OTC opinions.

DG, don't you mean you "know" them Platonically ITC before doing OTC? To me, a "platonic" knowledge is non-sexual; the "Biblical" act of knowing leads soon to the similarly Biblical act of begetting. Adam knew Eve, Eve begat Cain and Abel, etc.

[re: "I know them (biblically) fairly well...]

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

Sometimes I know them (biblically) fairly well ITC/VIP beforehand (it's basically their OTC audition, anyway).
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

(Bumped by request from Daily Grind)

Just to get caught up- not to stir things up.
Thanks, Chandler.


DG

Don't know why my most recent post on this topic showed up 3 times-I only posted it once. Sorry bout that!

Chandler: Interesting that you should say that. The guy in my story is long gone but the last couple of times he and my friend got together he simply gave her cash. After a while, it was just easier for both of them. She told me the sex was never the same though.

Chandler, I don't have any problem with others not sharing my point of view, as long as they do so in a courteous manner. I'm just stating my views and I don't expect others to always agree. In fact that would make for a pretty boring discussion.

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.

Yoda, your friend could be an example of a girl who could change my mind about paying for sex. I like her enthusiasm, although I would certainly be more comfortable with a direct cash payment than the guise of a shopping spree.

FONDL, one thing this thread tells me is that when it's convenient, some people declare a term to be meaningless because it's not absolute. I suspect the reason they find it convenient in this case is to maintain their belief that with dancers, etc., whose attention they pay for, all that matters is that they like each other, so the money they give them is "irrelevant".

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.

AN: To answer your original querry: No( for misc. 1st category reasons), Could be dangerous, Could be fun, or Could be good with right dancer/circumstances. As for the off-shoot dialogue going back & forth about pickup vs paid casual sex, I'll put in my 2c with this oblique allegory: I like to eat seafood. I also like to go fishing. When I catch a big fish, I derive a sense of zen like satisfaction that I wouldn't get from eating at a seafood restaurant, or bbq'ing fish bought at the fish market on my backyard grill. I'd also be more inclined to talk to my buddies about the big fish that I caught than I would telling them about the good dinner that I had at seafood restaurant. Yet I also know that I don't always land the big fish, so when I get the urge for seafood, I have no angst about going to fish market or seafood restaurant, laying down the $$, and enjoying the meal.

God, FONDL, that has got to be in the TOP THREE MOST RETARDED POSTS ON TUSCL, EVER. Get a fucking clue! The difference is whether she REALLY LIKES you or not. At least for most guys it is. But maybe you lack A SOUL and EMPATHY so you just don't GET IT and have to come up with CRAZY RATIONALIZATIONS to explain your ULTRA PUSSY behavior.

OK, the dancer in my story is a good friend of mine. She was friends with my then ATF so we never really formed a dancer/customer relationship. We've been friends for years. The guy in my story was a customer that she met at the club. They hit it off and he used to come in once or twice a week and drop a load of cash on her. When she first agreed to go out with the guy the shopping trip was not part of the deal. At some point her stripper instinct kicked in. She knew this guy was never going to be her boyfriend but she liked him. She didn't have a boyfriend at the time and was horny (just for the record, I've known her for four years now, she's always horny). Just the same, a good stripper gives nothing up for free. She suggested the shopping trip and he agreed. What he got in return, I think we can all agree, was a hell of a good time with a really gorgeous woman.

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.

It very easy to get strippers to do paid OTC. Oddly, enough it's the sweet, nice girls who are most likely to do it too: go figure!

The differing opinions presented here seem to confirm the point I've been trying to make, that terms like "paid sex" and "prostitution" are often impossible to define in any meaningful way, they mean something different to each of us. Guys who "would never pay for sex" seem to have a much narrower view of what that means than do some of the rest of us. Most of us don't much care one way or the other, it's irrelevant.

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.

During my first encounter(dances) with the dancer who became my first OTC, I asked her if she was available for extracuriccular activities. She asked what did I mean so I said for sex OTC. Her response was(I've heard it before)that she had not thought about that but then she went on to add that it could be beneficial & let her think about it. After the 2nd encounter(more dances)she gave me a cell # & told me to call her. I did & a few days later we made arrangements to meet at her place for $$$. I arrived, knocked, was let in & we sat on the sofa. She began playing with my nipples so I played with hers. She took my shirt off & dropped her shorts. No underwear. I dropped my shorts & took off my underwear. We went to the bedroom and just as she laid down on the bed she asked if I had the money & would I give her the money. I had to go the living room to get the money from my pants pocket. Before we got to the bedroom I asked her if this might develope into a fuckbuddy or a friends with benefits
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.

During my first encounter(dances) with the dancer who became my first OTC, I asked her if she was available for extracuriccular activities. She asked what did I mean so I said for sex OTC. Her response was(I've heard it before)that she had not thought about that but then she went on to add that it could be beneficial & let her think about it. After the 2nd encounter(more dances)she gave me a cell # & told me to call her. I did & a few days later we made arrangements to meet at her place for $$$. I arrived, knocked, was let in & we sat on the sofa. She began playing with my nipples so I played with hers. She took my shirt off & dropped her shorts. No underwear. I dropped my shorts & took off my underwear. We went to the bedroom and just as she laid down on the bed she asked if I had the money & would I give her the money. I had to go the living room to get the money from my pants pocket. Before we got to the bedroom I asked her if this might develope into a fuckbuddy or a friends with benefits
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.

During my first encounter(dances) with the dancer who became my first OTC, I asked her if she was available for extracuriccular activities. She asked what did I mean so I said for sex OTC. Her response was(I've heard it before)that she had not thought about that but then she went on to add that it could be beneficial & let her think about it. After the 2nd encounter(more dances)she gave me a cell # & told me to call her. I did & a few days later we made arrangements to meet at her place for $$$. I arrived, knocked, was let in & we sat on the sofa. She began playing with my nipples so I played with hers. She took my shirt off & dropped her shorts. No underwear. I dropped my shorts & took off my underwear. We went to the bedroom and just as she laid down on the bed she asked if I had the money & would I give her the money. I had to go the living room to get the money from my pants pocket. Before we got to the bedroom I asked her if this might develope into a fuckbuddy or a friends with benefits
relationship & she said she didn't know. She also asked me after I gave her the money why I had not tried to get it for free. I told her I had already agreed to the price she set & was not trying to cheat her. At the 2nd OTC she asked for the money upfront. 1st OTC she seemed hesitant about what she was doing but for the 2nd OTC it was as if she had become more professional at it. I hinted to her a couple of more times about getting it for free & she let me know that was out of the question & she needed to break it off with me. Our 2 OTC's took place 1 month apart-bill time!-so I figured she might call me at the end of the month. She called a day ago saying that she was willing for OTC for the same $$$ amount. Didn't have the opportunity for OTC that day so will wait until end of month. A monthy encounter sounds good to me.

I've ALWAYS had to pay for sex, be it a Lap Dance, Massage Parlor encounter, Escort encounter or any kind of encounter. I was a virgin until I was 24 due to being an introvert, paralyzingly shy & not terribly handsome. Paid for sex is all I know. I VERY much enjoy the physical aspect of the paid for encounter because I’m able to experience types of sex that might not be on the menu with a woman in a “regular” relationship. I very much regret not being able to experience the emotional aspect of “Lovemaking” with a consenting & willing woman. But that is the way life is for me. I make the most of my situation.

Sex for money? Probably, but given your description I'm with Chandler on this one.

Who cares if it's for money? All I wanna know is where can I meet her?

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.

OK, You get friendly with a dancer at your favorite club. She spends a ton of time with you every time you visit before and after you buy dances from her. She tells you to come see her on slow nights so she can spend more time with you. You exchange cell numbers and are talking to each other all the time on the phone. She mentions one night as she is blowing your mind in the private dance area that she'd love to spend some alone time with you OTC. The night comes, you take her to dinner and she asks if you will take her shopping before you go back to your place. You hit the mall and spend $300 or $400 on her in her favorite stores. You finally get back to your place, she fucks your brains out until you can't move. She falls asleep in your arms but wakes you up with a blow job and fucks you again and again all through the night.

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?

FONDL, all I know about your examples is what you've included, and you said in #1 clearly there was an exchange of drugs for sex. If they met in a bar instead, and he said he'd buy her X number of drinks if she had sex with him I wouldn't see that as any different. By the way, neither scenario is liable to come up in my life's adventures.

Chandler, it's interesting that you found my example #1 to be clearly paid sex, because the drug dealer gave the dancer drugs and then they had sex. I'm wondering how you would feel if I told you that her drug of choice was alcohol and they met in a bar instead of a strip club? Does that change anything, is it still paid sex?

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.

The law considers sex with a minor to be statutory rape.

AN: You don't need to explain FONDL's posts to me. I can read. Please don't muddy the waters by implying that I don't understand something or misinterpreted it when in fact I merely disagree with it.

Or perhaps he's making the point one last time that we consider many things that don't involve force and violence rape, as Shadowcat also did.

FONDL: If your ATF was sexually molested as a child that WAS rape. That is absolutely nothing like any other example you used to support your argument. Child molestation is a crime. By siting that example you supported my argument. Thanks.

FONDL: If you are talking about a civil suit where a man induced a woman to have sex with him for promise of marriage, that was a common-law cause of action called breach of promise. Interestingly, the cause of action actually belonged to the woman's father, since he had the right to control whether she got married. This cause of action was generally abolished by statute in the second half of the nineteenth century. A similar cause of action was seduction, or inducing a single woman to have sex by some means other than promise of marriage. That cause of action also belonged to the father.

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.

FONDL, I've already agreed that there are gray areas. I've described a couple of examples from my own past. All of yours appear to fall under various shades of gray, except #1 where you say a clear exchange occurs.

AN: (In reply to your post from yesterday, 5/10 @ 5:43 pm) I guess it's too much for me to expect, when I've said I find "something missing", for somebody not to read into that whatever sentiment they would presume: emotional connection, fulfillment, authenticity, like dating - anything but meaningless casual sex or a one-night stand. I can understand your tendency to do that, but I don't agree that it comes from anything I wrote. By pointing out that it's often the opposite of what I wrote, I've made the best case I can, so I'll leave it at that.

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.

Another part of this discussion I find interesting is the notion of "having to pay for it" that is often a subtext or stated explicitly. The assumption is that no man should ever want to pay for sex since the ability to get sex for free is seen as a measure of his masculinity. I think that there is another way to look at paid sex. It confers on the man a certain power in the relationship that allows him a certain freedom. If you are dating a woman and sex becomes a feature of the relationship it takes a while for people to be comfortable enough to open up and perhaps engage in some of their personal preferences. Usually because you don't want to reveal something too soon. In addition most men are going to work pretty hard to please their SO which may in the short term mean less satisfying sex for them. A certain freedom may be the result of having bough the sex as opposed to gaining it by seduction. Charlie Sheen comes to mind. How many guys would like to get two girls dressed up in cheerleader outfits to do a girl-girl show for them and then f**k him? Sure, I'd go for it. Kind of a tough thing to convince a date to do even if you've been dating a long time. I know, it's an extreme example. I have another example from one of my past OTC experiences. The one with the girl who got a kick out of being a slut if you'll permit me to abbreviate the description. I'll call her kinky girl for short. Understand that she didn't need to work as a stripper. She had a "legit" job that paid her plenty and a SO with a good job too. They were apparently a pretty wild couple, into swinging, she was bi, she liked exhibitionism (the reason she stripped), so a lot of this was a big forplay session for them. I knew she did private toy shows and lapdancing for selected customers (but no more) and had asked her to set one up. Instead I got a lot more. Later I asked again if I could pay her for a show, with the understanding that it was only going to be a show and nothing else. She refused. Her reason was that she wanted when we got together and what we did to be her decision, not mine. In other words she wanted to control the situation and felt that if I paid her OTC she'd lose that. She was happy to take my money inside the club in the normal ammounts under normal conditions, but I always found that interesting.

FONDL, as I've said my definition of dating is a little different than the one that is operative nowdays. From what I understand dating is now distinct from having sex. Hookups are about sex and may turn into dating, I guess. Since I inhabit a somewhat different dating world than most strippers, or than most 20ish y/o women in general (or men for that matter) I couldn't begin to describe what they might consider a date.

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.

AN, I agree with you that it's a bad idea on a college campus where there is no legal protection of the accused. Requiring proof in a court of law is a very different thing and sets a much higher standard.

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.

Hey, I think that was the old fuck's funniest post ever.

since she was your first you hope she was goodlooking? AT THE FUCKING AGE OF EIGHT YEARS OLD THAT'S YOUR CONCERN LOOKING BACK? Holy smokes.

Yoda, not that FONDL needs me to but I'll clarify for him anyway, he specifically said "I see little difference between that and rape." He did not say it was rape, he said he considered it very close. To characterize what he said as "another entry in "FONDL's dictionary of words that should mean what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean" is I think a bit unfair. After the initial post where he also said "Now there's a sentence that I suspect will get some reaction." (how true) all he did was defend his opinion by saying that we already consider things other than forced sex rape, coerced sex where one party can not give meaningful consent for one example, why not this? As I said above, I consider it a horrible idea, but he's actually made an argument, he didn't just re-define the term to mean what he wanted.

FONDL, I think I finally see your point about how lying to get sex should be considered rape, and I understand it. I also think it is a horrible idea. In answer to your question however some colleges have essentially experimented with your idea by requiring explicit verbal consent for every act between students, i.e. the famous conduct codes. We also have moved to the point that if a girl is drunk then consent can not be meaningfully given because she is impaired, therefore a guy could still be considered a rapist if the girl later says she was too drunk. I understand your reason, but it is a horrible idea in my opinion.

Chandler, I fear that this will be a long post. I apologize in advance, but we seem to be talking past each other. First of all I think you are reading a note of hostility or condescension into my posts that I really don't intend. What I am trying to say in short is that I understand your posts are about your personal experiences and preferences, I am trying to expand the topic to a more general discussion with FONDL and anyone else who wishes to participate. It seems to me you are saying that this is somehow illegitimate or some personal affront.

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.

FONDL: I'm done with this one. You've made another entry in "FONDL's dictionary of words that should mean what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean". The foolishnes is only fun for two or three posts.

Yoda, you stated earlier that "Raping a woman is a violent crime." I'm trying to point out that many and perhaps most crimes that are classified as rape don't involve violence, they are based on deception and betrayal. That's a fact, not some wishful thinking on my part. I don't think it's a very long stretch to broaden this concept to include the kinds of behavior I alluded to earlier, and I'd be willing to bet that a court somehere will agree with me in the not too distant future, if they haven't already done so. And I will applaud them when they do. But you are correct that this isn't currently considered a crime, I never said it was, only that I thought it should be.

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?

Chandler: I've had a similar experience where a dancer offered to go back to my hotel room and didn't mention the amount until closing time two hours later. As a customer we need to be honest with ourselves when the offer occurs. I'm middle aged and attached. I assume that any woman that I just met who offers sex is offering it for money and I wasn't shocked when she told me that she would need $$$ to go with me. OTOH, when OTC has happened without money being involved it has never been on my first meeting with a dancer. It happens over a period of time and is always a mutual agreement based on mutual attraction-with no mention of money.

FONDL: My distinguishing between a date and a trick is not irrational. Equating the two is a very simplistic from of rationality, in my opinion.

"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."

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.

"In my experience when it comes to OTC there is no grey area."

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.

AN: Before you say you've covered me, let's review few statements you include in that:

"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.

I tend to agree with AN. Although I have no idea what the correct percentage is, I've known several dancers who have met OTC with a favored customer for sex once in awhile but don't make a habit of it. And while there may not be money exchanged directly, he was usually someone who gave her a lot of money over time.

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.

Yoda, in the case of the 60ish percent that was her guestimate based on her years of stripping in various places around the country (Seattle, Vegas, Los Angeles, DC, Maryland, West Virginia, Texas, and someplace on Oklahoma I think. Maybe those are all just high OTC places and clubs). I never did OTC with her, I never asked and she never offered or hinted. Wether she did in the past I couldn't say. Also remember that the 60% is at some point in their career. It doesn't mean that on any given night 60% of the strippers in a club are going to be willing to do OTC for money, it just means that over the course of their stripping about 60% are gonna cross that line at some point or other, meaning that (again, her guess) there are a lot who are persuadable. I'll go with her analysis since she was a stripper for nearly 10 years and danced in a lot of places, it is also fairly close to what I've heard from another long term dancer about a specific club, and in this case I very much doubt that there is actual research to nail it down.

AN: I would tend to dissagree with your dancer friend's percentages. Is she part of the number? There may very well be an agenda there. I tend not to attach percentages to activities that there is really no research on. The fact is nobody really knows how many dancers there are in the US or the world much less what percentage of them have had sex for money. I'm speaking only from my personal experiences here. I haven't been approached by or had sex with anywhere near 60% of the dancers I've known. Once anyone starts postulating on how others might approach these situations it's really just a guessing game. I have nothing against anyone forming an opinion but my preference here is to relate my experiences and compare them with other folks who have been in similar situations rather than trying to guess at how other people might think or act.

I sure hate to agree with AN, but I think he is right about >50% doing OTC. Confirms what I've heard when I discussed this matter with strippers too. Also if you want to get and are the type that doesn't mind paying try withdrawling your business showing interest in other girls and I bet you are going to get offers.

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.

"Some fortunate fellows like George Clooney can probably get a stripper to come back to his room for free, I think most guys would have to offer some inticement. "

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.

Yoda, I'm sure you are right on there being dancers will do OTC for money and see it as part of their job. Others never will. The grey area I am thinking of is what a favorite told me. She said that most dancers (she figured about 60 to 70%) will cross the line and do OTC (for money) at some point, although they may not make a habbit of it. Some may decide it pays well enough to keep it up, others will never do it again, and the ones in the middle may be persuadable if the right situation arises even though they don't make a habit of it.

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.

In my experience when it comes to OTC there is no grey area. There are dancers who will go back to your hotel room for money and dancers who are just looking for a good time and money is not an issue. The gilrs who want money are very up front bout it once they trust you. The girls who don't want money are generally less upfront about it since they are not presenting the option as a source of income. It's more like a standard bar pick-up when the girl doesn't want money, she just happens to be wearing less clothing during the negotiation.

Chandler, what you need to understand is that I'm not talking about you. You've stated that you like there to be some sort of emotional connection and that you don't like to pay. Great, that covers you. If you read my last posts I am saying that I don't think you are the typical case and then I go on to make some observations about a meaningless OTC hookup, something you say you don't do. So yes, I am speculating, just not about you. OK, we've covered you, now on to the general case of guys going for a one time OTC hookup that is totally meaningless. I really don't think most guys would see much difference between getting lucky and having a stripper agree to OTC (where money may be asked for later) and offering money up front, the context in which I bring up a few bucks as a closer, not in the context of picking up a girl. In fact I would probably assume that there was going to be a discussion about money at some point if I got a stripper to agree to OTC unless there was some sort of long term relationship going on, which again puts it outside what I was discussing. Some fortunate fellows like George Clooney can probably get a stripper to come back to his room for free, I think most guys would have to offer some inticement. So yes, I get your point. Try to understand mine, you either do not understand that I am talking about a general case, not you, or you are trying to make your personal preferences and choices some universal standard.

Sometime in the mid to late 1980's, when I was a young man, I used to travel to Rochester NY for business every month. I became a daytime regular at a club, I think it was called The Forum (??). I met a girl, she was gorgeous in a non-traditional way. She had a unique name (her real name) and we hit it off. She had a great body, with one of the best natural chests I have ever seen. Super nipples too. After a while I got up the nerve to ask her if she would meet me at my hotel room. Much to my surprise she said yes. I left the club about 5pm and she was supposed to meet me at my room around 11:00. Being a relative newlywed, and afraid of getting a call from home with a guest in the room I got scared, called the club and cancelled our meeting. To this day I regret the fact that I pussied out.

FONDL, I've lost track of what this has to do with the topic, but even though roguish behavior can be deserving of punishment, I'm glad your sex fraud idea is not written into law. I dread to think of all the forms I would have to fill out and all the insurance i would have to carry just to get laid. Plus, you know it wouldn't be limited to sex but would extend to groping, making out, kissing. Let's hope the legislature and the courts stay out the field of broken hearts and stolen kisses.

AN, FONDL: The difference is you're both engaging in armchair speculation and I'm only explaining the choices I've made. You're projecting preferences and attitudes into what I've written that would never cross my mind. I wouldn't know how "most men" view the significance of paying for sex. I don't argue with their choice, only with one rationale that I feel uses a weak analogy. FONDL is the first person I've ever heard say paying it's irrelevant, yet I'm not expecting his opinion to change because anybody else's is different. However, if FONDL experienced the same disappointment I have, his opinion very likely would change.

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.

FONDL: I accept your thought process as the reason that you choose to use the word rape to describe something that isn't. I just don't agree with it. When you toss words around that imply criminal acts its a good idea to have some sort of legal precident for it. Even if a woman won a huge divorce settlement because her ex lied to her about his effections (which, by the way probably wouldn't be grounds for divorce anyway) it wouldn't be called rape in any court in the land.

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.

FONDL: If a man lies to a woman about his intentions/affection, etc. in an inducement to marry him, in some churches that can be grounds for annulment. If the couple was married in that church, and the church annuls the marriage, then the civil authorities will honor that annulment, and the marriage will be over, both ecclesiastically and civilly.

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.

Have any of you tried having OTC relationships (or one night stands) with strippers without bringing money into the equation at all? No you don't have to "pay them to go away" afterward (as if!) or deceive them into thinking there will be more: just make your intentions clear up front! Is this rocket science or something?

Yoda, when someone uses deception and dishonesty to obtain something of value from another person, it's almost always cinsidered to be a criminal act. In fact the only exception I can think of is when the something of value is sex. That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't care what you call it - rape, fraud, bad behavior, whatever - to me the guy's a sex offender and ought to be treated as one.

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?

FONDL: Of course it's obvious. Raping a woman is a violent crime. Acting like you care about a woman that you just spent the night buying drinks for so you could get into her pants is bad behvior, nothing more.

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.

Chandler, a reasonable point (kicks vs. a job), but again doing it for money could be something she gets a kick out of. I agree there is a difference, but I think it is not as wide as you think for most men. I also think that most men in that case would consider that there is little atraction other than physical. You characterized your preference as for having at least some emotional component, so to me you were talking about something not quite at the level of a one night hookup (i.e. I agree that what you are talking about is not like paying, but casual meaningless sex is not quite what you are talking about in my understanding). In the case where the hookup is just for kicks I think the money aspect is different, but not that different than a guy convincing a girl to sleep with him because of his looks, his big dick, or awsome technique. I think the other disagreement I have is that you seem to think that the money is the one and only factor in an OTC hookup. I'm considering that it could be, but in some of FONDL's grey areas it might just be one factor that makes an interesting offer one worth accepting. A stripper might see a few extra bucks as the closer in an otherwise questionable meeting. As for the fraud, that is only the case where the woman thinks she is doing it for some reason other than kicks because the man has lead her to believe so.

AN: "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."

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.

You guys are taking this into some pretty thinly connected areas. (So what's new?) I've tried to stick close to what my own experience has told me, in keeping with the original question. Remember? This was about whether or not you agree to pay to meet up with a stripper for sex. Sorry, I don't see how rape or fraud or any of these abstract speculations enter into it. If your point is that one can find fault with a lot of different ways that men and women (or other combinations) get together for sex, I'll concede that much.

Gentlemen, It is very important to understand this. FONDL is a COMPLETE PUSSY who has paid women for CONVERSATION for 40 years. He has admitted this himself. A normal man who was not a COMPLETE PUSSY would not do this. FONDL wants to RATIONALIZE that he is not a COMPLETE PUSSY, however, and make himself a HERO. Hence his weird take on things.

As the Irishman said; "Is this a private fight, or can I join in?"

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.

Wow, I didn't realize I was going to have so much fun tonight. Thanks guys for the fodder. Ok, here goes.

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?

Why the introduction of rape into a thread regarding motivations for sex as if there is a comparison to be made in any way possible? Rape isn't sex. It's an infliction of one person's will over another regardless of anyone's intention. I am a person who can't have sex without an emotional attachment of an extreme sort (which is why I've only had sex with one person)

FONDL: This may come as a shock to you but women also engage in meaningless casual sex, one night stands and deceiving men to get what they want.

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!

Another thing I keep wondering about when I read these discussions: Does anyone actually view paying for sex as an alternative to getting laid? I don't. I have to laugh at the notion of thinking about which way to go tonight, like cooking dinner or going to a restaurant. Or thinking I'm not happy with the grade of pussy I can score on my own, so why not pay for an upgrade? I've definitely never thought anything close to that. They're two different experiences that both happen to involve having sex. One isn't a substitute for the other. Biological necessity makes one or the other more urgent in time, but I've never found myself pondering a choice between the two. And yet all these arguments seem to assume we operate that way. If it appears that way after the fact, I think that's due to very weak, superficial analysis.

As I said before, what I find defensive, and unnecessarily so, is the notion that prostitution is just another point along a spectrum, not far from dating a girl and buying her dinner. It also comes off sounding pretty self-congratulatory: "I'm not doing anything different." (Not that anyone here says exactly that.) Is it really being defensive to point out the obvious, that my date is not just a shade of difference from your "date", no matter how you you try to paint it.

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.

Rape implies force rather than coercion, I'd characterize it as fraud. That has a similar negative connotation without overreaching (IMHO).

I always find this topic interesting when we resurrect it, as we frequently do. The aspect that amuses me the most is that some people here always get very defensive when anyone suggests that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that you're always going to pay one way or another. I find the defensive over-reaction to this concept, which to me seems obvious, to be curious.

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.

As for Hugh Grant he was probably living out some transgressive fantasy about having sex w/ a sleazy prostitute and happened to get caught.

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".

AN: "If all you want is sex from a woman, no relationship etc. what is more honest, to seduce a woman as if you are romantically interested whe you aren't or to keep it a buisness transaction? "

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.)

Good discussion. I find it interesting that almost nobody seems to have much problem with paid sex as a concept. I still find it a bit disturbing, mostly because it IS still illegal, and, aside from legal and safety issues probably some of that residual protestant guilt. I agree however that if we look at sex as a goal, or in cruder terms as a comodity to be obtained, the cost we are willing to pay depends on what we have and what we value. If I have a lot of time to hang around in bars but not a lot of money seduction seems the way to go. If my time is worth $400/hour and I am constantly busy putting more than 1/2 hour into getting sex seems to be a losing strategy. A crude simplification, I agree. There is also the thrill of the hunt, the moral or legal ramifications, etc. It seems that we place different value on these things also. Some of us see getting laid as a goal in a game whereas others just want to get off (no prejudice intended on either of those characterizations). I think however that FONDL's point is an interesting one. If all you want is sex from a woman, no relationship etc. what is more honest, to seduce a woman as if you are romantically interested whe you aren't or to keep it a buisness transaction? That I think is the whole point of strip clubs (at least for me), a place to see and grope hot naked woman where you can get what you want quickly with few or any later complications. In my opinion OTC kills that, so I avoid it. I also thought this was the interesting aspect of both Hugh Grant's and Charlie Sheen's involvement with prostitution.

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 only had 2 OTC's with the same girl & I know w/o $$ they would not have happened. She is no longer dancing at the club where we met so do you still refer to it as OTC?The girl has a helluva body, enjoys it as much as I do and in fact in a conversation referred to herself as a paid whore vs a free whore when asked I asked about doing it for free. A free whore to her is the lowest of the whore hierarchy!

There's some gray in my categorical statement, as well. I found some enjoyment in each of my exploits - okay, quite a bit of enjoyment. And, if I tried it enough times, or with different women, I might come to feel more like you or Yoda on the issue. After a few tries, I concluded it's not for me, and so that's my position, but of course never say never and all that.

Actually, as I have re-read one of your earler posts on this topic, I have also considered the idea that things are not necessarily black-and-white. You wrote:

"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.

Chandler: No worries, I don't take it personally at all. We are all here for the same reason (well, most of us are). We all have our individual opinions about strip clubbing and related topics. As long as unrelated personal insults are left of the table I think we can all learn a bit from each other, again, there are some exceptions to this....

Chitown: Obviously, there are gray areas. I've had some experience with situations that weren't nearly as stark as your DWs, but in retrospect were rather fuzzy, like models I gave lucrative assignments to. (Ah, sweet conflict of interest.) Sometimes, banging a stripper can feel like a customer appreciation gesture, even when my lapdance purchases haven't amounted to much. Even these cases, however, which are rare exceptions in my experience, are a far cry from paying for it. Just because there's no such thing as purity of motive in relationships doesn't mean that all distinctions are artificial. In both your post and FONDL's, it seems to me you guys describe an extreme example and then conclude that it throws everyone into doubt. My experience tells me otherwise.

Yoda: I certainly didn't mean to make any of this personal. Sorry if I got too carried away. I mean it when I say I don't have any problem with what you do, so please don't misconstrue my disagreement with your opinions as disapproval. I wouldn't have entered into all the debates we've had over the months if I didn't respect your ability to answer back with something I could learn from.

Chandler: I'm not trying to make paying for sex appear conventional, merely epressing my views on the topic. I hope it stays illegal and as far underground as possible if for no other reson than to keep the price down and local government regulations out of it. I understand that it's not your cup of tea and I respect your reasonings. My reasonings and comprisons are what they are and I make no appologies for them. It's fairly obvious by your attempts to attack my arguments that you don't care much for escorts or the guys who use them. That's fine. I'm not here looking for agreement, just honest debate.

When I was a young lawyer in a (the) major Midwestern city about 20 years ago, there was the phenomenon of the Dinner Whore. These were generally young, attractive women who were employed professionally (entry level lawyers, CPAs, financial analysts, brokers, etc.) or as support staff (paralegals, administrative assistants, etc.). I knew some as friends, and went out with others. They liked to go to the best and newest restaurants in the city, but lacked the ability to pay for the experience. So they would let men take them to these places, and have sex with them at the end of the evening as a quid pro quo. It was a different exchange than the longstanding one between men and women, because in the last twilight of sexual abandon, before AIDS definitively invaded straight society, it was a very clear and implicitly understood exchange. Sex at the end of the evening was not a statistical issue; it was a certainty. I knew one of these DW's as a friend, and she told me that she typically started taking off her clothes immediately after crossing the threshold into the man's apartment/condo; the faster she got started on repayment, the faster she could get home. I sometimes wondered if a cash exchange wouldn't have been more efficient, but the DWs felt that the experience of being taken to a five star restaurant was part of the deal...it would not have been the same to have been given the money for her and a couple of her girlfriends to go have supper there.

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.

Yoda: FONDL said it's no different and said you use the same line. He did speciy a pretty sleazy type of dating arrangement. Do you insist that the comparison be narrowed to that? I would hardly consider that a good defense.

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.

Chandler: You are putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying it is no different from dating. I am saying that, one way or another, there is a cost to getting laid. It may be emotional involvement, it may be a night on the town or it may be cash. When is the last time you had sex with a woman without investing something, be it time, emotion or money?

That rationale always strikes me as particularly dishonest. I have no argument with the straigtforward honesty of paying a woman for sex, period, so trying to justify it as no different from dating is unnecessarily defensive and unpersuasive.

FONDL: That's my usual fall back line and I firmly beleive it! I think the fragile male ego has as much to do with what some guys consider "paying" as anything.

Once again, what difference does it make whether you spend $200 or so on drinks or dinner in hopes of getting in some girl's pants vs. just handing her the money and getting right to it. Seems to me the only difference is that the latter approach is more honest and more of a sure thing. There is no free nookie, it's just an illusion.

CTL: You've pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter of why guys will pay for sex. There will always be guys who think that paying a woman for sex makes you some kind of loser. I'm having way too much fun to worry about what narrow minded people think about me.

Although I have not (yet) ever had to pay for sex in or out of a club, I certainly would have no problem doing so if the woman asked for compensation. And I would never think any less of a person who had to pay for it.

Is that so? Or maybe, just maybe, are you AFRAID OF REJECTION? Do you worry that strippers DO NOT want to spend time with you OUTSIDE THE CLUB?

Chitown: Sorry, I jumped on your opening line, "This invective back and forth about who 'has to pay for it'...". Since the main back and forth in this thread had been between Yoda and me, I thought you were reading judgments into my posts that I never intended.

I think it's fun once in a while, but it does tend to be pointless in the end. The one time I enjoyed it was the one time I got lucky and didn't have to pay anything. Two of the times it happened, they may have very well been the two worst sexual experiences I had. I don't know if I could do it OTC with the same girl twice, because then it might mean something.

Chandler: None of my most recent post was directed at anybody else's life, comments, principles, etc. It is solely a reflection of my own attitude and experiences, and should be read as such. It's the same message I would have written if I had been the only person responding to the original post. I don't set myself up to judge any body else's situation, and certainly did not intend to do so there.

chandler: I think the real reason is that your prefered lap dancing experience represent your life in microcosm. Attractive girls teasing you but never satisfying you: leave you the bitter old man that you are. You don't want to be happy. That's why you choose youre bizarre lap dance expereince and why you sabotage your relationships with women.

Chitown: If any of that is directed at me, I've done a very bad job of explaining my opinion. 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. Any broader opinions on the issue that are ascribed to me are mistaken. It's understable thay you might assume more, given all the oversimplified pro and con debates there have been on the subject, but you would be assuming wrong.

Chitown: The rest of your post - the majority of it, the part that DIDN'T set me off - makes perfect sense to me.

This invective back and forth about who "has to pay for it" misses a very important point.

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.

Yoda: Fair enough. Afterall, the way each of us experiences it is what matters. I don't mean to make too much of the difference, but the uniqueness of lapdances is a point that is rarely appreciated in these comparisons.

Well for the first time in TUSCL history we have a regular finally admitting that he pays women for lap dances and sex because he could not get them for free from them. Well that's sure refreshing from most of the crap we hear on this: "Yeah, I could get it for free from them if I want but I pay them to be polite" or "So they won't get attached to me" or whatever...

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.

Chandler: I beleive what I said was that I look at it the same way. That's my opinion and it ties into why I have no problem paying for sex from a woman I would not otherwise be able to get it from for free-the same as paying for a lapdance from a woman I would otherwise not get one from for free. I'm not implying that a LD and sex are the same thing, far from it. However, my reasoning in paying for either is the same for me.

Yoda: I know you didn't suggest anybody can get lapdances for free, but you did say they were the same as paying to get laid. They're not. The only way to get lapdances is to pay.

OTC = prostitution?? Not necessarily right? I've done alot with strippers OTC (dates, one night stands, relationships, etc.), but never prostitution.

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.

I always thought that the presence of quotation marks in a post actually meant you where quoting someone. Hm, guess I was wrong.

Chandler: I don't think I ever suggested you could get lap dances for free-unless you are dating a stripper who likes to practice on you....

Yoda, they are very different experiences for me. I'll pay to be teased to the brink for as long as my money lasts, but cumming with a pro just isn't for me. I don't question your feelings about it, and I don't have any moral objections.

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?

Chandler: I humbly disagree. I don't see paying for sex as any different than paying for a lap dance. I can get laid for free as often as I like but if I see a girl I want to fuck and money is all that it will take I don't have a problem with it.

Chandler: I humbly disagree. I don't see paying for sex as any different than paying for a lap dance. I can get laid for free as often as I like but if I see a girl I want to fuck and money is all that it will take I don't have a problem with it.

I don't understand: If you Yoda is the stud he claims who get sex "from any woman he wants; any time he wants" then why would he pay at all? Just b/c it is a "gentlemanly" thing to do?

It's all about OTC, boys. Please clue in.

OTC isn't supposed to be about anything other than a good boink between two consenting adults. Trying to attach any other significance to it is an exercise in futility.

I agree, Yoda. All I'm saying is the boinking is no fun for me when consent is gained with money.

That may be, Qucksand, but I'm talking about a completely different kind of emptiness than I feel with good old casual sex. I'm up for that most anytime.

For those who noted the emptiness of the OTC experience: The sex probably felt empty because human beings naturally hunger for love, intimacy, warmth and connection. The hedonistic pleasure of a lap dance or a one-night stand has its value, but it can never replace the satisfaction of a genuine lovemaking experience with a partner in a long-term commitment. Once you experience it, all else pales by comparison.

I would never pay for sex OTC. OTOH I would be more than willing to take someone out and show them a lavish evening even knowing the latter would cost me far more than the former. I am crazy and stoopid that way.

I did partake with one dancer, on four or five occasions. The dancer in question was, to all external appearances, an "All-American Girl." She just happened to turn tricks on the side. The entire arrangement was very satisfactory, but fell apart ultimately because of the distances involved.

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)

I'm not interested. It has nothing to do with danger of any kind. I did it once years ago on the spur of the moment. 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.

AN is worried about having his reputation as a MERE BARTENDER pretenind to be a science professor on internet message boards ruined. Maybe his mom would find out that he has been lying to her all these years. Also that he is interested in strippers when his ma raised him to only like good girls... The poor, fat, retarded, old alcoholic.