OTC opinions.
AbbieNormal
Maryland
Do you partake? Do you think it is dangerous? Fun? A good/bad idea?
I've almost always avoided it. Forget the danger aspects of disease, unbalanced strippers, drug addicted boyfriends, and all the rest. I couldn't help thinking of this again in the Duke case. You put yourself in a position where even if you've done nothing wrong you may be in legal jeapordy or have your reputation ruined.
I've almost always avoided it. Forget the danger aspects of disease, unbalanced strippers, drug addicted boyfriends, and all the rest. I couldn't help thinking of this again in the Duke case. You put yourself in a position where even if you've done nothing wrong you may be in legal jeapordy or have your reputation ruined.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
120 comments
Just means we have a sufficiently intense sexual rapport that would work for me OTC.
'Fairly well' reads 'except for actual penetration'.
But I know what you're getting at, BG.
We could all use an 'edit' button now and then.
Actually I was so stoned when I got home that I hardly remember what I posted.
And now I'm off to do it all again. Laterz.
DG
And sometimes it's been instant and mutual consumated lust with NM.
Whether she wants cash or not is a negotiable issue with me. It simply defines the relationship.
Aside from no-strings booty calls, they (whoever you're fucking) are going to get your money either now or later.
I paid for sex with my ex. Dearly.
As always, YMMV.
DG
Thanks, Chandler.
DG
I do find the differing views of money expressed here (and elsewhere) to be interesting though, it's sort of a pet interest of mine. For example, I don't see much difference between giving a girl a $100 gift vs. a $100 bill and letting her choose her own gift, to me it's the same thing. Others clearly disagree.
I happen to believe that, while a mutual affection may be genuine, the money I pay, at a minimum, clouds the nature of these relationships in a way that is altogether different from, say, my height or my shoe size. I'm not troubled by the ambiguity, so I don't feel the same need some people feel to explain it away. However, when a stripper tells me I can fuck her OTC if I pay her $300, I get the strong feeling that money could be a hard factor to ignore. Frankly, I think I have a balanced attitude and these other guys are the ones with the hang-up.
Their attitude seems to be predicated on the belief that women don't enjoy sex, and therefore never agree to it without receiving something in exchange, be it money, drugs, an expensive dinner or the promise of marriage. And casual sex can be assumed to be tantamount to rape, because most men can only get it from a woman by pretending to be in love. Sex is something of value that women withhold from men, so anytime a man and a woman get together and have sex, anything of value that the man provides during the course of the night - drinks, dinner, movie tickets, gas for the car - must be viewed as payment in exchange for the sex she gives up, no different from handing over cash to a hooker. None of this applies, however, if you "really like" the girl independent of the sex thing (of course), and therefore, consider sex only as an afterthought, because that's a Real Date.
The problem with this attitude is that a lot of women enjoy sex, believe it or not, including casual, meaningless sex. It's something a man and a women can both do willingly, purely for fun. To insist that there must be something else the woman gets in return is wrong, and pretty warped, in my opinion. It's like saying that anything else a couple does together can't possibly be done purely for mutual enjoyment, but must be entered into the ledger as to some degree a debit for one partner and a credit for the other. True perhaps of a hooker and her john, but their relationship, I humbly submit, is not simply a matter of playing different hand in the same game of cards.
I don't know how the guy looked at it but my dancer friend definitely saw it as a business proposition. He was a nice guy but he was never going to be a BF so he was going to pay even though she enjoyed spending time with him. Over the years I've known a lot of dancers who did this sort of thing. The upside for the guy is that he's not with a clock-watcher who is going to throw him out of her apartment after an hour. Girls like this are the ultimate pro/non-pros. They want the money but they don't go around handing out business cards or going back to every guys hotel room who asks.
Frankly I've never understood the hang-up some people seem to have about money and "paying for sex." One guy is tall and girls who prefer a tall guy are attracted to him. Another guy is witty and some girls prefer a witty guy. A third guy is generous and attracts girls who like a generous guy. Seems to me these guys are all just playing the hand they were dealt. Is the girl who prefers to sleep with a guy who is able to earn an above-average income and is generous any more shallow than a girl who prefers a guy who is tall? Not in my book. It's just a matter of personal preference. Personally I'm glad that different girls have different preferences, that there's something for just about everyone.
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.
Seriously, Yoda, if your point is that a $400 shopping spree is just a slightly less direct version of payment, I won't argue. I will add that the kind of boundless passion for fucking that the heroine of your tale demonstrates is unlike anything I would expect from a pro and closer to some girls I've known who retained their amateur status.
She wakes you up the next morning with another blow job and asks you to take her to breakfast. She's playing with your dick under the table while you are eating. She gives you a sloppy wet kiss outside of the car, gets in, and drives away. Her last words are "we gotta do this again real soon baby, see you at the club!"
Was this sex for money?
AN, let me describe 3 different dates; (1) You go out with a girl who you really like, you're hoping she'll end up being your GF, you take her to a nice restaurant, have some drinks, and hope you get lucky this time, but sex isn't your primary objective. (2) You get together with a girl you've known for a long time and whose company you really enjoy, but there's no long-term romantic interest on either of your parts, you just enjoy each other's company - you have dinner, maybe drinks, maybe sex afterward. (3) You don't especially like this girl, she can be annoying at times, but in bed she's really something special - you'd be perfectly happy to just go straight to bed but she expects to be taken to a nice restaurant and have some drinks first to get in the mood.
I realize all three situations are dating, but when I think of dating I think primarily of the first one. The second I would more likely describe as hanging out with a friend, and the thrid getting laid. The first two clearly are not instances of paid sex, but I'm not so sure about the third, I don't see how it differs very much from calling a hooker who you know.
To an outside observer the three dates look identical, but in each case your objective is entirely different - the first is clearly romance, the second clearly friendship, and the third clearly sex. Which is why I think that whether or not you are paying for sex has more to do with your mind than your wallet.
While we are talking about the common law, husbands used to have a claim of alienation of affection against men who had sex with the plaintiff's wife. It was sort of the equivalent of "inference with a contractual relationship." That cause of action has been abolished by the courts on the theory that, if a woman if screwing another man, her affections have probably long been alienated anyway.
And I don't mind anybody engaging in imaginary scenarios. However, when you contrast them with misinterpretations of my actual choices, I question what bearing any of the exercise has to reality.
I agree that your scenarios point out what I've experienced with strippers OTC. There is a very big grey area, although the girls who exchange sex for drugs are basically crack ho's wether they're waitresses or strippers. Here is another one that I'm familiar with. A young girl I knew who occasionally "hooked up" with a customer for kicks was invited to go on vacation with him. He was fairly well off, she liked him, but it was obvious he just wanted some arm candy and a sex partner for his trip. She wasn't serious about him either but seemed to enjoy his company and apparently the sex. She would have gone but she couldn't afford to take a week off work, so he offered to pay her for the lost time. She went, had a great time apparently. The trip included sex with him and picking up a stripper for a threesome one night. This girl was not walking the streets or making appointments with clients, but she clearly took money with the understanding she'd have sex with him on the trip. She was a waitress. His tips clearly weren't enough to influence her decision, but maybe the lump summ to cover her lost time was. If she'd been a stripper I probably would have assumed it was paid sex.
Paid sex is possible to define in the case of a professional prostitute, however I think that in a lot of cases there are for lack of a better word semi-pros who are persuadable by the right guy in the right situation. I'm sure most of them wouldn't define what they did as prostitution but hooking up.
My final word on rape: my ATF was sexually molested by at least one member of her family when she was young. She considers it to be rape. I'm not about to tell her she's wrong. If my agreeing with her means that I'm writing my own dictionary, then I plead guilty.
I'd like to get back to the question of paid sex that AN and Chandler have been discussing. I'm no expert on dating and haven't dated in 40 years so I don't have any idea what dating is like today. But I'd like to raise some real-world situation with which I'm familiar and ask whether or not you guys consider these to be dating or paid sex. (1) I've known several strippers who went out regularly with drug dealers (one of whom owned the club) to "party," which I think means they take drugs and have sex. No money changes hands but the guy is clearly giving something of value (drugs) in exchange for sex. And I know of one girl who he did give money to when she was short. Dating or paid sex? (2) I know a stripper who met with a customer after hours who she liked and who was about her own age, and they had drinks then went back to her place for sex. No money changed hands but he had given her a lot of money in the club. (3) An older married gentleman from out of town takes a stripper out for a nice dinner and drinks, then to his motel room for sex. No money changes hands other than on previous and expected future occasions in the club. (4) That lat situation becomes a regular thing and he gives her gifts on occasion including cash when he knows she's short, although she never asks for it. (5), (6), (7) & (8) The same 4 scenarios except that the woman is a waitress instead of a stripper. Can anyone tell me which of these involve paid sex and which are just dating? Personally I think the term "paid sex" is impossible to define because in virtually all dating situations something of value is given and accepted. To me the difference between dating and paid sex is a matter of the mind, not the wallet.
As for your last post; "You characterized your preference as for having at least some emotional component" / On the contrary, I said I don't mind empty, meaninless sex and I'm up for it most anytime.
Yes, and you also said
"It was great, she was great, but it was all a letdown for me. The best part was making the arrangement and all the lead-up to the deed. The sex itself was just empty. I have nothing against empty, meaningless sex, I just like it better with somebody who's getting the same thing out of it."
And
"All I'm saying is the boinking is no fun for me when consent is gained with money."
And
"It has nothing to do with "having to pay for it", shame, ego or anything along those lines. It's simply a matter of my personal dislike of the experience. I don't enjoy any form of sex to orgasm with somebody who's doing it as a job. I've tried it inside a club and outside, handjobs, blowjobs and fucking. (Just to be sure.) No fun every time. I don't completely understand why, but it's a very gut level feeling for me. The best I can describe it is there is something missing when compared to even the most casual quickie sex with a woman who is doing it, like me, just for kicks."
And finally
"It may start out as pure lust and turn into something soulful. Or the lust may just lead into some really cool, new sex positions. You never know. It's an open-ended experience, not a session."
Having read those posts it seems to me you are expressing a strong dislike for paid sex, a strong preference for something more mutual, and you see sex that is not paid for as something more authentic and fulfilling because of a more mutual desire and possibility, i.e. more like a date, that's all I'm saying. Based on your posts I don't think my characterization comes from nowhere. If that characterization is wrong then I'm sorry and you are free to correct which you have now done, but then when I move on to say things like "I think it is not as wide as you think for most men" or "I think that most men" or "I'm not talking about you" I am not trying to characterize your opinion or attribute something to you. When I then talk about most men all I am saying is that I think, and I think FONDL agrees that the only real operative emotion in a lot of cases is lust, and not to deny or denigrate your experiences or opinions, I don't think they are typical and I was interested in peoples opinions on that.
When I say we've covered you what I mean is that I understand your preference (or at least thought I did, see above), but I wish to move the discussion forward to something else. You don't have to participate if you don't wish to but you seem intent on correcting statements that aren't about you or implying that my synopsis of your feelings on the subject comes from nowhere.
If you insist that we not engage in "imaginary scenarios" then I'll be blunt. My experiences have been exactly the opposite of yours and Yoda's. I have engaged in OTC 3 times and money has never changed hands, but I was never sure if it would be asked for, it was always a grey area. I have never been propositioned directly, and I am not just talking about the times when I did the deed. There have been other times when I am sure that OTC was available for the asking and I am certain that in at least one case it was not for money. I'm also sure that in a few of those cases an offer of money would have sealed the deal. When I say that I am certain that OTC was available in every case it was a long negotiation or a very winding road, one big grey area that wasn't always clear till after the fact in some cases or until the last hint in others made it clear. In addition, I know that one of the girls in question who would have done OTC for money would not do it with any guy who offered to pay, she was selective and would have done it with me because she trusted me well enough, so the money was part of the equation, but other factors made OTC a possibility. I say this not to say that your experiences or opinions are somehow illegitimate, only to say that I don't share them, and have a different outlook. I also think that based on my experiences and what I know my "imaginary scenarios" are not without merit, and would like to discuss them with others who are interested. It seems you aren't one of them, and that is fine, but understand that some of us have personal experiences that don't match yours and some of us like to expand the discussion into areas other than personal experience.
I'd be curious to know where civil courts stand on this issue. I don't know but I'm guessing that some civil proceedings have moved closer to my point of view than have any criminal proceedings, which require a higher standard of evidence. Chitown, are you aware of any civil proceedings where a court found in favor of and awarded damages to a woman who claims to have been betrayed by a man to whom she wasn't married?
FONDL: The laws are what they are. You are supporting your argument here with your musings on how you think things should be. Well, that is not how they are. I prefer to think in the hear and now. The day I see a guy convicted of rape because he lied to his girlfriend I will start to think about agreeing with you.
Yoda, you seem to know what you're talking about. My experience has been the same, except for a couple times when girls weren't very upfront about wanting money. Maybe because they didn't trust me. About the second time I ever went to a strip club, a girl in street clothes who had finished her shift invited me to come back to her place. Out in the parking lot, she mentioned that oh, by the way, she'd need $200 from me. When I declined, she went back inside, and I didn't feel like paying the cover again, so I left. That experience made me a bit wary when girls didn't ask for money. So, that's why I say any gray area is due to the customer's reading of an ambiguous situation, not in the stripper's mind.
"You characterized your preference as for having at least some emotional component" / On the contrary, I said I don't mind empty, meaninless sex and I'm up for it most anytime.
"to me you were talking about something not quite at the level of a one night hookup" / I didn't say, but there's no reason it couldn't be.
"casual meaningless sex is not quite what you are talking about in my understanding" / See above.
"you seem to think that the money is the one and only factor in an OTC hookup" / It's the topic, so that's what I've written about. I think there are other factors.
"You've stated that you like there to be some sort of emotional connection" / See above.
"and that you don't like to pay." / Excuse me for splitting hairs, I said I don't mind paying, I just haven't liked the results.
"a meaningless OTC hookup, something you say you don't do." / I never said whether I do or not.
"you either do not understand that I am talking about a general case, not you," / I gather you're not always talking about me (or anyone). But when you purport to be, you're coming up with sfuff from who knows where, so yes, it's hard to tell where that ends and your general speculations begin.
"or you are trying to make your personal preferences and choices some universal standard." / Not.
Okay, now I'm covered. I leave you to your imaginary scenarios.
Yoda, it's very clear that you and I are thinking of two totally different definitions of rape. While the dictionery defines rape as sex obtained by force, my impression is that a lot of state laws define it much more broadly than that. For example, an adult-child sexual relationship that involves no force whatever is by statute often defined as rape I believe. And since laws change all the time, the further broadening of the statutory definition that I'm suggesting doesn't seem to me to be a very large leap, especially since sexual predators are so much in the news lately.
Chandler, when I say that money is irrelevant, I mean two things. First, if you really like the girl, giving her money isn't likely to negatively effect the enjoyment for a lot of guys (although maybe it does for you), and similarly if you aren't much attracted to her the absence of money being exchanged isn't going to increase your enjoyment; what really counts is how much you like her. I think both Yoda and Shadowcat's experiences bear this out. And second, from a rational point of view it makes little difference whether you give her money directly or indirectly by, for example, buying her an expensive dinner; the two situations are equivalent, although you may not regard them as such. That's your privilege, man isn't always a rational being, nor should he be.
Similarly, I asked about SEX ITC the club, and was also told that at least half of strippers (around these parts) will do it at some in their "careers".
Bottom line: MOST (>50%) of strippers will have SEX with you if you play your cards right and they feel that is what they have to do to RETAIN your business, or, even if they know that PUTTING OUT will give you what you wanted all along and will be the last business they do with you, MOST will still go for the easy money.
Only if they think they have to pay. I they don't think they have to pay, then they don't. Strippers are good at detecting which kind of a guy you are.
As for your second post: Maybe for the soul-less pathetic old losers on TUSCL having sex is the same whether the woman likes you and it's free or she doesn't or you don't know and "don't care" and you have to pay. (I SUSPECT that many of you are such losers that you can't even imagine a woman of stripper quality looks and youth wanting to having sex with you for free and just for FUN.)
However, for the vast majority of normal men (those outside circle we have here) I think it makes a BIG difference in the QUALITY of the sex whether the WOMAN likes you or not. Perhaps the posters here have EMPATHY problems which is why they cannot get women for FREE (other than scraggly old hags) to begin with.
Also, I was discussing this from a guys point of view, wether a stripper wants to be paid or not seems irrelevant since I can't know unless I offer or she asks. As I said I'd assume an OTC offer was going to include a discussion about money at some point, and if it never came up I'd consider myself lucky. This has happened to me more than once, and money was not exchanged other than inside the club in the normal manner. Even then the motivations of a stripper might be suspect. If she is a regular she might see a little OTC action as a worthwhile investment to keep a good regular. In my case I know that one stripper got a sexual thrill out of it (being a dirty girl and hooking up with a customer or some such thing). In either case her motivations are not something I can divine unless she tells me. Even if the stripper who got a sexual kick out of hooking up asked for money, would her motivation be for the money or would the money add to her "I'm a nasty whore" fantasy? I'm not goint to try and figure that out.
As for guys, yes, I am still speculating about how I think most guys would feel about paying for sex. That kind of grew out of the discussion since almost nobody seemed to have any moral problem with paying for sex. I've found this to be true in other discussions with friends.
For a little mental exercise imagine the following scenario. Strip clubs offer a legal and safe cary out service. Do you think most guys would have any hesitation to take advantage of it? I doubt I would hesitate. I think most of the reluctance in paying for sex comes from the danger and the legal problems with morality coming in only if you are cheating on the SO, or if you have moral issues about breaking the law. I very much doubt most guys would care about why she was doing it, i.e. a job versus for kicks. As the old joke goes, how do you tell when a woman has an orgasm? Who cares? On that basis some guys might actually prefer to pay for it since then it is about him being pleased.
AN, offering a girl you're trying to pick up a few bucks as a "closer" sounds like a very bad idea to me, not to mention rather comic. Have you ever tried this or heard anyone say they have? I'm curious to know in what situation it would be done and how it would be introduced, because in any I've come across it would be weird and probably more offensive to the stripper than a straight up proposition. Despite the ambiguous setting of strip clubs, a pick up and an offer of a trick have been as different as black and white, especially in the mind of the girl.
I understand your feelings on the topic, heck I even agree with most of them. I just don't see how you can apply a word that means something entirely different in the legal system and to society to simple bad behavior.
If a man lies to a woman to get him to go to bed with her, that has nothing to do with the basis for the marriage, and therefore would not be basis for an annulment.
I'm sure that my opinion on this subject reflects an incident that happened when I was in college - a fraternity brother of mine was having sex regularly with a girl who was a good friend of mine, and he led her to believe that he was in love with her, while he was making fun of her behind her back. She was ultimately devestated by the episode, probably almost as much as if she had been raped. She certainly felt like it was a lot worse than "bad behavior." Funny thing though, several years later I was in a very similar situation only there was one major difference - I was in a position of authority over the guy. Revenge is sweet.
But to get back to the original question, to me it's irrelevant whether or not money changes hands or what the girl's occupation is. The real issue for me is the level of emotional involvement, and that has nothing to do with money. For me the greater level of emotional involvement the more enjoyable the encounter is. And that level of involvement may be uneffected if there happens to be a financial arrangement between us too. Others may feel differently.
I'm reminded of a girl I used to know. She was (probably still is) a very attractive single mother with a full-time job. She also worked part time as a hooker to make a little extra money and was very selective about her clients - she didn't advertise and only went with well-off married guys she liked and who treated her well (most of whom were lawyers.) They'd usually go out to a fancy restaurant then to a motel. She also had a couple of single guys she dated regularly who didn't know she was a hooker and who probably couldn't have afforded her if they did know. Anyone care to explain the motivations or morality here? When do you think she was having the most fun?
Its a free country FONDL, you can apply figurative definitions to what ever words you like but I don't have to agree with you....and obviously, most of the time, I don't.
Once agian, the difference for me is that in one case, we're both doing it for kicks, while in the other case, she's doing it as a job. The rapport is completely different. We're co-conspirators. We're taking chances. It may start out as pure lust and turn into something soulful. Or the lust may just lead into some really cool, new sex positions. You never know. It's an open-ended experience, not a session. That's all I've been saying.
I think the misunderstanding is that Chandler uses phrases like getting laid and scoring, which to me, and perhaps others, have a strong connotation of meaningless sex. If we are talking about meaningless sex, I really don't see much difference between paying for it and getting a lucky hookup. If, as many who say that sex without an emotional component being less interesting or enjoyable, we are in fact talking about actual seduction in the classic sense with emotional or romantic comitment, then yes, there is a huge difference between that and paying for sex. I was under the impression that we were discussing pure romantic love at one end of the spectrum, all the grey in between, and meaningless hookups and paying for it on the other end. Sure, getting it free and paying for it are different, but if it's meaningless get your rocks off sex, free just means you got lucky or put some effort into it and paid means you wanted to close the deal. I see very little moral difference between the two outside the obvious legalities. If you are implying some emotional comitment that is not true to get sex I will again substitute fraud for FONDL's characterization of rape.
Many years ago I hired a contractor to do some work on my house. He wasn't a stranger, I'd known him for years and considered him a friend. I gave him some money up front to order materials, then I never heard from him again. To me that felt exactly like a theft only worse, because there was betrayel involved too. My guess is that a lot of women feel the same way after giving sex in exchange for equally false promises. I'm not belittling the feelings of women who have been raped, it must be horrible. I'm suggesting that when a guy they think they know and trust lies to them just to get sex, and I've known plenty of guys who did exactly that, they probably experience similar feelings. If takinging money under false pretenses is a crime, why shouldn't taking sex under false pretenses be equally wrong? Doesn't that attitude belittle women? I'm opposed to that.
Chandler, I'm glad you think everyone here sees shades of grey as opposed to a right-wrong good-bad view of the world. But many of the responses on this thread don't reflect that. I know a dancer who occasionally slept with a couple of customers who she liked. They gave her money but not directly for sex. How would you define that? I also agree with Chitown's comments that a lot of girls have sex with guys so they can go to expensive places. Where does this fit on your free sex vs. hooker view of things?
And Yoda, you state the obvious, we all know that. What's your point?
Getting someone to sleep with you by deceptive means (and who really determines that?) is not necessarily proper human behavior but I really don't see how you can classify any kind of consensual sex as rape. Rape is about control, not sex. Rape is a violent act. Rape is a crime. If you have a problem telling the difference between rape and consensual sex maybe you should hang around a rape victim counseling center or an ER some night and talk to some women who have been through it. I doubt they would agree with your criteria.
I'd love to see a copy of the dictionary you have been writing all of these years!
FONDL, you're always bringing up on this board the point that gray areas exist as though that's news to anybody. We know that, but it doesn't erase all distinctions or render choices we make between them meaningless. I know when I'm paying for sex and when I'm not. They're totally different experiences for me. Other points of difference or commonality don't change that one bit.
And, yes, I disagree with your last paragraph, including the part you attributed to me.
The other interesting aspect of this discussion is that there seems to be an underlying assumption on some people's part that there are 2 types of sex: that which is paid for directly and that where a strong emotional involvement is present. I submit that most sexual encounters are neither of these types, and that as some have suggested there is a huge grey area that lies between these two extremes. Like most things in life, the motives behind sexual encounters are often extremely complex. Life isn't black and white.
Personally my feelings are similar to Chandler's, I don't enjoy sex unless there is a strong emotional involvement. But I think those of us who feel that way are in the minority, especially among guys. And as I said earlier, if you're going to have sex without any strong emotional involvement or committment, it's much more honest to do so by hiring a woman than it is to pretend an emotional connection that isn't there, which in my experience is what most guys do. I see little difference between that and rape. Now there's a sentence that I suspect will get some reaction.
I am sure he had heard of escorts, or at his pay level COURTESANS might be a better word. He was probably just doing what Nietzsche would call "going under".
Since when do you need to pretend you are romantically intersted in a woman in order to have to have sex w/o paying? Plenty of women will have sex with you just for fun w/ no money involved. (Well maybe not if you a fat, pathetic, old alcoholic who pretends to be a science professor on the internet when he is, in fact, a MERE BARTENDER.)
Grant at the time of his arrest was one of the hottest stars around. In LA I don't doubt for a second that he could have walked into almost any bar and had a woman come back to his room within an hour. He could have easily traded on his looks or fame to get a BJ, but he just wanted a BJ, not a girlfriend or the complications that might come from getting some on the side (Liz Hurley, while she is incredibly hot was in England after all). Of course paying for it, keeping it a buisness transaction had its own complications. He should have called Charlie Sheen and got Heidi's number for a more discrete setup with a better looking girl. Oh, wait, that got complicated too.
"I don't enjoy any form of sex to orgasm with somebody who's doing it as a job"
I think that often, even when someone is doing as a job, there is still some personal component to it. Some of it may be salesmanship (salespersonship?). Some of it may be genuine..most people feel that they might as well get as much pleasure out of their present situation, regardless of how they got there.
For example...in reference to my OTC experiences with a particular dancer (goodness...a return to the initial topic)...she was a lovely young lady in her early 20s, attractive in sort of a wholesome, Midwestern corn-fed way. There is no question in my mind that our little encounters would not have come off if I had not been willing to pay for them (at a rate which I now find to be, frankly, embarrassing). On the other hand, they were always preceded by a good meal at a restaurant of her choice, or cocktails at some bar or bistro, during which we caught up with each other, flirted a little bit, and generally warmed up before repairing to the local Hampton Inn. In addition, we talked on the telephone 2-3 times a week between meetings. So, the situation presented a mix of the mercenary and the personal. If I had ever shown up and said that I was a little short, and asked that the behind-closed-doors aspect of the evening be on credit, I suspect that encounter would have ended with dinner. However, as things worked out, it was a hybrid situation, and I'm sure that most if not all such situations are similar. In fact, those of us who are in professions or other service businesses can think of many professional relationships we are in that are cordial, perhaps even friendly, but would not exist in a purely personal context.
The point is, affection and/or seducing the woman played absolutely no role in the exchange. If you took a girl to (in the late 80s), Spaggia (the dining room, not the cafe) or Charlie Trotter's in Chicago, you were going to get laid. You could set you watch by it, and base your condom purchases on it.
I never felt that I was a failure because I got laid for being able to drop $200 plus wine for dinner, even though I know that sometimes that's all I brought to the table. When I was a 26 year old lawyer, I didn't have a six pack, and I didn't look like Tom Cruise (although I am quite a bit taller), but I did make enough money to take dates to good restaurants. We all work with what we have, and what we have is almost always enough.
Your latest rationale - that obtaining sex always requires some investment of time, etc. - strikes me as Clintonesque hair-splitting. Why is it even necessary to make comparisons - weak ones at that - to socially accepted behavior? I thought a large part of the appeal of whoremongering is that it's NOT accepted. Hell, I wish I could enjoy it, if only for that. It seems to me that trying to make it seem conventional is taking a lot of the fun out of it.
I believe that any man can get laid...but not with any woman. It depends on how deep you are willing to go on the opposing team's bench. Of course, you get a lot better shot at a choice from the starting lineup if you have conventional good looks, money, a famous name, money, a good body, money, a position as lead guitarist of a metal band, money, or youth. Money is also sometimes a factor.
This is in contrast with the situation that women are in. I seriously believe there are some women who can't give it away. I remember hearing an interview with a woman who worked in a home for adults with severe physical handicaps. She said that most of the men in the home had girlfriends--mostly able bodied women living independently--whereas few of the women did. I think the difference has to do with the compassionate nature of women.
In any event, I freely admit that, whereas I could probably get a woman of approximately my own age into bed for free with little difficulty (in fact, I am almost certain I could), if I want the same experience with a woman twenty years younger, who is good looking, stacked and came of age during the current Presidential Administration (or at the latest, the one immediately preceding), cash is going to have to change hands--or I'm going to have to proposition so many 23 year olds that, by the time I hit paydirt, I may not care anymore.
I'm not sure why it is a mark of shame to use money to attract women for meaningless sex. The guy who gets women into bed with his good body, his famous name (or his father's) or his Corvette, doesn't apologize for that fact, although none of those are necessarily honorable attributes. I can understand that some people might have shame about the meaningless sex part, but to me the money as bait is a neutral factor.
If a man is in a lifestyle situation where the sex must be fleeting and short-term...where long-term romance is not only undesirable, but could lead to disaster (see, e.g., "Fatal Attraction", or "100 Recipes for Hassenpfeffer"), the cash payment can be a useful way of keeping mutual expectations clear...and forestalling undesirable emotional attachments. I hate to use the old cliche, but it's true..sometimes you don't pay them to stay..you pay them to leave afterwards.
Just another perpective.
Only took 1.5 years to get to this point, boys. You are making progress.
And at least BoneHead has decent motivations for going to strip clubs... You could all learn a lesson from him.
Paying for it is not fun for me. I like the challenge of picking girls up too much.
In my opinion, anytime something is negotiated up front involving sex (ITC or OTC)...you lose spontenaity, challenge, and a sense of equality.
To each his own...just not for me.
Also, I humbly submit that there is one very real difference: Most anybody can get laid for free, but if I wanted to get enthusiastic lap dances from several different girls of my choosing out a roomful, just how would I go about getting that for free?
It was such a good experience that my average could only go down with further OTC encounters. Therefore, I doubt I will seek OTC again. (Actually, I didn't seek it then...she suggested it)