn't breed anyway, it's natures way of weeding out the wusses and making our species strong. Because you know what? every guy has that ability to get women but some guys are just too weak minded to actually go do it."
Yeah, men who have brilliant minds in the fields of science/engineering/etc. should not be allowed to breed because it's nature's will they can't get any and make the species strong.....
Go tell that to Stephen Hawkins idiot.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (3 March 2012): Haha another response to this one.
It's not just women that put down men for using prostitutes a lot of us guys do too. It's not hypocrisy either OP for the simple fact that we guys would not date a woman nor marry one that was prostitute either. Well I wouldn't anyway. You can't look past the fact that men who use prostitutes are either lazy or inept. It's that simple.
No, I think non-prostitute women who sleep with men to gain money and power, or to have stuff bought for them, that are actually applauded by most women for "getting a rich guy" or "sugar daddy" are hypocrites. What's the difference between a prostitute and a woman who marries a guy because he has money? Nothing in my mind, nor is the idea that women lust after guys with money, they then exhibit prostitute behaviour, the swapping of money for sex. In the end when money is the key deciding factor for any person to get sexual with another then they're prostitutes, both men and women.
As for judging them by our moral standards, if we can't do that then whose moral standards do we judge them by, yours? No, we all have differing morals and are perfectly entitled to judge people on those otherwise we can get trapped in incompatible relationships and friendships. I wouldn't date a prostitute, nor a cheater, nor a child molester nor a drug addict and I wouldn't date any of them because I judge them against my moral standards, perfectly acceptable to do.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (3 March 2012): This is so dumb. 50 years feminists will be bitching that robot prostitutes are objectified and raped. This is about sexual power over men. That's it.
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (5 August 2011):
 Let me clarify. Rape is sex by force or coercion or lack of consent. Paying someone to do something is coercion, therefore paying someone to have sex is coercing someone to have sex.
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (3 August 2011):
I don't believe that absolutely every instance is equivalent to rape, but that in most instances paying someone who wouldn't otherwise have sex to do so is certainly in the rape spectrum.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (3 August 2011): I will indeed peruse the articles you draw attention to, and no, you're right, I haven't read them yet. I would also like to take the opportunity to apologise for what you refer to as the 'incoherence' of my previous post. I will endeavour to be more coherent henceforth. Do you stand over your statement that every man who visits a prostitute is committing rape?
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (3 August 2011):
You've read some interviews with people who have economic stake in making sure prostitution is portrayed positively? My job involves working with many women who are ex-prostitutes, some of whom were so traumatized by this "job" that they can barely leave their house and break down crying if you so much as mention the word prostitution or show even a still image from pornography. I've spoken with many of these "high class" prostitutes as you call them, the ones who write articles about how awesome prostitution is, and almost all of them have some kind of horrific story of violence that they brush aside as just part of the job. For instance one wrote on her blog about how amazing prostitution is that a john once tied a pillowcase around her neck, duck taped her to the bed and raped her multiple times, then attempted to strangle her before kicking her to the bottom of a staircase. Before going on to defend prostitution as awesome. As the one article from rmott (herself an ex-prostituted woman) below said very well, you would not listen to any survivors of sexual violence who said they liked it/loved their attacker, so why should this be different?
I don't particularly feel like tracking down all my studies but here's the one that came up first:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/sexual-offenses/content/article/10168/48311?pageNumber=2&verify=0
Did you actually read any of the articles I linked to before launching into an incoherent rage? It's fairly clear that while some men buy sex out of horniness, many do so out of a desire to control or hurt women. For instance out of one of the below articles, "I asked him how often he thought the women he paid enjoyed the sex. 'I don't want them to get any pleasure,' he told me. 'I am paying for it and it is her job to give me pleasure. If she enjoys it I would feel cheated.'" And many women who have left prostitution consider prostitution to be, without question a form of sexual violence if not full on rape. If coercion/blackmail is considered rape (for instance a boss telling an employee she will be given a promotion or fired if she doesn't have sex with him), then what do you call dangling a desperately needed resource in front of a woman and telling her she can only have it if she has sex with you? She does not want to have sex with you. Sex is not a need like food or water. Men do not die from lack of sex or go crazy. Access to sex is not a right.
Yes there are some women who genuinely enjoy prostitution. They are by far the loudest and they are by far the smallest minority of prostituted women. The fact that maybe 10-15% of women like prostitution does not take away from the fact that most prostitutes experience violence and pain. There are women who write on their blogs and go on TV and in magazines about how much money they've made and how awesome prostitution is. Most prostituted women wind up broke or poor and with PTSD. Those women do not have the means to go get on their computer and hook up to the internet and go on TV and are completely unheard.
I don't want to make this essay any longer, so read these instead.
http://10000besides.com/mindfreak/tag/prostitution-and-rape/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes
http://www.ungift.org/doc/knowledgehub/resource-centre/NGO_eaves_Men_who_by_sex.pdf
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (3 August 2011): 'essentially raping someone'....???
Person12345 is a highly articulate and clearly very intelligent individual who would greatly improve her ratio of winning arguments if she refrained from resorting to such preposterously sweeping statements. In one sentence, she has stated as concrete fact that every man who has ever used a prostitute is essentially a rapist. Irrespective of the fact that, as murky and distasteful as the entire business obviously is, there must surely have been thousands if not millions of such transactions which have been by definition consensual (whatever arguments may legitimately arise about how women come to be in that position) and haven't involved any element of violence, coercion or even disrespect.
If this is the case, if you condemn every single man who has ended up paying for sex as a rapist, then what words of condemnation are left to describe real rapists? Does this sort of reductive generalisation not surely minimise the extremely grave nature of actual, forcible rape?
But then person12345's extensive writings on the other Great Moral Conundrum of people's porn-viewing habits indicate that she inhabits a very morally black-and-white universe of absolute rigid certainties. It's so much easier and less troubling than allowing for complexities and shades of grey. (And a recent answer to a survivor of sexual abuse suggested that there may be an extremely plausible explanation which would place person12345's unyielding attitude to these matters in a very understandable context).
Prostitution is an unpleasant reality, one of many unpleasant realities in this world. I won't rant here about how it's a logical product of capitalist society and its resultant inequalities, but the fact that the vast vast majority of prostitutes are female has to tell you a few things.
Firstly, that a lot of women in many parts of the world are still in an indefensibly inferior financial situation vis-a-vis males, hence their perceived 'need' to do this to pay the rent or earn enough to eat. Hence the fact that huge numbers of them come from impoverished countries. I don't doubt for one second that there are also plenty of women who are trafficked into this business against their will, are held as virtual hostages, enslaved by pimps etc. This doesn't mean that I swallow for one second person12345's (un-sourced and un-attributed) assertion that every single prostitute in the world is in this position, all 110% of them. I've read interviews with 'high-class hookers' and they very clearly exist. Are we expected to seriously believe that ex-Wonderbra model Sophie Anderton, or Heidi Fleiss's girls, ended up turning tricks because it was either that or starve? That they were forced into it against their will by the evil male patriarchy? Get real. I'm sure a lot of them may well have been troubled by drug-related issues or even previous abuse, but to turn this into 'they're all being raped against their will' is a huge leap which simply doesn't stand up.
Secondly, that there is another imbalance at work here. Bluntly, in the hetero world, there are a lot more men wanting to get laid than are actually able to get laid. Otherwise, the demand for prostitutes simply wouldn't exist. In the sexual marketplace, the woman always chooses her mate: the power of relationship choice is something that women have always had throughout history, still do. The male's role is to present himself as favourably as possible in the hope that the woman/women will choose him. While I don't doubt there are indeed women who would like sex and can't seem to get any, it seems reasonable to conclude that they're not remotely as plentiful. CindyCares' assertion that 'getting laid is reasonably simple and easy' very clearly doesn't square with reality as it's experienced by thousands/millions of men who quite literally CAN'T get laid to save their lives. It would be extremely naive to dismiss the reality that there is a huge, huge percentage of the male population out there for whom porn/prostitution are their only realistic sexual outlets. So if a hypothetical guy in that position decides after twenty or thirty years of fruitless searching for a partner that he's decided to cut corners by visiting a prostitute, takes all reasonable steps to ascertain that the hooker isn't in an unduly perilous situation, treats her with respect and generally conducts himself as honourably as the situation allows, I don't think he can automatically be condemned as a rapist. (Unless we're toeing the Dworkin feminazi line that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, the military occupation of the female by the male)
I can very clearly remember reading very convincing testimony not too long ago from a prostitute who described herself as 30s, middle-class, not in any way a victim or anyone's slave or hostage, who claimed that basically she did it at first out of curiosity as a once-off, then stuck with it primarily because the money was brilliant. I also remember her stating that the majority of the men who visited her were deeply courteous, pleasant and respectful (I recall the word 'lovely' being used) if overwhelmingly lonely and pitiable in some sense. Perhaps she was a liar, or perhaps she was enjoying an extraordinary run of luck and all the evil hateful rapists were plying their trade elsewhere. But it all had the ring of truth, and didn't quite fit the picture painted in person12345's posts on the issue.
I have no experience at all of this subject apart from not too long ago being offered 50 quid by a lonely-looking middle-aged man in a London pub to fellate him. I declined his kind offer abruptly and tersely; he wasn't exactly the hottest dish in the restaurant, the idea repelled me, and it wasn't a personal Rubicon I would ever imagine myself being able to cross. But I didn't get any sense from the guy's demeanour that he was in any way dangerous, or hateful or a threat to anyone's personal safety: just a sad lonely old sack doubtless living out a pretty poxy life in Soho bars, with almost no recourse to sexual contact with willing partners. And I'd be fairly sure most straight 'johns' are in the same position. I didn't like the guy, but nor would I be in a great big hurry to leap on top of a moral soap-box and proclaim my moral superiority to him and dismiss him as no better than a rapist.
Such weighty moral issues are never quite as black-and-white as many would like to think. There are always, always, shades of grey somewhere.
...............................
A
female
reader, person12345 +, writes (2 August 2011):
Using a prostituted woman is completely different from a woman's past sexual history because it shows a complete disregard for women. A man who visits prostitutes is not someone who respects women. Some stats:70-90% of prostituted women have experienced sexual abuse prior to becoming prostitutes.68% of prostituted women experience PTSD from the experience (compared to 48% for combat veterans).1 in 500 prostituted women in murdered (more than in the military, agriculture, or liquor store cashiers).The vast majority of prostituted women (I have yet to find a study below 100%) experience either rape or some form of violent attack during their work.A large number of prostituted women entered when they were very young (many were runaways or something similar).There is a very high number (much higher than the general population) who are addicted to drugs or alcohol.They may be "choosing" to be there to pay bills, but they certainly don't want to be having sex with you. So in essence a man who uses prostitutes is someone who doesn't particularly care if the woman he has sex with wants to have sex with him. Here are three good articles on it:http://rmott62.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/on-denial/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/0830/1224277854132.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.htmlOP My point is, the two aren't the same thing so there can be no hypocrisy and there can really be no comparison. Many prostitutes call it pay per rape for a reason. As well the description of treating these women like public toilets is one I've heard prostituted women use. You're comparing essentially raping someone to two people having consentual sex. They simply aren't comparable and judging someone for in essence raping a woman is very different from judging someone for having a previous sexual history. Like someone said, if a woman was visiting prostitutes judging men for it, that's hypocrisy. If a woman was sleeping around and judging men for sleeping around, that's hypocrisy. But the two have ZERO overlap and cannot be compared.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (27 July 2011): OP here. I agree with everyone that people have the right to "judge" by their own standards. I agree that if you are a woman who really objects to prostitution then you have the right not to date men that have hired them. But this mature "pick your partner as you see fit" attitude is nothing like the usual tone of feedback when a man objects to his girlfriend's sexual history. The attacks on the man come whenever he is bothered by anything about a woman's past. He could be an non-promiscuous man his whole life. He might never have even said anything hurtful to his GF and kept his feelings to himself. In the threads I read the women typically don't wait to clear up those kinds of details before attacking him. If he has bad feelings about her past then he is immediately judged to be wrong and less of a man, never mind the details.
...............................
A
female
reader, KittenPaws  +, writes (27 July 2011):
Ok...
If one woman complains about one thing, and another woman does exactly the opposite, that's not hypocrisy; that’s TWO DIFFERENT WOMEN!
And, d'ya know- there are a lot more than two different women out there...!
How many times have you had issues with the same woman complaining about both? -Lets discuss SPECIFICS rather than just stereotype a gender- because, seriously; no two people- men OR women, are the same.
Can I ask what prompted this question? -You say that you've never been with prostitutes yourself, so it can't have a direct 'personal' experience with being judged 'hypocritically' that prompted your question?
Your follow up;
'What I think about red and blue is beside the point'
-Is really contradictory. It only works where you’re pondering what colour socks to wear; red or blue, potato, po-tar-to; it doesn't really matter.
But if you're talking about two very sensitive issues, then of course it matters. Perhaps not to you, perhaps not morally- but to whoever is getting upset over it- 'red or blue' makes all the difference in the world. I'm not arguing for or against either one, I'm saying that you can't do a fair test with two completely different situations. -Did you ever do physics experiments in school?
So even applying it back to your initially generalisation, either;
'Men/ women shouldn't complain about their partner having slept with a prostitute if they've slept with a prostitute themselves'
Or;
'Men/ women shouldn't complain about their partner having slept with many partners if they've slept with many partners themselves'
-To avoid HYPOCRACY.
To avoid being JUDGEMENTAL, however, neither partner should complain about their partners past in either/ or any other way. -Each to their own.
But aren't we ALL judgemental? Don't we ALL have some judgement of what we respect, what we dig, what we love and adore in a person? We CHOOSE who we want to spend our lives with. It all depends on what 'red' and 'blue' are.
Also, just for the record; the 'law' is a very different kettle of fish from 'morality'. If they happen to coincide, it is by coincidence. Being legal does not equal that is it 'moral' by any stretch of the imagination.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl  +, writes (26 July 2011):
 "Every time a man complains about a woman's sexual past he gets told he has no right to talk about it. But a lot of women will judge a man if they hear that he has slept with a prostitute. It's hypocrisy. "
Not correct. Men judge. Women judge. Neither should, if the world was a dilly dally happy place, but we do. We have our preferences, both men and women. And we judge based on those preferences. I could just as easily flip it around and say "Men are hypocrites because they judge women who are sluts when they themselves accept every offer for sex they get, or even pay for it".
It's nothing other than people being different and not liking certain things. People are hypocrites, but it's at the individual level, you can not generalize and say that this or that accounts for ALL men or ALL women.
Just face the facts: people will judge if you like it or not, and no matter how "logical" or "correct" your thinking or arguing is, you can't keep people from having an opinion. Everyone's entitled to one.
If people don't like you for who you are and what you have done... then no one is forcing you to hang out with those people.
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares  +, writes (26 July 2011):
 Precisely , OP. No good comparing reds with blues because we should first unquestionably agree about what's the inherent degree of immorality of each colour , - and if we come from very different backgrounds, religions,geographic areas etc., that's a tall order.
Much better from a logical point of view comparing reds with reds and blues with blues. A behaviour with the same behaviour.
Therefore , if I do not pay men for sex, I expect ( or at least, wish for ) a partner that does not pay women for sex.
Now, you told us : but men NEED to pay women for sex, because realistically they have no access blah blah.
I don't buy it. That's your very own perception. If you ( again, a generic you ! ) have great trouble getting laid, you belong to an unfortunate minority. Sex is a very widespread activity in any country and walk of life. If there are 7 billions of people on earth and constantly growing, well, somebody must be doing all those babies. While finding everlasting love may be a challenge, getting laid is reasonably simple and easy and the lower you keep your demands and expectations- not difficult if you are only seeking physical relief - the easier and simpler it is. So, no, nearly nobody NEEDS to go to a prostitute as the only way to experience sex.
Anyway ,they can simply abstain. A widower or divorced man in his 60s or 70s may have trouble finding a new sex mate, the same trouble a widow or divorced woman in her 60s or 70s has. Does the widower NEED to visit a prostitute ? No more than the widow needs to spend her savings on a boytoy.
Now, saying that men "need " sex more than women, THAT's a double standard. And a misconception that has been largely dismantled by scientific research.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (26 July 2011): OP here.
I did not choose the subject of prostitution because I wanted to defend it. (I don't.) I chose it because it is an area that shows most women having a double standard.
The point I am making is about hypocrisy.
If I demand that someone else be red, but I refuse to accept anyone else's demands that I be blue, that is HYPOCRISY. I cannot defend my position by saying "But red isn't the same thing as blue! I think blue is much more immoral!" What I think about red and blue is beside the point. I am still making a demand that I won't accept from someone else. The example doesn't work if I say it's okay for someone else to demand that I be red too, because I already believe that being red is acceptable. The principle only comes in when someone believes something DIFFERENT than I do, like believing that blue is okay or prostitution is okay.
I could personally believe that blue is much more immoral than red but that is my OPINION. What gives me the right to decide that blue is worse than red for someone else? If both colors are legal by my society's rules then what gives me the right? I control what I think but I don't control what my potential partner thinks (or thought at some time IN THEIR PAST!)
Casual sex is not the same thing as prostitution just like red is not the same thing as blue. But judging someone by your standards is unfair regardless of which color you prefer.
...............................
A
female
reader, Aunty Honest +, writes (26 July 2011):
 Because going to a prostitute is different to sleeping with loads of people?
If a woman sleeps with loads of people then judges a man for doing the same-that's hypocricy.
If a woman goes to a prostitute and then judges a man for doing the same that's hypocricy.
It doesn't have to be men vs women here, and people can be put off by whatever they like, unless they've done it too it's not hypocricy.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (26 July 2011): "I understand that prostitution is a very nasty business on the whole."Well, there you have it. Most women don't like the fact, and are very sensitive to the issue, that a man would treat another woman as a piece of property.Prostitution is a nasty business, as you say, and I've known a number of prostitutes in my line of work. There is nothing romantic about it, nothing charming, nothing good. When we see articles about people like Eliot Spitzer, in the USA, and Ashlee Dupree, his escort, people tend to romanticize the business.After knowing the people I have known, I have come to view using prostitutes like using a woman as a toilet that you jack off into. Yes, there are cheap toilets, dirty toilets, clean toilets, expensive toilets, old toilets, new toilets, and toilets of different colors, but they are still toilets. Women are not toilets...and should not be treated as such (neither are men and the same goes for them as well).
...............................
A
female
reader, So_Very_Confused +, writes (25 July 2011):
 so we are comparing women who have had FWB relationships and other relationships that THEY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY for
to men PAYING WOMEN to have SEX?
personally I can't see the comparison.
now you can compare women sleeping with a lot of people to men DOING THE EXACT SAME THING
...............................
A
male
reader, eddie  +, writes (25 July 2011):
 I think there are lots of reasons why people do what they do. I believe that most people who work in the sex industry are probablly lacking something, somewhere, somehow. They might not even be aware of it but they probably put up a front of false bravado to avoid determining why they do what they do. On the other hand, men who use prostitutes might also be lacking something. It is probably less obviouse though. Men are "generally" geared to seek sex while women are often raised to give sex away sparingly. This might explain why women who go against the grain and work in the sex industry are thought to be damaged somehow. Lets not forget there are many levels of prostitution too. I would think a guy who chooses to pay for sex with a potentially diseased, addicted street walker is not thinking too clearly either.We always need to remember there is a group of people who are somewhere between "down and out" and "average" who are not opposed to trading sex for money. There are many people who seem quite normal, attractive women and business men who engage in sex.
...............................
A
male
reader, TrancedRhythmEar  +, writes (25 July 2011):
 Pasts in my opinion OP should be discussed before feelings develop, that way jealousy is less risk at coming about later. For the record, Ive been with 9 prostitutes and I PROUDLY state to women that Ive been with them. I have my reasons and some even get excited about that sort of thing. But those are women who of course may be sexually interested only and have no emotional attachment to me.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (25 July 2011): Why do you care OP? There are lots of hypocritical things in this life. For example your country condemning terrorist attacks on its civilians yet calling their killing of civilians "collateral damage".
Life is full of hypocrisy OP. Women judge prostitutes because they're raised to do so. Society condemns them not just women. I mean the most murdered and abused section of women are prostitutes so they don't exactly get pleasant treatment from men either. Plus women are very competitive creatures, they don't like the idea of men having an easy option other than them. That's why lots hate porn too OP, they're territorial creatures the same as we are which is often why a lot of guys have problems with their girlfriends pasts. That is one of the biggest hypocrisies, the fact we guys can have lots of sexual partners and we're studs yet women that do are sluts. Thankfully that's changing though.
Everyone has their own points of view OP and they're entitled to those views. Funnily enough a lot of the women that are so closed minded as to condemn a guy for sleeping with prostitutes are the ones that demand that a guy be "chivalrous" and treat her like a prostitute by paying for everything and "treating" her. That's a pretty cool hypocrisy right there.
As for men who have "no other choice" cry me a river OP. Natural selection dictates that losers like that shouldn't breed anyway, it's natures way of weeding out the wusses and making our species strong. Because you know what? every guy has that ability to get women but some guys are just too weak minded to actually go do it. You see OP a lot of those guys are also the guys that like to rape these prostitutes and beat them to take out their frustrations at being complete failures in life on them. So when you know this kind of thing goes on, how can you distinguish one lonely guy with the utmost respect for women who treats a prostitute well from the guys that beat the living hell out of them. The simple fact is you can't, most serial killers are said to have been lovely guys, good upstanding pillars of the community. Which is the safest option then in regards to that? It's to steer clear of those guys because there are plenty that don't.
The fact that a guy has to go pay for prostitutes raises a lot of red flags and put into question his ability to maintain a healthy relationship. Firstly it makes him seem seedy, who knows what other illicit shit he's into. Secondly if he's that much of a loser that he needs to bed pros then he may have no idea how to actually be in a relationship, he may be too insecure, he may have all sorts of mental issues.
As for judging others on what they do, that's not always a bad thing you know. We're supposed to judge our potential partners on their suitability and compatibility with our own beliefs. Too many prostitutes are abused, abandoned and spat on by society so what kind of guy is it that would have no problem feeding that monetarily. How does that guy live with the fact this girl may be trafficked, she may be trapped in a lifestyle of drugs and abuse, she may have been doing this since she was a child or she has a pimp who suckered her in a beats the crap out her. The simple answer is you can never know because the happiest seeming ones are just the better actresses or have been conditioned better.
Some pros love their job that's true but it's illegal in most countries it's not well regulated and women have no way of knowing what type of guy you are because frankly there is absolutely no sane or logical reason why a guy would "have to" get involved with them in the first place.
That's life OP, if someone wants to condemn another for doing something which goes against their morals then why not? We are allowed to do that you know, that's the nature of life, the nature of free will and it's far better for a girl to not date a guy like that than it is. It would be like dating a girl you know has cheated lots of times, she represents a greater risk and it's not like we don't have other options like.
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares +, writes (25 July 2011):
OP, I am not sure I get what you mean. Who are those millions of men who don't have realistic access to non mercenary sexual experiences ?.. Unless we are talking about people working in some remote minerary district, with 500 males for every female, or in some fundamentalist Islamic country ( where they can always get married young, anyway ). But other than that, I'd say your perception is extremely and unnecessarily grim. You don't need to be an Adonis or a Donald Trump to find a date, a girlfriend or a wife. Take a Sunday stroll in any town or city and you see men with their wives or dates everywhere, all kind of men. Old men, obese men, unattractive men .Men with any possible physical or moral imperfection. Sick ,ailing men. Alchoholists, drug dealers, satanists, the hunchback of Notre Dame . If any, I'd say that women are overlenient in their standards just so they don't have to be alone.
So,what makes in your opinion close to unattainable for so many men as you say ,to find a sexual partner ? ....
Unless you mean, a 500 bucks hooker- quality girl. Then yeah, if you ( generic you,not you you ) won't have physical contacts with anything less than Miss Best Wet T-shirt... then you've got to pay. But that would be a choice, not a necessity, no ?
...............................
A
female
reader, k_c100 +, writes (25 July 2011):
 If a man had an objection to my morals I would not mind that, I know that with my past not every man is going to like it and I would never feel upset or annoyed if a man did object to my past - that is his choice and that is fine. I would simply say we are not suitable for each other and then move on.
The main difference here is that I dont readily sleep with men and I always make sure I know a man well before I sleep with him, I have never had a one night stand nor have I slept with a man on a first date. As I said in my post, I will only sleep with a man when I feel there is a connection, when we have feelings for each other and when I feel the relationship is going somewhere. With some men that could be a week or so, with some men that could be after months. My point is that even though I have slept with a fair number of men, I always make sure I wait a while to do so and take the decision very seriously.
So I would always feel that in my position, where I am careful about who I sleep with and dont rush into sex with men I dont know, that my morals are strong enough to warrant my dislike of men who sleep with prostitutes. Fair enough if I went around having one night stands, then I wouldnt have a leg to stand on and I would have no right in judging a man for his sexual past. But if I am careful about who I sleep with and dont rush into sex, then irrelevant of my 'number' I still feel completely justified in judging a man on his loose sexual morals. I want a partner who would only have sex with someone he cared about, and if he had sex with a prostitute then clearly our morals do not match hence I would judge him and subsequently not continue a relationship.
I believe we should all be able to hold anyone else to whatever standard we like - if a man can only a date a virgin because he doesnt believe in sex before marriage, then fair enough. Just as in my case, as a person who believes in having sex with someone you have feelings for - I wont ever date a man who a)sleeps around or b) visits prostitutes because that goes against my beliefs. I hate double standards as much as the next person and men should be able to judge women as much as women judge men - but then again there is the classic double standard that women put up with on a daily basis - if a woman has a one night stand she is a slut, if a man sleeps around and gets laid with a random girl in a bar he is a stud and his friends think he is cool because of that.
Double standards exist all around us, men judge women and women judge men frequently when we really should not do so. But that is life, and there is no point in stressing out about it - all you can do is aim to find a partner who shares your own morals and standards and then you wont have any problems.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (25 July 2011): Thank you for responding everyone.
For the record I have never paid a prostitute and I don't picture myself ever doing it in the future. I only raised this question because the way a lot of women treat men with prostitutes in their past is filled with hypocrisy that I dislike.
@ CindyCares:
With few exceptions, women don't have to pay for sex the way men do. So I do not think your point about that difference is valid. There are millions of men who have little or no other realistic access to sexual experiences besides prostitutes. Even these men who can get sex occasionally from regular women can't always do it without a big investment of work or money or good luck. I do not think most people would begrudge a person for wanting not only a few sexual experiences in their lifetime, but also some sexual contact on some kind of semi-regular basis. Prostitution really is the only option that is open to some men when this is factored into the equation too.
@marieclaire:
I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of prostitution here. I am trying to discuss a certain hypocrisy surrounding how some women relate to it.
@ K_C100:
I think I understand your viewpoint. But I still think you are being hypocritical if you would not like a man to judge you for your sexual past too. When you say that you have a moral objection to paying for sex, how is that different from if I have a moral objection to your standards about how readily you sleep with someone? I see no theoretical difference. We are both holding someone's personal sexual standards against them. You say paying for it is too much for you. I might say that doing it for free with someone you don't know very well is too much for me. But many women feel that they should be able to hold men to your standard while men should not be allowed to hold them to my standard.
...............................
A
female
reader, k_c100 +, writes (25 July 2011):
Ok well as a woman with a reasonable amount of sexual history, with a number that might make men a bit uncomfortable (nothing crazy but after seeing many men on this site who get upset over the smallest amount of sexual experience I'm sure a few men might get upset about mine!) - I wanted to add my simple opinion why I would judge a man who had slept with prostitutes.
All the men I have slept with have been men who I have had strong feelings for, who I have been in a relationship with and who I have wanted a future with. Yes I may have made some pretty poor judgements on some of these men and the relationship has not gone anywhere or lasted long - but my intention was always to make something out of the relationship.
Whereas men who sleep with prostitutes - they are paying for sex, emotionless cold empty sex. Women who have a lot of one night stands are just as bad (in my opinion) but comparing someone like myself who has had a fair few sexual partners with a man who sleeps with prostitutes is totally different in my opinion and judging him on that is fair in my mind. Mostly it would worry me that he is having to pay for sex - what is so wrong about him that he cannot meet women in a 'normal' manner? Does he have some sort of sex addiction, where he needs sex that frequently paying for it is the only way he can get it? Why does he want emotionless sex rather than meeting a girl with the view to having a relationship with her?
I know for certain that any man who had slept with prostitutes in the past, I would not be able to date him. Simple as that. Yes it might be harsh - but I dont believe in sleeping around for the sake of it, I believe that sex should be between people who care about each other and believe in a future together.
So that's just my opinion - yes there are double standards out there, and that is just life and the way things are. But it is not as black and white as you make out - some women with a fair amount of sexual experience may just be like me, bad judges of character, or hopeless romantics who believe in love and dont always realise when they are being used by a man.
My normal rule is simply dont talk about it - I dont want to know what he did in his past, and therefore he shouldnt be asking me about my past either. It only causes arguments - so if you like each other and want to be together, then simply leave the number of partners out of it, and dont ask questions you wont like the answers to.
I hope this helps and good luck!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (25 July 2011): prostitutes are people trying to make a living in a normal capitalist way. I don't blame them or the men who associate with them. I don't beleive that many prostitutes are exploited and for those that are I feel ashamed for the male of the species because I think thats not what we want. assuming the prostitute is not being exploited then I think the transaction is appropriate.
...............................
A
female
reader, CindyCares +, writes (25 July 2011):
I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Men who have issues with their wife's or gf's sexual past in general - note, I say in general - have , to same extent, a sexual past too. They have had sexual experiences too, even if in a smaller quantity or different quality. So unless they are really finicky with keeping score ( I only bedded 3 while she bedded 9 ) they are conceptually even.
Women who have issues with their men having paid for sex with hookers - most often have never paid gigolos for sex and would never dream of.
Basically though DB is right : find a partner who can "live" you as you are in the here and now- and do the same for her. That avoids lots of problems.
( and, btw, welcome back DB ! )
...............................
A
male
reader, dirtball +, writes (25 July 2011):
 The short answer: Neither is right and life isn't fair. The goal is to find someone who doesn't care about your past, and you don't care about theirs. Double standards are just plain hypocritical.
...............................
A
female
reader, Aunty Susie  +, writes (25 July 2011):
 Probably a good reason why a persons past sexual history should be kept to themselves. No one likes to be judged. And is it really relevant? Is it anybodies business? Just so long as you don't pass anything on (from your past, STD's for eg.) to the new the new person in your life! Is there really a need to tell a woman that you have been with a prostitute in the past?
...............................
|
