Paying for sex vs. "paying" for "free" sex
Electronman
Too much of a good thing is never enough
a) a straight forward "pay for play" arrangement with a sexually uninhibited woman (escort, AMP or stripper)-- to be fair, you need to also think about the risks associated with the arrangement (legal risks in our sexually conservative U.S. and risks of STDs)
versus
b) the hidden and not so hidden costs of meeting a woman, dating (food, drinks, movies, concerts), flowers, pretending to enjoy the chick flick that she wants you to see, meeting her family and friends and the other hidden "costs" all in hopes of eventually having "free" sex-- maybe two weeks, two months or two years after starting the relationship?
I hope I haven't biased the comparison too much.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
19 comments
b) kids... they might be useful when you're old and decrepid (although, NO guarantee)
Pros might be cheaper but you should get a lot more for what you spend with civilians, if you aren't you need to find some different ones.
Some guys have no interest in being attached to one woman and don't want to deal with the dating game in the hopes of getting some. Pay for services rendered then walk away, no strings.
Some guys want to be with someone they can love spend time with, do things with and the sex is important but not the end all be all. They don't mind spending the money on the woman.
The problem for guy number two comes in when the person they want to spend time with doesn't want sex at the same frequency or at all. Then they become guy number one.
On the topic: Paying for stripper sex is definitely more expensive on a per pop basis than "free sex", at least over any stretch of time with any one woman. The problem is that "free" sex often comes with feelings and other things attached. When you fuck a stripper or an escort, then as the old saying goes, you not't paying for the sex, you're paying her to leave when it's done.
As a married guy, p4p side action is the only way to go. I have no interest in keeping a side girlfriend or mistress - it is way too messy.
There are very, very few women I've run across who are OK with "just sex." In fact, I've had a few times where I felt like OTC was on the table with a girl at the club, but I began to sense the OTC was going to be tied to some sort of eventual assurance of "other" OTC activities -- dinner, phone calls, social media, whatever. That's usually the point where I try to clairify: I have a SO and you have to be OK with the idea that this is about one thing and one thing only. I like you, but I don't need another girlfriend, just some company tonight. Usually that's meant the end of it, including any P4P OTC possibility.
I think this is also why a lot of escort service is less than stellar. I think a lot of women feel like they're resigning themselves to something anathema to their being by letting guys that don't want them "forever and ever!" get a piece.
The good ITC/OTC/escorts are able to take to it like us men do: The sex, itself, is the good part, while anything else that comes of it is bonus. And I really don't understand why more women don't/can't think that way. Hoping it's not something hard-wired but rather cultural such that, in time, we can change it.
Well, *some* of us can, anyway. I can see where some might not get either one.