# Girls, would you be with a guy who went to a hooker in his "dry spell" times?



## MoonCaptain (Mar 28, 2017)

Or will that turn you off once you found out about it?.


----------



## versikk (Nov 25, 2013)

It will vary from girl to girl. Stuck up girls who are sexually prude and ethically against prostitution will judge you.

open minded girls will not judge.


----------



## MoonCaptain (Mar 28, 2017)

versikk said:


> It will vary from girl to girl. Stuck up girls who are sexually prude and ethically against prostitution will judge you.
> 
> open minded girls will not judge.


Yeah, I guess you are right.

It's annoying to know some girls will disqualify you just for that.


----------



## Glycerin (Jun 26, 2016)

MoonCaptain said:


> It's annoying to know some girls will disqualify you just for that.


why would you tell her?


----------



## MoonCaptain (Mar 28, 2017)

MissMadonna said:


> MoonCaptain said:
> 
> 
> > It's annoying to know some girls will disqualify you just for that.
> ...


I like being honest with girls.
And not hide my past.


----------



## Karsten (Apr 3, 2007)

MoonCaptain said:


> I like being honest with girls.
> And not hide my past.


As far as I'm concerned, as long as you are not doing it the same time you're seeing them and you are not transmitting any sexual diseases, it's none of their business.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

I already posted my opinion in the exact same thread a while back. Can't find the thread, though.

All I want to say now, is that this is a question of peoples' own personal dating/sex lives. People have certain standards & preferences. There is simply no "right or wrong" on who someone decides to have a relationship with.

People like to say here, so what if someone went to an escort?, it's their life. I agree completely, despite personally having negative opinions on it. _I_ don't think prostitution is okay, but I can totally agree that it's none of my business. But why can the same not be said for women who say no? If it is a turn-off to some women, that's fine. It's their life, isn't it? Personally?: Yes, it's a turn-off to me. It's MY dating/sex life, MY opinion, there's no room to debate me on that.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

It would turn me off.

But given the fact that I'm romantic asexual (want a relationship, don't want sex) turns off *99% of guys* before they even get to know me, I think we're even.

ETA:



Atheism said:


> _I_ don't think prostitution is okay, but I can totally agree that it's none of my business. But why can the same not be said for women who say no? If it is a turn-off to some women, that's fine. It's their life, isn't it? Personally?: Yes, it's a turn-off to me. It's MY dating/sex life, MY opinion, there's no room to debate me on that.


:ditto It's odd that (on this site) guys' choice to visit a prostitute should be accepted, but heaven forbid women might choose not to date those guys. :serious:


----------



## 0blank0 (Sep 22, 2014)

It wouldn't be a problem for me


----------



## catcharay (Sep 15, 2011)

I'm too insecure.


----------



## MoonCaptain (Mar 28, 2017)

Patch said:


> It wouldn't be a problem for me


Nice to know there is at least 1 girl who won't disqualify you just for that.


----------



## rm123 (Mar 21, 2016)

I wouldn't date a guy who uses that word. It's "sex worker".


----------



## jeanny (Apr 17, 2014)

Only if he's rich. Are you rich?


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

It seems to turn most women off from what I've noticed, I don't think it would bother me (obviously needs to get std checks,) but I'm only a little bit female. (Disclaimer before someone finds it weird again that I'm posting in a gendered thread.)


----------



## OtterlyAbsurd (Jan 25, 2017)

Eh. I think it would depend on the guy and the context. But some guy who brings it up early on, especially out of the blue, would probably set off some warning bells for me. Not the actual act itself, but the significance the guy places on it if he thinks it's necessary to mention within the first few dates. Oh, and the use of the word hooker would bother me too tbh.


----------



## MoonCaptain (Mar 28, 2017)

OtterlyAbsurd said:


> Eh. I think it would depend on the guy and the context. But some guy who brings it up early on, especially out of the blue, would probably set off some warning bells for me. Not the actual act itself, but the significance the guy places on it if he thinks it's necessary to mention within the first few dates. Oh, and the use of the word hooker would bother me too tbh.


Why does the word hooker bothers you?


----------



## probably offline (Oct 8, 2012)

Afreen88 said:


> Of course it will turn most women off, you know that. And it's not 'just for that' - behaving in this way gives a glimpse of your values, (un)desirability, desperation etc. *You are okay sleeping with someone who does not desire you and only does so for money. This says something about who you are.* You'll find a few who won't mind, but paying for sex will never be thought as _positive_ amongst healthy women.


I also think that this is why many women find it off-putting(including myself), moreso than the "desperation" part.


----------



## Xenacat (Oct 20, 2015)

No.


----------



## Rains (Jan 20, 2016)

I answered this in more detail in another thread. But basically, I used to tolerate this in theory. And then I read this article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150831163847.htm
So now I consider it a deal breaker with some exceptions.


----------



## solasum (Nov 17, 2008)

It's not cute, and I've met people who have been with prostitutes, but I'd say it's not a deal-breaker in itself because people change. Still, people who do this probably don't have much in common with me, anyway. I can't help thinking about all those girls forced into prostitution.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

I have no objections to consensual sex work, as long as you're getting tested. I understand that some men have trouble finding sexual partners. But I have a very big problem with _anyone_ who looks down on sex workers. So if he thinks the people he employs are s**** and w*****, well then, sayonara. If he can't see them as individuals worthy of respect, then I won't be able to see him as an individual worthy of respect.

Unfortunately many men who visit sex workers seem to have deplorable attitudes toward women. It's those attitudes I object to, not the act of paying for sex itself. Men compartmentalize more than women do when it comes to sex. I'm not going to judge male sexuality just because it doesn't align perfectly with my own. But respect for other people has nothing to do with those kinds of sexual differences. There's no excuse for treating anyone with contempt.


----------



## denoz (Mar 20, 2017)

To each his own. I have a friend who went to a hooker and the next day his girlfriend dumped him when she found out about it. They had so many differences which caused their relationship to become rocky so the guy went to look for a comfort zone. 

There's always several reasons why some guys see sex workers. As long as they know the consequence they got into, it's their choice.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Afreen88 said:


> Of course it will turn most women off, you know that. And it's not 'just for that' - behaving in this way gives a glimpse of your values, (un)desirability, desperation etc. You are okay sleeping with someone who does not desire you and only does so for money. This says something about who you are. You'll find a few who won't mind, but paying for sex will never be thought as _positive_ amongst healthy women.


I reckon it just shows that you have no other ways of satisfying your evolutionary urges. I dont see why women look at it as such a bad thing, its nothing more than paying someone for a service. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to satisfy their urges for free with anyone they meet.


----------



## SofaKing (May 9, 2014)

Turn it around, would you be as accepting to date a woman who indiscriminately finds sexual partners whenever she isn't satisfied? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Blue Dino (Aug 17, 2013)

I guess I won't mind, but I think it does say something about the man's personality of one who would repeatedly sleep with prostitutes. But it's something I would rather not know.


----------



## TerribleTylenol (Mar 29, 2017)

Atheism said:


> I already posted my opinion in the exact same thread a while back. Can't find the thread, though.
> 
> All I want to say now, is that this is a question of peoples' own personal dating/sex lives. People have certain standards & preferences. There is simply no "right or wrong" on who someone decides to have a relationship with.
> 
> People like to say here, so what if someone went to an escort?, it's their life. I agree completely, despite personally having negative opinions on it. _I_ don't think prostitution is okay, but I can totally agree that it's none of my business. But why can the same not be said for women who say no? If it is a turn-off to some women, that's fine. It's their life, isn't it? Personally?: Yes, it's a turn-off to me. It's MY dating/sex life, MY opinion, there's no room to debate me on that.


I'm not defending what someone said earlier, but aren't those two a little different? Let's say you meet the perfect guy, and the one flaw is that he has seen someone in the sex industry. Choosing not to pursue a relationship has a much bigger effect on you and the person than a person choosing to have sex once. They are both choices, but one is a bigger decision, and using that as a legitimate criteria not to pursue what otherwise might be a worthwhile relationship sounds kind of vain to me. You are basically claiming that someone who has sex with a sex worker (even once) is inherently different than than someone who does not. I still agree that it is your choice, but I think all choices including the OP's decision can be up for discussion.

I've never done what the OP suggests, but I also don't see why anyone would reject someone who did if they: 
1. Liked them as a person 
2. Knew they didn't have an STD

To the OP, I completely understand being 100% honest with who you're with, but if they don't ask, then don't tell them (As long as you have been tested and know you aren't harming them)
Sorry in commenting in what was intended for a female perspective


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

I have NEVER used a hooker (an STD factory) and I never would.

So, ladies, if you're interested in a man who's not into hookers, you could consider contacting me.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

SofaKing said:


> Turn it around, would you be as accepting to date a woman who indiscriminately finds sexual partners whenever she isn't satisfied?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


Interesting question. Would love to hear what they'd say. Somehow i imagine it wouldn't be the affirnmative.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

TerribleTylenol said:


> I'm not defending what someone said earlier, but aren't those two a little different? Let's say you meet the perfect guy, and the one flaw is that he has seen someone in the sex industry. Choosing not to pursue a relationship has a much bigger effect on you and the person than a person choosing to have sex once. They are both choices, but one is a bigger decision, and using that as a legitimate criteria not to pursue what otherwise might be a worthwhile relationship sounds kind of vain to me. You are basically claiming that someone who has sex with a sex worker (even once) is inherently different than than someone who does not. I still agree that it is your choice, but I think all choices including the OP's decision can be up for discussion.
> 
> I've never done what the OP suggests, but I also don't see why anyone would reject someone who did if they:
> 1. Liked them as a person
> ...


You don't have to knit-pick what I said, lol. I had a hard time figuring out what that first sentence even meant, in fact. I included dating & sex life in the same category because I'm trying to be general. And does it matter anyway?, I included them both because I mean both or either, and this is going to vary from person to person.

Personally: I said it was a turn-off. I never actually once said "no", and especially not "no exceptions". Of course it depends on the person. If I fall in love with someone and they've seen an escort once or twice and they're clean, then yeah, obvious answer. Said this in the other thread as well actually, so I never changed my opinion. I'm saying by default, it is a huge turn-off and not something I would hope a man I am romantically associating with has done. People have good reasons for it. It is against some peoples' beliefs and morals, mine too. I'm sure you too have dealbreakers that may very well be "vain". By the way no, I don't think that's vain of someone. Main point: So what if it is a dealbreaker for some? That's all I've ever been saying here. I'm not suggesting nothing else is up for discussion.

I am not "basically" saying they are inherently different people, nor was I trying to imply that. We are on the same page there. It's really not that black and white, I agree, it depends on each person. _I_ said it was a turn-off and it's okay if other people would flat out say no for that reason. I never tried to imply they are totally different people, that one is evil and one is a saint, to clear that up. I think we agree on this.

In the other thread, I too advised the guy, don't say anything if they don't ask. When I meet a new guy, I'm not asking! That would be socially retarded. Then once in I'm a relationship, and I love them, there's no point in asking anyway. Yes, it's a turn-off if I found out about it. No, I wouldn't break up with someone for that. But if a man is regularly seeing prostitutes, I want nothing to do with someone like that, but so what? Besides, there are probably (not inherently) _other_ aspects to him that I won't find attractive to begin with.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

SofaKing said:


> Turn it around, would you be as accepting to date a woman who indiscriminately finds sexual partners whenever she isn't satisfied?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


Wouldn't turning it around be a woman who visits prostitutes? Male sex workers exist lol (or they could visit female ones,) and actually there are a number of women who see them due to it being easier and they know what they're doing sexually.

Anyway think someone might have made a thread asking that a while back, but might have imagined it.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

OtterlyAbsurd said:


> Eh. I think it would depend on the guy and the context. But some guy who brings it up early on, especially out of the blue, would probably set off some warning bells for me. Not the actual act itself, but the significance the guy places on it if he thinks it's necessary to mention within the first few dates. Oh, and the use of the word hooker would bother me too tbh.


This was pretty much what I was thinking tbh.

It's just weird to bring it up so early. Why would you? I mean, there is honesty and there is talking about stuff like this on a first date or whatever.

Romantic first date in the sit down fish and chip restaurant:

Woman: "So, what do you do?"
Man: "I work in some office job or other"
Man: "During my _dry spells_, I visit hookers"
Woman: "Ok, gtg"



realisticandhopeful said:


> Interesting question. Would love to hear what they'd say. Somehow i imagine it wouldn't be the affirnmative.


Not sure why it was a promiscuous woman (not the prostitute thing), but a woman who used a male prostitute during her "dry spells" I probably wouldn't be overly keen on, esp if they wtfrevealed it on the first date.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

Persephone The Dread said:


> Wouldn't turning it around be a woman who visits prostitutes? Male sex workers exist lol and actually there are a number of women who see them due to it being easier and they know what they're doing sexually.


I think the comparison is a fair one. Point being they have difficulty being with pple they want so immensely "lower" their standards/ take whatever sex they can get. Equivalent social stigma. Male and female sexuality will never be exactly equal (whether or not that's fair.) A woman going to a prostitute is extremely rare in comparison to men. Male prostitutes are most often visited by male consumers. But a woman who sees a lot of men has similar stigma to a man who sees prostitutes.


----------



## SofaKing (May 9, 2014)

Persephone The Dread said:


> Wouldn't turning it around be a woman who visits prostitutes? Male sex workers exist lol (or they could visit female ones,) and actually there are a number of women who see them due to it being easier and they know what they're doing sexually.


You're correct. The literal 180 scenario is women visiting a prostitute for their sexual dry spell (gender doesn't matter).

I was translating the scenario as someone might view the OPs original objective from an outside perspective. That while engaging a sex worker may be an option for having sex, that it would be viewed as an indiscriminate approach to satisfying sexual urges and therefore a reflection of their character beyond that.

If a man would visit sex workers when their sexual urges demand it, then it's fair to wonder what other lengths that same man might go to satisfy their sexual urges, i.e. infidelity. You could take it further to include abhorrent or even criminal behavior, but hopefully that would truly be limited to someone who already had more serious impulse control problems.

So, is it wrong to judge someone for visiting a sex worker? Maybe, but it would be a challenge to expect someone to both accept that at face value and not question what else could come to pass.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

realisticandhopeful said:


> I think the comparison is a fair one. Point being they have difficulty being with pple they want so immensely "lower" their standards/ take whatever sex they can get. Equivalent social stigma. Male and female sexuality will never be exactly equal (whether or not that's fair.) A woman going to a prostitute is extremely rare in comparison to men. Male prostitutes are most often visited by male consumers. But a woman who sees a lot of men has similar stigma to a man who sees prostitutes.


I dunno though there's presumably a difference between the stigma of a woman who's slept with a large number of people for free, and one who's used a prostitute potentially only one or a few times. Then again, it's not like I understand the degree to which women find this behaviour by men unattractive. I have a feeling it would scale with the number of prostitutes seen too.


----------



## SofaKing (May 9, 2014)

Persephone The Dread said:


> I dunno though there's presumably a difference between the stigma of a woman who's slept with a large number of people for free, and one who's used a prostitute potentially only one or a few times. Then again, it's not like I understand the degree to which women find this behaviour by men unattractive. I have a feeling it would scale with the number of prostitutes seen too.


Whether it's free or paid, few or many, it comes down to the concerns over impulse control and fidelity, IMHO.

If any man or woman were to say, "When I'm not sexually satisfied, I'll find someone to take care of that for me.", then that certainly would raise some trust issues for a monogamous relationship. At what point will someone's level of being sexually satisfied dip below their threshold where seeking another satisfying sexual partner is necessary. If someone says "Sexual gratification is important to me and I select or keep partners that can satisfy me.", sure that's setting a standard that must be met, but doesn't mean that they'd run out when they're in a specific dry spell to have those urges satisfied. Perhaps a grey area surrounding a thin line, but I see a difference.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

SofaKing said:


> Whether it's free or paid, few or many, it comes down to the concerns over impulse control and fidelity, IMHO.
> 
> If any man or woman were to say, "When I'm not sexually satisfied, I'll find someone to take care of that for me.", then that certainly would raise some trust issues for a monogamous relationship. At what point will someone's level of being sexually satisfied dip below their threshold where seeking another satisfying sexual partner is necessary. If someone says "Sexual gratification is important to me and I select or keep partners that can satisfy me.", sure that's setting a standard that must be met, but doesn't mean that they'd run out when they're in a specific dry spell to have those urges satisfied. Perhaps a grey area surrounding a thin line, but I see a difference.


I think there's an extra dimension at least for women where they worry about whether women are being exploited or not with prostitution (and obviously that really depends on the circumstances, but it's enough to completely turn off some women,) and other moral concerns and I definitely think women are more bothered on average by prostitution than male promiscuity in general. Tbh I think a lot of women would prefer a guy who could have sex with lots of women but chooses not to, but they seem less fussy about that compared to men.


----------



## OtterlyAbsurd (Jan 25, 2017)

MoonCaptain said:


> Why does the word hooker bothers you?


It's just... derogatory, I guess. If a guy is hypocritical enough to visit a sex worker but then looks down on her and considers her sl*tty or a wh*re, I have an issue with that. @truant mentioned this more eloquently earlier in the thread.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

It perplexes me that every time there's a thread around here that asks about people's preferences, there are some people whose preferences are accepted as valid...and some other people who are going to have to defend/explain their preferences at length. Why ask for _opinions_ when all you want is everyone to agree with you...?



TerribleTylenol said:


> Let's say you meet the perfect guy, and the one flaw is that he has seen someone in the sex industry. Choosing not to pursue a relationship has a much bigger effect on you and the person than a person choosing to have sex once. They are both choices, but one is a bigger decision, and using that as a legitimate criteria not to pursue what otherwise might be a worthwhile relationship sounds kind of vain to me.


This reeks of the "I'm a nice guy, I know I'm not your type but just give me a chance!" argument.

Why is it vain to have a preference? And who arbitrarily decides which preference is more important or "bigger" than another? People reject "otherwise compatible" mates on the basis of looks, age, religion, politics, you name it, are they all vain as well? Are their preferences small or petty?

There are tons of guys who reject women who might otherwise have _everything_ in common with them, just because those women are packing too many pounds. (There was a guy on this site, for example, who once said, "I would have sex with a fat woman once just to lose my virginity, but I'd never get in a relationship with her." Other guys say, "Well, if we have a lot in common but I'm not attracted to her, she can't be my girlfriend but maybe we can be friends.") I might find it hurtful myself, being one of those types of women, but I'm not going to call their preference "vain" because they're overlooking everything else about me. For all I know they really CAN'T find me compatible, no matter how hard they try, because of how I look. That's not my fault and it's not their fault either. *It's their turnoff*, and no amount of me _otherwise being compatible with them_ will change it.

Well, same with a woman who can't be attracted to a guy who visited a prostitute. It's her turnoff. Plain and simple. :stu If a guy shouldn't be shamed for visiting a prostitute, then a woman shouldn't be shamed (called "vain," for example) for not being attracted to that guy for that reason.

Men have their needs and wants, and we women have ours. The good thing is our preferences are all different. Say I don't want to get with a guy who visited a prostitute. So okay, there's another woman who will. Why is one of us vain and the other not? Just because we have different preferences? Can I call EVERY guy "vain" just because they've all rejected me, even though they have their reasons? :|

Sarcasm font (since people here often seem to miss my sarcasm): I might be a _perfect_ girlfriend for a guy--if only he'd look past the fact that I don't want sex. But nope, most guys have the preference of wanting sex, so they ignore every other thing about me that's compatible, and won't even give me a chance. How vain of them!



TerribleTylenol said:


> I still agree that it is your choice, but I think all choices including the OP's decision can be up for discussion.


Yet you didn't ask the OP to defend/explain his preferences...



SofaKing said:


> Turn it around, would you be as accepting to date a woman who indiscriminately finds sexual partners whenever she isn't satisfied?


I already know the answer to this one...many guys have made it quite clear where they stand on this issue. Interesting question, nonetheless.

And I suspect the answer would be pretty much the same if it were the exact opposite scenario of a woman visiting a prostitute. There are some guys here who have said they'd be unhappy knowing their girlfriend had had even _one_ previous sexual encounter.



realisticandhopeful said:


> But a woman who sees a lot of men has similar stigma to a man who sees prostitutes.





Riker said:


> A woman with a history of sleeping around is an accurate comparison to a man that has visited prostitutes, even though they are different scenarios. They are both behaviors people will frown upon when it comes an individual fulfilling their sexual needs in ways society consider immoral. There isn't as much of a stigma towards women seeing prostitutes as it applies to men.


:ditto


----------



## TerribleTylenol (Mar 29, 2017)

Atheism said:


> Personally: I said it was a turn-off. I never actually once said "no", and especially not "no exceptions". Of course it depends on the person. If I fall in love with someone and they've seen an escort once or twice and they're clean, then yeah, obvious answer. Said this in the other thread as well actually, so I never changed my opinion. I'm saying by default, it is a huge turn-off and not something I would hope a man I am romantically associating with has done. People have good reasons for it. It is against some peoples' beliefs and morals, mine too. I'm sure you too have dealbreakers that may very well be "vain". By the way no, I don't think that's vain of someone. Main point: So what if it is a dealbreaker for some? That's all I've ever been saying here. I'm not suggesting nothing else is up for discussion.


I'm Sorry; I misunderstood what you said. I completely get it being a turn-off, and I didn't mean to nit-pick you. I regret posting that in the first place


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

Never mind, OP is a troll. Entire thread is a hoax. :lol


----------



## TerribleTylenol (Mar 29, 2017)

tehuti88 said:


> This reeks of the "I'm a nice guy, I know I'm not your type but just give me a chance!" argument.
> 
> Why is it vain to have a preference? And who arbitrarily decides which preference is more important or "bigger" than another? People reject "otherwise compatible" mates on the basis of looks, age, religion, politics, you name it, are they all vain as well? Are their preferences small or petty?


Your post is full of assumptions about what I said. In a hypothetical situation in which the only thing wrong with a human being is that they saw a sex-worker, yes, that would be a vain reason, in and of itself. If the OP was a woman, and someone who was male said that that alone would be a deal-breaker with no further inquisition, then I would say his decision was vain. I misunderstood the person I responded to in the first place, and I apologize. This has nothing to do with a double standard among men and women (for me at least, and I'm sorry if that isn't what you are implying) I really, seriously regret ever posting that. I won't let it happen again.


----------



## euphoria04 (May 8, 2012)

tehuti88 said:


> I already know the answer to this one...many guys have made it quite clear where they stand on this issue. Interesting question, nonetheless.
> 
> And I suspect the answer would be pretty much the same if it were the exact opposite scenario of a woman visiting a prostitute. There are some guys here who have said they'd be unhappy knowing their girlfriend had had even _one_ previous sexual encounter.


This is men having preferences too. There's nothing wrong with this.

Now the moral inconsistency of seeing sex workers and _then_ having those expectations of your significant other, yeah that would be a problem.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

tehuti88 said:


> Never mind, OP is a troll. Entire thread is a hoax. :lol


Sure is. How about TerribleTylenol? I'm thinking duplicate account. In fact this is getting fairly absurd. Maybe there should be a probationary period for new members, limiting them to one new thread a day and only a few posts a day for a month. Also, all threads that start with "Girls, would you..." or "Females, would you..." get locked immediately.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

euphoria04 said:


> This is men having preferences too. There's nothing wrong with this.
> 
> *Now the moral inconsistency of seeing sex workers and then having those expectations of your significant other, yeah that would be a problem.*


:agree

Bolded is the part that bothers me. I see it quite a lot and it's strange. :/ If a person is at least consistent, then I can't blame them for anything.

ETA:



Qolselanu said:


> Maybe there should be a probationary period for new members, limiting them to one new thread a day and only a few posts a day for a month. Also, all threads that start with "Girls, would you..." or "Females, would you..." get locked immediately.


He was sneaky this time, usually I catch him faster than this. :lol

And I would have no problem with "Women/men, would you?" threads getting canned, since it's obvious what they're looking for. But meh, I don't see that happening any time soon. :/


----------



## euphoria04 (May 8, 2012)

tehuti88 said:


> :agree
> 
> Bolded is the part that bothers me. I see it quite a lot and it's strange. :/ If a person is at least consistent, then I can't blame them for anything.


Yep. And though I may not _blame_ them, I certainly won't be surprised when they find themselves alone for long periods of time with expectations like the 'even one sexual encounter'.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

TerribleTylenol said:


> Your post is full of assumptions about what I said. In a hypothetical situation in which the only thing wrong with a human being is that they saw a sex-worker, yes, that would be a vain reason, in and of itself. *If the OP was a woman, and someone who was male said that that alone would be a deal-breaker with no further inquisition, then I would say his decision was vain.* I misunderstood the person I responded to in the first place, and I apologize. This has nothing to do with a double standard among men and women (for me at least, and I'm sorry if that isn't what you are implying) I really, seriously regret ever posting that. I won't let it happen again.


Okay, so you still think it's vain. I do not think it is at all, just saying. Again, there are moral reasons why someone would reject that man. And honestly tehuti put it perfectly so I can't say any more. Oh well, at the end of the day, fine if you think it's vain. Everyone is vain. Not a single person is exempt from this.



TerribleTylenol said:


> I'm Sorry; I misunderstood what you said. I completely get it being a turn-off, and I didn't mean to nit-pick you. I regret posting that in the first place


No, it's okay. Sorry. I actually just realized I regret taking this thread seriously at all, after finding out the OP is a troll. Refer to tehuti's link. Ughhhhh lol.

I mean I should not have taken it seriously to begin with. All of these threads are always one person looking for one specific answer, lol.



Qolselanu said:


> Sure is. How about TerribleTylenol? I'm thinking duplicate account. In fact this is getting fairly absurd. Maybe there should be a probationary period for new members, limiting them to one new thread a day and only a few posts a day for a month. *Also, all threads that start with "Girls, would you..." or "Females, would you..." get locked immediately.*


I would be totally 100% okay with that at this point. The more these threads are made, the more I seriously would agree.


----------



## EarthaKitten (Mar 22, 2017)

I am certainly no prude, and being married takes me out of having the experience of this conversation actually happening, but if you admitted to me that you had been to see prostitutes, I would want you to be STD checked prior to sexual involvement....not judging...just safety there. Especially if you went to unlicensed street prostitutes or someone you found on Craig's List or something.... I mean, no one wants syphilis...or worse.


----------



## Pongowaffle (Jul 23, 2015)

For someone like me who do not even have much friends and social connections now, I do not even know the first place to look for hookers or escorts other than street prostitutes. People make it sound like it is easy to find one. But it is only when you know the people. 

Better off just going on Tinder or dating sites to find a quick no bs hookup. You don't have to pay and it's not illegal.

The funny thing is I am sure my parents and family all think I regularly go to places for paid sex. They probably cannot believe I would be able to go sex less for so long especially for a man. Reality I would be too socially intimidated get a hookup to these kinds of places.


----------



## Kandice (Jan 26, 2017)

MoonCaptain said:


> Or will that turn you off once you found out about it?.


I think it's a normal behavior. People hook up with random people all the time during their dry spells. Hooking up with a "sex worker" is really not any different. The only difference I can think of is that you're paying for it, which is not a bad thing. This woman/man can't land a job or cannot make enough money to support themselves or their family, so they are pursing other options. Not only are you getting sex but you can also feel good at the fact that you are probably helping someone feed themselves, their kids, or simply paying off their student loan debt.

On another note, people have their own preferences so mind your own business.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

I can't think of anything worse than paying for sex, so I can understand it being a turn-off for the majority of women. In fact, even in platonic consensual situations I would opt out if I felt it would have any hint of a negative consequence for either party involved on the emotional level. I don't prioritise sex or need it that much, and as others have already mentioned, it has a great deal to do with the desire that's (or should be) reciprocated anyway.

I used to have different views on it when I was younger though.


----------



## TerribleTylenol (Mar 29, 2017)

Qolselanu said:


> Sure is. How about TerribleTylenol? I'm thinking duplicate account. In fact this is getting fairly absurd. Maybe there should be a probationary period for new members, limiting them to one new thread a day and only a few posts a day for a month. Also, all threads that start with "Girls, would you..." or "Females, would you..." get locked immediately.


I'm not a troll; I had a lefitimate opinion, and when I realized I had upset someone, then I backed off because it got me anxious, and I felt really bad. **** you for accusing me of being a troll simply because I'm new. I simply thought the topic was a little interesting. What gives you the impression that I'm a troll? I wasn't intentionally being a dick.


----------



## mezzoforte (May 16, 2010)

Yes, my views on this have changed within the last few years. I support women who do sex work (whether it's prostitution, stripping, etc.) as long as it's their choice. And I don't see anything wrong with a man paying for a service from a consenting adult.

However, I would definitely want to make sure that the man had positive views on women, similar to my own. I don't think all men who have seen prostitutes are bad guys, but there are probably a lot of them out there that just see women as objects.



Persephone The Dread said:


> It seems to turn most women off from what I've noticed, I don't think it would bother me (*obviously needs to get std checks*,) but I'm only a little bit female. (Disclaimer before someone finds it weird again that I'm posting in a gendered thread.)


:yes


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

As long as the prostitute is a consenting adult, then I don't see any problem with it. 


I can understand why some men would see a prostitute, maybe they're lonely and horny and can't get any dates or sex from a real woman. So as a last record, they go see a prostitute.


----------



## versikk (Nov 25, 2013)

mezzoforte said:


> but there are probably a lot of them out there that just see women as objects.
> 
> :yes


Bodies *are* objects.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

xxDark Horse said:


> I can understand why some men would see a prostitute, maybe they're lonely and horny and can't get any dates or sex from a real woman.


TIL prostitutes aren't real women.



versikk said:


> Bodies *are* objects.


People are more than just bodies. :| I'm pretty sure you must know what she meant...


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Are guys that go to hookers willing to date women that used to be hookers?


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Yuck! A real guy has the balls to withstand any dry spell. A hooker is like a baby's need for a pacifier instead of the real thing!


----------

