PDA

View Full Version : Paying for "it"...



Scheherazade
11-12-2009, 08:12 AM
Following the heated debates on what counts as "fidelity", I wondered what our members' take on "gratification for cash" issue.

Do you consider this infidelity or does it not count?


***Please note that the poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.***

TheFifthElement
11-12-2009, 08:50 AM
It'd depend if the person was in a relationship or not. If they were then yes, if not then no. You haven't got a poll option for that one.

Granny5
11-12-2009, 08:57 AM
I don't think the act of paying for "it" is necessarily wrong morally. I guess it keeps some folks employed, but I wonder why someone would feel the need to do that. Maybe it's different for others, but wouldn't "it" lose the emotion of "it"? Would "it" be the same as masturbation without the emotional connection?

papayahed
11-12-2009, 08:58 AM
It'd depend if the person was in a relationship or not. If they were then yes, if not then no. You haven't got a poll option for that one.

It wouldn't be infidelity if you weren't in a relationship would it?

TheFifthElement
11-12-2009, 09:07 AM
It wouldn't be infidelity if you weren't in a relationship would it?

That was my point.

Michael T
11-12-2009, 09:21 AM
:eek2:Scher! You shock me. I always considered our angelic moderator to be above such sordid issues as sex.:angel: Besides, you haven't given us your own opinion. ;)

I voted 'No and I consider it infidelity' based on the person paying for sex being in a relationship with someone else at the time.

I fail to see how cash changing hands could alter the issue of fedelity. Lets face it, if someone is willing to pay cash for it they would probably jump (pardon the pun) at the chance of a freebie! :rolleyes:

MarkBastable
11-12-2009, 09:27 AM
Would "it" be the same as masturbation without the emotional connection?

Indeed. As Woody Allen said, "At least masturbation is sex with someone I really love."

Lokasenna
11-12-2009, 10:09 AM
I think its all rather sordid, and I would never be so desperate as to actually pay for it... however, I'm all for it being legalized. My distaste for it is purely subjective. If it were legalized, then it could be better monitored... at the end of the day, whores are one of the most likely targets for assault, rape and murder, not to mention the strong connections with drugs, gangs and disease.

Nope, best thing to do is make it legal. You can have better protection for the ladies, have medical screenings, and generate a tax revenue from it.

OrphanPip
11-12-2009, 12:46 PM
No, unless you consider buying someone dinner paying for sex.

Granny5
11-12-2009, 02:09 PM
No, unless you consider buying someone dinner paying for sex.


Now this is a whole other thread!

ennison
11-12-2009, 02:13 PM
Dinner for sex? More of us are faced with the dinner or sex dilemma.

Lokasenna
11-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Dinner for sex? More of us are faced with the dinner or sex dilemma.

I wouldn't advise trying both at the same time... it would be rather messy...

Maryd.
11-12-2009, 04:36 PM
I wouldn't advise trying both at the same time... it would be rather messy...

Soooo funny Lokasenna.

In my opinion, infidelity is infidelity, paid or not. If you are in a relationship it is still infidelity. If you are not and you want to pay to have a little fun, then that is your prerogative.

I'm not to keen on the paying issue. I mean there's no emotional intimacy, just physical... I need emotional. :rolleyes:

papayahed
11-12-2009, 09:32 PM
That was my point.


ermmmm but that doesn't really make sense. The question is about fidelity which insinuates a relationship so having an option about not being in a relationship doesn't have a place in a poll about fidelity..

soundofmusic
11-12-2009, 09:49 PM
:eek2:Scher! You shock me. I always considered our angelic moderator to be above such sordid issues as sex.:angel: Besides, you haven't given us your own opinion. ;)


:eek: :blush: :cool:
Scher, I am equally shocked and impressed...You are so cool:)
As to the question, While one may not go out on the street and pick up a stranger; I think we often "pay for it". I know many women my age who have found men who have less secure jobs, broken cars, children with ragged clothes. The women seem to have a smile on their face one week, pay for the movies the next, put a down payment on a new car for themselves...Which the man picks out and drives, and later, they buy him a car, buy his kids clothes, etc. Are they paying "for it"; I'd say yes, big time!

papayahed
11-12-2009, 10:32 PM
:eek: :blush: :cool:
Scher, I am equally shocked and impressed...You are so cool:)
As to the question, While one may not go out on the street and pick up a stranger; I think we often "pay for it". I know many women my age who have found men who have less secure jobs, broken cars, children with ragged clothes. The women seem to have a smile on their face one week, pay for the movies the next, put a down payment on a new car for themselves...Which the man picks out and drives, and later, they buy him a car, buy his kids clothes, etc. Are they paying "for it"; I'd say yes, big time!


hmmm.... Is that why I'm single? I ain't payin' for crap. The best you're gonna get out of me is splitting the bill.

Anyways, I've wonder occasionally. If a woman makes more then her date is it wrong to let the man pay?

soundofmusic
11-13-2009, 12:36 AM
hmmm.... Is that why I'm single? I ain't payin' for crap. The best you're gonna get out of me is splitting the bill.

Anyways, I've wonder occasionally. If a woman makes more then her date is it wrong to let the man pay?

You're a very smart lady, papayahead. I think you'll do just fine whether you choose to remain single or marry!

That is a very good question! I often insisted on paying for my dates because I prefered to eat what I wanted and I didn't like to see a man looking doubtfully into his wallet and watching his gas gauge fall to empty. I also didn't like to go to his house too early in the evening and be entertained by his playing a few horrid chords on the guitar or trying to reinvent some sex scene he saw in an x-rated movie. (mind you, I never gave my ulterior motives away) In the beginning of the relationships, the men were very pleased to be eating lobster, going to nice hotels and traveling; but later, they felt as if I was manipulating them, dangling some big piece of candy in front of them that they didn't want to refuse.
If I were young again, I would hide any money I had deep in my wallet, put away the expensive underclothes and play it with the regular girl lines!

Scheherazade
11-13-2009, 02:10 AM
According to this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7257623.stm) on BBC 1/10 men pay for "it" so I am wondering why this is not reflected in our poll... ;)
I fail to see how cash changing hands could alter the issue of fedelity. Lets face it, if someone is willing to pay cash for it they would probably jump (pardon the pun) at the chance of a freebie!It is not because "cash changing hands" but because, some claim, there is no emotional attachment involved in a paid transaction, it wouldn't count as "infidelity".
Dinner for sex? More of us are faced with the dinner or sex dilemma.Or some might end up paying for both; not cost effective.

;)
Anyways, I've wonder occasionally. If a woman makes more then her date is it wrong to let the man pay?I don't think men should pick the tab all the time but for me it depends on who invited whom.

Regardless of who is the bigger earner, if I invited someone somewhere, I would like to pay for their share as well.

OrphanPip
11-13-2009, 02:15 AM
Regardless of who is the bigger earner, if I invited someone somewhere, I would like to pay for their share as well.

I agree with that. I dated someone once who wouldn't let me pay for anything, it drove me insane, I couldn't even buy coffee or dessert for them. So, of course the relationship lasted 9 months, gah. In retrospect it was great for my wallet.

African_Love
11-13-2009, 01:17 PM
Following the heated debates on what counts as "fidelity", I wondered what our members' take on "gratification for cash" issue.

Do you consider this infidelity or does it not count?


***Please note that the poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.***

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be considered infidelity.

gbrekken
11-13-2009, 04:45 PM
infidelity has fidelity at its base, but if there is no one involved with you, how is its negative possible.

"cash for gratification", while available, certainly doesn't seem the route to anything worth being faithful to or for.

soundofmusic
11-13-2009, 06:22 PM
Hugh Grant eventually lost his girlfriend and possibly, alot of movie deals over his "paying for it". Yet a number of stars are considered more attractive when they cheat on their mates. Why?
Personally, I found Hugh Grant alittle pitiful when I thought he had to pay for it. Yet, in theory, I have thought of the relative ease and simplicity of paying for a young mans company for whatever I desired. It might be a tremendous ego boost to my old, feeling fat, ego.

Emil Miller
11-13-2009, 07:10 PM
Hugh Grant eventually lost his girlfriend and possibly, alot of movie deals over his "paying for it". Yet a number of stars are considered more attractive when they cheat on their mates. Why?
Personally, I found Hugh Grant alittle pitiful when I thought he had to pay for it. Yet, in theory, I have thought of the relative ease and simplicity of paying for a young mans company for whatever I desired. It might be a tremendous ego boost to my old, feeling fat, ego.

If you are truly old and feeling fat, there is no doubt about it, for it most certainly would boost your ego.

Paulclem
11-13-2009, 07:27 PM
The problem with paying fo it is what the pay goes into. It's like paying for drugs - the sufferings we see in the user country is one thing, but the suffering in the country of orgin is greater, for example Columbia where poverty is directy linked to the drugs trade.

In terms of the sex trade, what the punter doesn't see is possibly human trafficking, slavery, drug dependance, dysfunctional families etc.

If you pay for it you may be sanctioning, financing, promoting, supporting demand for any of the above.

There is an erotic element to the idea of the sex industry, such as in Pretty Woman, but this is surely a male myth.

Just to add, I never have and wouldn't as it would be infidelity.

soundofmusic
11-19-2009, 11:53 PM
If you are truly old and feeling fat, there is no doubt about it, for it most certainly would boost your ego.

Ah, yes, Brian. If I could only get on the "one time payment plan". Or perhaps, one of those deals like they have with tools where you trade them in every 5 years if they show any signs of wear:brow:


The problem with paying fo it is what the pay goes into. It's like paying for drugs - the sufferings we see in the user country is one thing, but the suffering in the country of orgin is greater, for example Columbia where poverty is directy linked to the drugs trade.

In terms of the sex trade, what the punter doesn't see is possibly human trafficking, slavery, drug dependance, dysfunctional families etc.

If you pay for it you may be sanctioning, financing, promoting, supporting demand for any of the above.

.

That's an excellent argument; but I've only heard it from law enforcement..

JBI
11-20-2009, 12:47 AM
Hugh Grant eventually lost his girlfriend and possibly, alot of movie deals over his "paying for it". Yet a number of stars are considered more attractive when they cheat on their mates. Why?
Personally, I found Hugh Grant alittle pitiful when I thought he had to pay for it. Yet, in theory, I have thought of the relative ease and simplicity of paying for a young mans company for whatever I desired. It might be a tremendous ego boost to my old, feeling fat, ego.

He lost his dignity because he was caught trying to solicit a police officer - in that sense, it seems like he is somewhat of a sexual predator, or at least a sleaze bag. In contrast, for instance, Pavarotti's prolonged affair with his personal assistant is instead perhaps projected as something different, particularly because he ended up marrying her in the end - so instead it is taken as perhaps a somewhat rude, but inevitable love story.

It would be interesting to note though, Berlusconi's current "scandal" - it seems to have not really tarnished his reputation. His profile as super-interesting, super-rich virile womanizer seems to be appealing to crowds even while he is undergoing all this killeraggio (a new term for defamation coined specifically for this incident). What can we make of that then? But, from what he is said to pay the call girls, I guess we can suggest that he is at least in part "classy" rather than sleazy.

I think, in another way gender has something to do with it. A promiscuous, gigolo soliciting woman is probably going to have a worse reputation if word gets out than a man. Quite simply, in youth culture, a girl would be termed a slut, whereas a man would be deemed a player - the status amongst men for the man would probably increase, whereas for the woman, probably decrease. as age factors in, I think both types of people are frowned upon.


I don't know though - I have never paid for sex, and will never pay for sex. Quite simply prostitutes are of no interest to me. I personally don't particularly care if people solicit prostitutes, assuming it is done under a legal, and regulated frame, such as the one set up in Nevada, or in The Netherlands (but certainly not in Thailand).

As for it being infidelity - well, it isn't if they ask their partner first, or have an agreement about it - personally, I wouldn't be inclined to make such an agreement, and I certainly wouldn't even consider asking a partner for such consent, but we live in a world where perhaps such relationships are, if not normal, existent.

Jozanny
11-20-2009, 01:14 AM
What is it with this forum of late? Maybe I shouldn't ask, since I am liable to raise my blood pressure, but the young ones poll infidelity as right or wrong, and now we get to tackle the world's oldest profession? Anyone want to read my cover article on sexuality and sexual harassment in the attendant care system for the disabled, I'll send you to the url to buy the back issue :rolleyes: but this I am not touching.

Scheherazade
11-20-2009, 04:13 AM
now we get to tackle the world's oldest profession? We are not discussing that at all; we are not trying to determine whether it is right or wrong or why people do it or who benefits from it...

We are simply discussing its relationship with fidelity.

gbrekken
11-20-2009, 02:19 PM
if someone pays me for being unfaithful to nothing, am I not the richer? facetious and specious are not my best qualities.

I'll not answer the survey question because it is not applicable to such as I am

Paulclem
11-20-2009, 04:18 PM
Ah, yes, Brian. If I could only get on the "one time payment plan". Or perhaps, one of those deals like they have with tools where you trade them in every 5 years if they show any signs of wear:brow:



That's an excellent argument; but I've only heard it from law enforcement..

It came to my attention from a programme I was watching - a documentary on South america, and something I read - not the law. The aspect of drug taking, which I gave as an example, that I had not considered was the effect on the local producing population who are under the control of drug organisations. Look at Colombia and Afghanistan or China in the 19th century. The local population suffers whilst richer residents in richer nations live it up.

The same goes for the sex trade. Never mind the male fantasies - the realities are that a lot is controlled by criminals fulfilling the demand for sevices. It's obvious where the money goes.

Prostitutes and local populations in drug producing countries are the losers.

I'm not taking either side of the law here. There are arguments for legalisation of both to cut out the criminals.

soundofmusic
11-20-2009, 08:01 PM
I think, in another way gender has something to do with it. A promiscuous, gigolo soliciting woman is probably going to have a worse reputation if word gets out than a man. Quite simply, in youth culture, a girl would be termed a slut, whereas a man would be deemed a player - the status amongst men for the man would probably increase, whereas for the woman, probably decrease. as age factors in, I think both types of people are frowned upon

I don't really know of the Pavorotti situation; but I assume that he was "keeping a mistress" rather than paying for a one night stand. I wonder if the reputation of the solicitor actually depends on the reputation of the person he/she picks up. Or perhaps, it is using the pick up line rather than asking the person for a cup of coffee and then taking them to a hotel room.
I fancy myself too much of a lady to take services from a male prostitute; however, as an older widow, I would not object to being generous with a young man who offered physical and intellectual companionship for an
extended time (that is, should I ever be desirous of such a relationship).




The same goes for the sex trade. Never mind the male fantasies - the realities are that a lot is controlled by criminals fulfilling the demand for sevices. It's obvious where the money goes.

Prostitutes and local populations in drug producing countries are the losers.

I'm not taking either side of the law here. There are arguments for legalisation of both to cut out the criminals.

Yes, this is unfortunately the reality of markets such as: sex, liquor and drugs. These things are out of control because they are not only of use to the criminals; but to the governments.

Scheherazade
10-11-2011, 04:43 PM
OP:
Following the heated debates on what counts as "fidelity", I wondered what our members' take on "gratification for cash" issue.

Do you consider this infidelity or does it not count?


***Please note that the poll is anonymous so you can vote freely.***What do you think?

Alexander III
10-12-2011, 06:31 AM
I have been with prostitutes on many an occasion in my life. I mean what else is there to do in highschool and university except whoring and drinking?

I think a problem with the conversation so far is that all prostitutes are being lumped together- which is hardly reflective of reality.

There are sex-slaves who come from west Africa and eastern europe which are very prevalant in big cities. But their clientle tends to be from the lower classes or from drug addicts - people who have little money to spend on such things and thus prefer paying less and ****ing a girl who is literaly a slave.

Then there are girls who work in brothels by choice. These in london will cost you from 150-250 pounds for the hour. Most of these girls are english or continental and all are quite content with their job. Of course the internet has revolutionized everything. Brothels are slowly being replaced by online agency. One goes to the website picks a pretty girl, calls her and books an apointment and then goes to her appartment or she comes to yours for a screw. These girls hardly suffer and I would say most enjoy their jobs - they always are kind and charming and very pleasant to b with.

Then there are the escorts which in one night make more money than most people do in a year.

As for infidelity - I do not think sleeping with a hooker is cheating. It is esentialy aided masturbation. Nothing more or less.

virginiawang
10-12-2011, 06:34 AM
I voted for the third.
I am sure I am still a virgin now, though I was drugged. Here I have double standards for men and women. If a lady has had sex with many men, she cannot love. However if a man has had sex with many women, it is fine, because some women are not as healthy.

Alexander III
10-12-2011, 06:45 AM
The double standard doesnt seem sexist to me - it just aknowleges the different roles men and women play during courtship. ANd these roles are not interchangable as women and men no longer find it attractive when the opposite is behaving like the same sex.

Either way I digress - But in summary a key which can open any lock is called a Master Key. A Lock which can be opened by any key is called a Broken Lock.

virginiawang
10-12-2011, 06:52 AM
The double standard doesnt seem sexist to me - it just aknowleges the different roles men and women play during courtship. ANd these roles are not interchangable as women and men no longer find it attractive when the opposite is behaving like the same sex.

Either way I digress - But is summary a lock which can open every key is called a Master Key. A Lock which can be opened by any key is called a Broken Lock.
What does that mean?

Alexander III
10-12-2011, 07:03 AM
Woops I typo - I adjusted it now

virginiawang
10-12-2011, 07:10 AM
Though I am not sure what happened in my sleep, I did not feel anything or see anyone. I knew sth happened on the second day because of my headache, but I am sure I am still intact. I went to a female doctor with my grandma to get a checkup, in the hope of reaching the truth, and she told me I am still a virgin after the checkup. I was not raped in my sleep though I was drugged.
I believe in the female doctor, because as far as I know, the one who drugged me did not want to ruin me, without my allowance.

Nobody can drug me now. I could not read or write anything on the second day, and I knew I was drugged. However I believe in the female doctor, who told me after a check up with cotton sticks and a big screen, that I am intact.

PoeticPassions
10-12-2011, 08:01 AM
What just happened here?

***

Infidelity is what you define it to be. I suppose that two people in a relationship should set up their own parameters. For me, any type of physical, sexual contact is infidelity... now whether there are worse infidelities or better ones (from a moral standpoint), I'm not sure. I suppose just a kiss is forgivable, or maybe sending nude photos, or 'sexts' (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) is within limits of the acceptable... But having sex with someone else, and maybe even particularly a prostitute (wrap it up!) could be potentially dangerous to one's partner... I know so many women that have gotten numerous STDs from their husbands or long-term boyfriends (I am sure it goes both ways though)

Anyway, I do think it is infidelity however you turn it... though I suppose that for me, if my partner were to fall in love with someone else that would be worse than just sleeping with someone else. Either way, I don't think I could continue the relationship (unless we had agreed for it to be open in the first place).

virginiawang
10-12-2011, 09:07 AM
I am still a virgin, because, as my grandma told me, a doctor could not have lied. I picked up a clinic randomly by a call from a public phone, so nobody could have contacted the female doctor before I reached in ten minutes in a taxi. My feelings never lied. When she did the check up for me, I knew I was a virgin. I am very sensitive. I can know everything.

Before I left her clinic, she told me seriously the fact that I could go to all the other clinics in Taiwan to make it more sure, if I had doubts, and the fact that I could sue her if she lied. She said she did not dare to lie under such circumstances.

tonywalt
10-16-2011, 02:57 PM
Unlike Virginia's virginity - this thread is screwed...if we do not get back on topic.

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy on this topic, so damn Alex you have a lot of wisdom and courage!! I can never say what you said, I need the points with the girls!! Otherwise I will be paying for "IT".

Alexander III
10-16-2011, 03:09 PM
Unlike Virginia's virginity - this thread is screwed...if we do not get back on topic.

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy on this topic, so damn Alex you have a lot of wisdom and courage!! I can never say what you said, I need the points with the girls!! Otherwise I will be paying for "IT".

If whoring would give a man wisdom and courage - the world would be brim-full with these virtues

Vonny
10-16-2011, 03:12 PM
Unlike Virginia's virginity - this thread is screwed...if we do not get back on topic.

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy on this topic, so damn Alex you have a lot of wisdom and courage!! I can never say what you said, I need the points with the girls!! Otherwise I will be paying for "IT".

Tony, we need men like you. :lol: And some women need to make a living, like my mother did.

JuniperWoolf
10-16-2011, 08:57 PM
Either way I digress - But in summary a key which can open any lock is called a Master Key. A Lock which can be opened by any key is called a Broken Lock.

And if it's true of locksmithing, it must be true of human sexuality.*sarcasm*

You're naive if you think that women have sexual inclinations that are different than those of men. It's evolutionarily advantageous for us to have multiple partners as well. The numbers show us that the offspring so-called "monogamous" females are 40%-80% likely (depending on which study you look at) to belong do a different male than their mother's official mate.

It would seem to be in our nature to seek stable, loving males to be our "mates" and strong, biologically superior males to breed with, and this is what we and other "monogamous" females have done for thousands of years. If you think about it without any moral considerations, this system leads to supportive families AND genetic advancement for our species - the good official mate helps to build a strong habitat and feed the young, the good breeder provides the DNA. At the same time, while his female mate is nailing biologically superior males, the official male mate tries to find a female which deems him the best provisioner DNA and makes her some strong babies for some other male to raise and support (who is himself likewise trying to screw around).

Before the whole "marriage based on romantic love" fad, this situation was win-win. It might seem a bit complicated, but I think it would work if everyone kept their mouth shut. *shrug* It certainly works for the aristocracy.

Alexander III
10-17-2011, 08:23 AM
And if it's true of locksmithing, it must be true of human sexuality.*sarcasm*

You're naive if you think that women have sexual inclinations that are different than those of men. It's evolutionarily advantageous for us to have multiple partners as well. The numbers show us that the offspring so-called "monogamous" females are 40%-80% likely (depending on which study you look at) to belong do a different male than their mother's official mate.

It would seem to be in our nature to seek stable, loving males to be our "mates" and strong, biologically superior males to breed with, and this is what we and other "monogamous" females have done for thousands of years. If you think about it without any moral considerations, this system leads to supportive families AND genetic advancement for our species - the good official mate helps to build a strong habitat and feed the young, the good breeder provides the DNA. At the same time, while his female mate is nailing biologically superior males, the official male mate tries to find a female which deems him the best provisioner DNA and makes her some strong babies for some other male to raise and support (who is himself likewise trying to screw around).

Before the whole "marriage based on romantic love" fad, this situation was win-win. It might seem a bit complicated, but I think it would work if everyone kept their mouth shut. *shrug* It certainly works for the aristocracy.


You complicate things to much. The general consensus of european woman find a guy who has slept-around to be an atractive trait. The general consensus of european guys find a woman that has slept-around to be an unatractive quality. I say european because that is what I know best. Maybe in America it's different.

Also a guy who sleeps around is comunaly refered to as a play-boy, or pre 1960's a Rake. Both of these do not have moral positive connotations but they do on the whole have positive conotations.

On the other hand women who sleep around are comunaly refered to as sluts, negative connotations all round.

All of this is not because of some male scheme to opress woman. It is simply because men find woman who sleep around to much, to be unatractive - while with women it's the opposite. If you girls would be more atracted to guys with little sexual experiance everything would change perception wise.

YesNo
10-17-2011, 08:50 AM
I suspect men and women sleep around about the same amount. After all, if a man has heterosexual relations with someone else it is with a woman. I think it is also well known that men tend to brag about their experiences, perhaps exaggerating them, while women cover them up. This helps maintain the illusions of "attractiveness" that Alexander III mentions which I think are the same in the US.

If, as JuniperWoolf mentions, 40%-60% of the monogamous females have children by other men than their husbands, this explains the divorce rate and would be counterproductive to having a "stable, loving male" at home. This makes me think that marital infidelity by either men or women is mainly for sex with no intent to procreate with better DNA.

It is kind of amazing that some men (alpha males?) think they are "master keys" with a right to open any lock on the block. I usually think of them as ordinary keys that keep forgetting their house numbers.

tonywalt
10-17-2011, 10:16 AM
And if it's true of locksmithing, it must be true of human sexuality.*sarcasm*

You're naive if you think that women have sexual inclinations that are different than those of men. It's evolutionarily advantageous for us to have multiple partners as well. The numbers show us that the offspring so-called "monogamous" females are 40%-80% likely (depending on which study you look at) to belong do a different male than their mother's official mate.

It would seem to be in our nature to seek stable, loving males to be our "mates" and strong, biologically superior males to breed with, and this is what we and other "monogamous" females have done for thousands of years. If you think about it without any moral considerations, this system leads to supportive families AND genetic advancement for our species - the good official mate helps to build a strong habitat and feed the young, the good breeder provides the DNA. At the same time, while his female mate is nailing biologically superior males, the official male mate tries to find a female which deems him the best provisioner DNA and makes her some strong babies for some other male to raise and support (who is himself likewise trying to screw around).

Before the whole "marriage based on romantic love" fad, this situation was win-win. It might seem a bit complicated, but I think it would work if everyone kept their mouth shut. *shrug* It certainly works for the aristocracy.

I do not disagree with with you Juniper, I've seen this behaviour on the odd occasion. So the woman has a stable provider, but keeping a more studly guy on the side.

Any women out there who practice this this or consider it a good scenario for themselves? (And it cannot be a hypothetical:)-sorry girls).

Bluehound
10-17-2011, 07:16 PM
Unless you are in an open relationship, then sleeping with someone else is infidelity full stop.
Whether you pay or not is irrelevant . Although it is possibly worse due to the already mentioned increased risk of passing on STI's to your unsuspecting partner , personally I would rather that than find out my husband was sleeping with my best friend or sister.

I have no problem with prostitutes, as long as everyone is consenting and getting a fair deal.
But I wonder how many of the "Yes and I don't consider it infidelity" brigade would feel like that if they found out their partner had been regularly visiting one?

Buh4Bee
10-17-2011, 08:39 PM
I can see why some women get violent with their partner in these types of scenarios.

Vonny
10-17-2011, 09:18 PM
I do not disagree with with you Juniper, I've seen this behaviour on the odd occasion. So the woman has a stable provider, but keeping a more studly guy on the side.

Any women out there who practice this this or consider it a good scenario for themselves? (And it cannot be a hypothetical:)-sorry girls).

No. The one who builds the strong habitat and feeds the young has the best DNA and looks the best too.

The only reason the aristocracy can survive is they rob. They don't have strong DNA necessarily.

tonywalt
10-18-2011, 12:09 AM
YesNo, really? We always come back to the same driving theme, which is a common and quiet agenda - that women and men are the same. Well, they are not the same(thankfully!). We at times exhibit similar behaviours, but in human relationships females tend to communicate better than men, and work harder at creating a solution that is better for the group, talking through issues with more emphasis on emotion and empathy and generally men tend to be more geared to tasks and more need for isolation. Women tend to intuit emotions and subtle cues of it.

In stressful situations women are more apt to tend and befriend, while guys generally fight or flight.

Monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships and women tend to seek those environments more often more than men.

They also tend to work a helluva lot harder on relationships then we do - I speak from experience and observation.

So, my point is that women, with fairly rare exceptions, do not seek out males for money or barter. And are generally not big fans of polygamy. It's my experience that the women who do fool around in a marriage are at the point where they are NOT happy and the marriage is pretty much over.

I can comfortably say that men do seek out females for exchange at a much higher proportion than the above poll reflects.

(But not Me- promise)

Vonny
10-18-2011, 12:36 AM
YesNo, really? We always come back to the same driving theme, which is a common and quiet agenda - that women and men are the same. Well, they are not the same(thankfully!). We at times exhibit similar behaviours, but in human relationships females tend to communicate better than men, and work harder at creating a solution that is better for the group, talking through issues with more emphasis on emotion and empathy and generally men tend to be more geared to tasks and more need for isolation. Women tend to intuit emotions and subtle cues of it.

In stressful situations women are more apt to tend and befriend, while guys generally fight or flight.

Monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships and women tend to seek those environments more often more than men.

They also tend to work a helluva lot harder on relationships then we do - I speak from experience and observation.

So, my point is that women, with fairly rare exceptions, do not seek out males for money or barter. And are generally not big fans of polygamy. It's my experience that the women who do fool around in a marriage are at the point where they are NOT happy and the marriage is pretty much over.

I can comfortably say that men do seek out females for exchange at a much higher proportion than the above poll reflects.

(But not Me- promise)

Well Tony your description of women fits my girlfriend but not my mother... although my mom was not one to fool around, that much is true - she married for money, but one at a time.

But I think your experience of women is not complete.

Plus, I observe many nurses, and I see many male ones who are fantastic. You've said that if you were sick you'd want a woman taking care of you, which is fine. But a good nurse is not gender specific.

JuniperWoolf
10-18-2011, 12:39 AM
The general consensus of european woman find a guy who has slept-around to be an atractive trait. The general consensus of european guys find a woman that has slept-around to be an unatractive quality.

Who cares about what sexual tenancies people are supposed to find "attractive?" You shouldn't, for three reasons:

1. If something is considered unattractive, then people just won't advertise it. If I found a man who wanted to maintain illusions about female "virtue," and I still wanted this lummox for some reason, then I simply wouldn't bring my sexual history into the conversation. Problem solved.

2. What people find attractive changes over time and over generations. In the seventies, EVERYONE slept around. In the fifties, EVERYONE was supposed to be faithful. Look at the social norms of behavior for the women of Rome in the decline of the republic (Ovid criticized the Sabine women for being tied to one man, and mocked the idea for being outdated: "these ancient wives didn't bathe either"). Expectations aren't fixed.

3. We aren't talking about attraction or fantasy, we're talking about reality. Through observing other species with similar reproductive behavior to our own, through reading classic literature and through modern research, it looks like both women and men like to have fun and do.


If, as JuniperWoolf mentions, 40%-60% of the monogamous females have children by other men than their husbands, this explains the divorce rate and would be counterproductive to having a "stable, loving male" at home. This makes me think that marital infidelity by either men or women is mainly for sex with no intent to procreate with better DNA.

Well, not consciously, no. Sexual attraction is on an animalistic level. We aren't sure why we lust over certain people, but the most popular theory is that our unconscious/instinctual brains find something about their appearance desirable for the purposes of procreation since sex is all about creating new life in a biological sense, even if our higher brains decide that it's probably a good idea to use birth control methods.

I think that high divorce rates are probably the result of our biological needs not matching up with our lifestyles. A satisfying monogamous relationship which meets both our material desires and our sexual needs is unrealistic. Good spouse =/= good lover.


Monogamy promotes security, intimacy, and stability in relationships and women tend to seek those environments more often more than men.

They also tend to work a helluva lot harder on relationships then we do - I speak from experience and observation.

I'd argue that women, being more skilled at interpersonal relationships like you say, are like men in that they tend to fulfill their sexual needs but are unlike men in that they are better at keeping it quiet.

OrphanPip
10-18-2011, 12:49 AM
I'm not sure people find the idea of a man who has slept around appealing. I would accept that mature people tend to prefer someone with some experience, but there are limits to what people consider decent. I sincerely doubt most women find the idea of a man sleeping with prostitutes appealing. I certainly don't find it an appealing trait in men, and I have a friend who hires hustlers, and he's a friend but he's certainly not someone I would think of as an appropriate romantic partner.

Frankly, I'm so OCD I find the idea of sleeping with someone who has been extremely promiscuous (I don't expect people to be chaste, as I'm certainly not) as dangerous and I don't usually want anything to do with them in a sexual sense.

Edit: And Jun makes a good point about the cultural assumptions that underpin these perceptions. Coming from a bourgeois strict protestant upbringing, the idea of being sexually promiscuous simply doesn't mesh with the way I was raised to see relationships. It's not simply a matter of changing systems of thought over time, but that we live in pluralistic societies with many subcultures.

Alex raises the topic of the Rake as a stock character, he is certainly celebrated in the English Royalist theater of the Restoration. However, you only have to look to the pamphlets being published by the puritans and dissenters that were abundant in the period to see that not everyone approved. And by the time you reach the end of the 18th century, the plays become about the moral reform of the rake, it becomes clearly a negative characteristic. By the time we get to the Victorians the libertine is a villain, actually we even see this in some of the 18th century stuff where you have a rake that becomes reformed and one who doesn't as an antagonist in the work.

Vonny
10-18-2011, 12:53 AM
I'd argue that women, being more skilled at interpersonal relationships like you say, are like men in that they tend to fulfill their sexual needs but are unlike men in that they are better at keeping it quiet.

I disagree. We're not animals and we value other things such as trust. Yeah, we women may lust for others at times, but we don't act on it - at least in my experience.

And my brother and his partner have been together for years, and I'd bet my bottom dollar neither one has ever cheated.

tonywalt
10-18-2011, 01:00 AM
But a good nurse is not gender specific.[/QUOTE]

Vonny, I think you secretly agree with me. But tell me, what's left today that is gender specific in "progressive thinking" besides body parts?

Vonny
10-18-2011, 01:05 AM
But a good nurse is not gender specific.


Vonny, I think you secretly agree with me. But tell me, what's left today that is gender specific in "progressive thinking" besides body parts?

Yes we agree. Women and men are gender specific, lol!

edit: I don't know if I made sense. Women and men are different. But we're all people and shouldn't have a battle of the sexes.

OrphanPip
10-18-2011, 01:12 AM
Unless, they're transgender, transsexual, or intersex.

tonywalt
10-18-2011, 01:16 AM
Yes we agree. Women and men are gender specific, lol!

edit: I don't know if I made sense. Women and men are different. But we're all people and shouldn't have a battle of the sexes.

Vonny, it's not a battle, it's complimentary. I like that fact that we are different in many ways, and so do you.

Vonny
10-18-2011, 01:18 AM
Vonny, it's not a battle, it's complimentary. I like that fact that we are different in many ways, and so do you.

Yes, exactly!

And Pip, I'm out of my depth there. I have no idea what that's about. My brother and his partner explain that they have no desire to be women. And my girlfriend and I have no desire to be men.

OrphanPip
10-18-2011, 01:24 AM
Yes, exactly!

And Pip, I'm out of my depth there. I have no idea what that's about. My brother and his partner explain that they have no desire to be women. And my girlfriend and I have no desire to be men.

Well transgenders believe they transcend the traditional boundaries of gender identity, so they do not identify as male or female, or they may identify as one or the other at different times, like certain drag queens.

Transsexuals feel their psychological gender is opposite of their assigned biological sex. And while often people dismiss this as mental illness, there is actually robust scientific evidence that the mind is gendered at a different stage of development, thus it is entirely possible for someone to have a male or female brain in a body of the different sex.

Intersex people are simply born with bodies that do not conform to our usual definitions of the sexes, they occur somewhere between 1/1000 and 1/10000 births. Usually, surgical corrections are performed to give them a "clear sex," usual a female sex, because as has been quoted from a doctor by intersex activist Cheryl Chase, "it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole."

Vonny
10-18-2011, 01:37 AM
Well transgenders believe they transcend the traditional boundaries of gender identity, so they do not identify as male or female, or they may identify as one or the other at different times, like certain drag queens.

Transsexuals feel their psychological gender is opposite of their assigned biological sex. And while often people dismiss this as mental illness, there is actually robust scientific evidence that the mind is gendered at a different stage of development, thus it is entirely possible for someone to have a male or female brain in a body of the different sex.

Intersex people are simply born with bodies that do not conform to our usual definitions of the sexes, they occur somewhere between 1/1000 and 1/10000 births. Usually, surgical corrections are performed to give them a "clear sex," usual a female sex, because as has been quoted from a doctor by intersex activist Cheryl Chase, "it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole."


Thanks Pip. That's interesting. Drag Queens are funny. I need to watch La Cage aux Folles again. I like Victor/Victoria too.

I guess I should explain. I find them funny, but I've never understood what makes them that way.

Bluehound
10-18-2011, 08:47 AM
Drag artists are funny,it is kind of their job. But that's not the same as some of the conditions Pip has described, they are not funny at all.

Just watch "Boys Don't Cry" a very sad film.

YesNo
10-18-2011, 09:41 AM
YesNo, really? We always come back to the same driving theme, which is a common and quiet agenda - that women and men are the same. Well, they are not the same(thankfully!).

I think you might be right about women not seeking male prostitutes as often as men do, but I don't really know. I don't know of anyone whom I am in personal contact with who pays for sex, either male or female. Of course, why would anyone admit to it except for high school or college students? Why would they even admit to it?

Emil Miller
10-18-2011, 05:20 PM
I don't know of anyone whom I am in personal contact with who pays for sex, either male or female. Of course, why would anyone admit to it except for high school or college students? Why would they even admit to it?

Youthful bravado that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Vonny
10-18-2011, 07:18 PM
Drag artists are funny,it is kind of their job. But that's not the same as some of the conditions Pip has described, they are not funny at all.

Just watch "Boys Don't Cry" a very sad film.

I know the transgender and intersex (hadn't head of that one before) isn't funny. But isn't drag something that a lot of them do just for fun? Like they just enjoy being a woman? Otherwise, why would they make comedies about it?

OrphanPip
10-18-2011, 08:11 PM
I know the transgender and intersex (hadn't head of that one before) isn't funny. But isn't drag something that a lot of them do just for fun? Like they just enjoy being a woman? Otherwise, why would they make comedies about it?

I'm not sure it's always about enjoying being a woman either, the origin is in a camp sensibility, just an overturn of bourgeois cultural attitudes towards gender. Ultimately, drag is particularly about performance, it is certainly meant to be for fun. We should just distinguish drag from something like transvestism, which someone may live out their day to day life doing. I just used drag as an example of a sort of transgender act that rejects certain aspects of the gender binary. It's difficult to distinguish between transgenderism and transsexualism, and not everyone agrees on the terminology. There are some who broaden transgenderism, like I do, to include any act that flies in the face of accepted gender roles, rather than a strictly cross-gender identification. Transsexualism is easier to define, and the real problem with defining it is that some people would consider them transgenders, but for many transsexual people they are not transgender, many of them believe strongly in the gender binary, and they feel they were simply born with a body on the wrong side of the binary.

tonywalt
10-18-2011, 08:25 PM
We've made excellent progress! We have established by scientific polling that only 4 of us had sex with prostitutes guilt free. One of us, felt, well, guilty about it.

Not too shabby.

Vonny
10-18-2011, 10:08 PM
I'm not sure it's always about enjoying being a woman either, the origin is in a camp sensibility, just an overturn of bourgeois cultural attitudes towards gender. Ultimately, drag is particularly about performance, it is certainly meant to be for fun.

This is a good description that makes sense. I've never put my finger on what exactly it's about.



We should just distinguish drag from something like transvestism, which someone may live out their day to day life doing. I just used drag as an example of a sort of transgender act that rejects certain aspects of the gender binary. It's difficult to distinguish between transgenderism and transsexualism, and not everyone agrees on the terminology. There are some who broaden transgenderism, like I do, to include any act that flies in the face of accepted gender roles, rather than a strictly cross-gender identification. Transsexualism is easier to define, and the real problem with defining it is that some people would consider them transgenders, but for many transsexual people they are not transgender, many of them believe strongly in the gender binary, and they feel they were simply born with a body on the wrong side of the binary.

I had to read this a few times. Transgender falls into the range of "normal." And in guys it can be appealing. I've discovered that I like a guy who is slightly transgender, who makes me wonder what the heck is going on there. I don't like a man who is all masculine - well, except for my brothers.

But there is something genetic with some people, and you can see it. Where I live, there's not many of the men, but our big city does have the dykes. (This isn't a derogatory term, is it? They call themselves that.) In those women who ride Harleys, there is something obviously biologically different. It isn't that they dress different, they are physically different.

JuniperWoolf
10-18-2011, 11:25 PM
.....