Sex-buying isn’t something most acquaintances or co-workers would respect me for, even though I’ve managed to make several close friends understand. But often, in my attempts to be frank about this hobby, I run into incomprehension, judgmentalness, contempt, pity; an attitude that suggests, “You must be a loser, otherwise you wouldn’t find it hard to get sex for free.”
ARE pooners predominantly a loser demographic? The best response I can think of, short of quoting solid sociological research, is to make a distinction. The same way that SPs can be loosely grouped along a spectrum between “career” sex workers and “survival” sex workers—between those that prefer sex work and those that lack other options—so I believe we can broadly distinguish what I’d like to call “preference” pooners from “necessity” pooners.
Preference pooners are guys who have desirable sexual options other than sex-buying. They can, and usually do, access good sex in relationships or from casual female acquaintances. But, in addition, they like to spice up life with the kind of sexual variety or fetish gratification or youthful beauty obtainable best by paying money.
Necessity pooners are guys who have little or no immediate hope of access to desirable sex partners, except in exchange for cash. They can't obtain freebies because almost all women reject their sexual advances, due to traits such as gross obesity or otherwise unacceptable looks; severe disabilities or even just a bad stammer; or mental issues like retardation, autism or perhaps even pathological shyness.
Now obviously this distinction certainly doesn’t always mark a person’s once-and-for-all destiny. Aging preference pooners, for example, may join the ranks of necessity pooners. And some necessity pooners pull themselves out of a state of undesirability and may become preference pooners.
Personally, needless to say, I consider myself a preference pooner.
I currently get semi-regular freebies from a female friend, and in recent weeks I’ve received signals of interest from several women, though not ones I find very attractive. Most women need to be courted, and after sex they usually become clingy; two things I usually can't be bothered with, in the case of less than an enchanting prospect.
BUT I’ve lots of respect for necessity pooners. It takes vastly more courage to enter an Indy apartment or a massage parlor or micro—or to push your wheelchair up to a street provider—when you know most women would consider you a reject than when you feel you’re a very desirable man. I’ve known several inspiring men with serious disabilities who didn’t give up on a sex life, though this meant depending on SPs. I say bravo, go for it!
But even necessity pooners aren’t guaranteed losers. Just because they can’t get sex with desirable women for free doesn’t mean they can't be successful in other areas of life. Some make lots of money. It’s just a fact of life, ordained by nature, that men in search of freebie sex generally tend to face a shortage of attractive and willing women.
So SPs are needed, in all societies, to fill this gap at least partly. And it’s clearly a myth that men who frequent SPs are likely to be unattractive losers, failures, rejects.
A few things I’m left wondering about:
•Any fellow pooner out there who actually considers HIMSELF a necessity pooner?
•Keeping in mind that this distinction between "preference" & "necessity" pooners is a matter of degree (and therefore, to some extent, a matter of individual judgment)—does this distinction make any sense in the experience of SPs?
•Where do different SPs draw the line when it comes to accepting a client whom most women would consider completely undesirable as a sex partner?
•Is a necessity pooner whom most women would reject as a sex partner more likely to become a loyal regular for an SP who accepts him? (I would think so.)
•Is it likely that a debonair preference pooner provides a welcome relief for an SP who has recently seen highly unattractive necessity pooners, and that therefore he often finds himself treated exceptionally well for mostly that reason?
tantalizeme
Preference Pooner & Sex Addict par excellence.
ARE pooners predominantly a loser demographic? The best response I can think of, short of quoting solid sociological research, is to make a distinction. The same way that SPs can be loosely grouped along a spectrum between “career” sex workers and “survival” sex workers—between those that prefer sex work and those that lack other options—so I believe we can broadly distinguish what I’d like to call “preference” pooners from “necessity” pooners.
Preference pooners are guys who have desirable sexual options other than sex-buying. They can, and usually do, access good sex in relationships or from casual female acquaintances. But, in addition, they like to spice up life with the kind of sexual variety or fetish gratification or youthful beauty obtainable best by paying money.
Necessity pooners are guys who have little or no immediate hope of access to desirable sex partners, except in exchange for cash. They can't obtain freebies because almost all women reject their sexual advances, due to traits such as gross obesity or otherwise unacceptable looks; severe disabilities or even just a bad stammer; or mental issues like retardation, autism or perhaps even pathological shyness.
Now obviously this distinction certainly doesn’t always mark a person’s once-and-for-all destiny. Aging preference pooners, for example, may join the ranks of necessity pooners. And some necessity pooners pull themselves out of a state of undesirability and may become preference pooners.
Personally, needless to say, I consider myself a preference pooner.
I currently get semi-regular freebies from a female friend, and in recent weeks I’ve received signals of interest from several women, though not ones I find very attractive. Most women need to be courted, and after sex they usually become clingy; two things I usually can't be bothered with, in the case of less than an enchanting prospect. BUT I’ve lots of respect for necessity pooners. It takes vastly more courage to enter an Indy apartment or a massage parlor or micro—or to push your wheelchair up to a street provider—when you know most women would consider you a reject than when you feel you’re a very desirable man. I’ve known several inspiring men with serious disabilities who didn’t give up on a sex life, though this meant depending on SPs. I say bravo, go for it!
But even necessity pooners aren’t guaranteed losers. Just because they can’t get sex with desirable women for free doesn’t mean they can't be successful in other areas of life. Some make lots of money. It’s just a fact of life, ordained by nature, that men in search of freebie sex generally tend to face a shortage of attractive and willing women.
So SPs are needed, in all societies, to fill this gap at least partly. And it’s clearly a myth that men who frequent SPs are likely to be unattractive losers, failures, rejects.
A few things I’m left wondering about:
•Any fellow pooner out there who actually considers HIMSELF a necessity pooner?
•Keeping in mind that this distinction between "preference" & "necessity" pooners is a matter of degree (and therefore, to some extent, a matter of individual judgment)—does this distinction make any sense in the experience of SPs?
•Where do different SPs draw the line when it comes to accepting a client whom most women would consider completely undesirable as a sex partner?
•Is a necessity pooner whom most women would reject as a sex partner more likely to become a loyal regular for an SP who accepts him? (I would think so.)
•Is it likely that a debonair preference pooner provides a welcome relief for an SP who has recently seen highly unattractive necessity pooners, and that therefore he often finds himself treated exceptionally well for mostly that reason?
tantalizeme
Preference Pooner & Sex Addict par excellence.
