Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like to think I'm all liberal and openminded, but there is a certain ick factor. But I do know a couple of guys who have used prostitutes; nice guys, not all creepy or pervy.
If what you wanted was a truly shared experience, you wouldn't pay a prostitute.
Real relationships take time and effort to make them work. Sometimes, a person is at a point in their life where they're just not ready, or not in a position, to commit... That doesn't make them a bad person. What are they suppose to do? Just not have sex?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms.Mathlete
I like to think I'm all liberal and openminded, but there is a certain ick factor. But I do know a couple of guys who have used prostitutes; nice guys, not all creepy or pervy.
Sometimes a man just needs to bust, I don't see how in the world this makes him a bad person. It's a basic biological need.... As long as she's a consenting adult, who cares if he's paying her for it or not?
.
Well since condoms can (and do) break, if you're constantly having sex with strangers, technically you're putting yourself at a greater risk of catching an STD.
You did not read my post. I did say that condoms are not 100% and the risk is not exclusive to a prostitute. It is a risk in all populations... we just like to single prostitutes out. The risk can be as high or as low in any individual depending on their tolerance of risk (ie their risky sexual behavior). That tolerance for risk is unknowable and to assume prostitutes are of higher risk is misleading.
Let me say it another way... just because an individual has not been with a prostitute nor worked as one doesn't mean the risk is any less.
You did not read my post. I did say that condoms are not 100% and the risk is not exclusive to a prostitute. It is a risk in all populations... we just like to single prostitutes out. The risk can be as high or as low in any individual depending on their tolerance of risk (ie their risky sexual behavior). That tolerance for risk is unknowable and to assume prostitutes are of higher risk is misleading.
Let me say it another way... just because an individual has not been with a prostitute nor worked as one doesn't mean the risk is any less.
Yes and no... You're sleeping with someone who's been with HUNDREDS of men... More than the average woman.
It just doesn't feel right if I'm not paying for it. KIDDING! ....
Don't be silly, rap that willy!
You're funny, Dude!
Listen, don't say a damn thing about banging prostitutes or how many women you've slept with to anybody. It's really nobody's business, but the hooker, the 'sexually liberated' women and you.
That is my point. The risk is unknowable. You can have a regular individual have 10 partners in their lifetime all unprotected vs a prostitute with 100s of partners all with condom use. The risk is unknowable. There is no real study that isolates populations of similar risk tolerance to make an assessment nor conclude prostitute vs regular person.
The linked article compares the porn star population against the Nevada's prostitutes in brothels... the prostitutes have lower cases simply because they are required to practice safe sex consistently. It becomes a habit as the result of their chosen lifestyle/work. I also believe there is a study out there of an isolated prostitute population (also Nevada) that shows that STD rates are fairly low when/if the people use safe sex consistently.... I think the 1980s timeframe.
And since this thread is specifically about men who sees prostitutes, we have no idea from which population of prostitutes he has been visiting. Are they drug addicted desperate street walkers who typically have lost sight/motivation to practice safe sex? You simply don't know. You also don't know he has been seeing a promiscuous partner in the past who is just as risky... especially if they have a history of not practicing safe sex.
Real relationships take time and effort to make them work. Sometimes, a person is at a point in their life where they're just not ready, or not in a position, to commit... That doesn't make them a bad person. What are they suppose to do? Just not have sex?
Sometimes a man just needs to bust, I don't see how in the world this makes him a bad person. It's a basic biological need.... As long as she's a consenting adult, who cares if he's paying her for it or not?
You asked a question and I answered. I would not be with someone that frequented prostitutes. I prefer to be with someone that views sex the same way that I do, and that can go with out sex for a period of time with out having to go to a prostitute.
Seeing prostitutes in his past wouldn't be much different to me than sleeping with women who were promiscuous and didn't charge money for it (they are just as disease-prone).
But I don't need any man who'd sleep with prostitutes after I'm in the picture. Yes, BIG deal-breaker in this case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
