MHUS - SP's with active HUSbands - please explain

[georgebushmoron]

Perhaps somebody can help me realize why I have a problem with this... sp and bf no problem... sp and separated or divorced husband no problem... but sp and husband in supposed loving relationship... that is supposed to be the highest level of commitment... once a relationship is taken to that level, call me old fashioned, but certain professions like unnecessary whoring go out the window

To understand it, you have to adopt a different notion about true love, which is that true love has no rules. I believe that true love is selfless and only seeks to exalt the other person. The highest level of commitment as given by a husband and wife should be first and foremost the commitment to the happiness of each other. I don't believe that a loyal commitment of sex is necessarily one and the same thing as the highest level of commitment you talk about via marriage.

When a person is truly in love, I believe the feeling transcends the physical pleasure of sex. No longer is the focus on the physical sensations of the penis and vagina (though certainly you can feel them) but that the focus is on the other partner, the result being a union of body/mind/heart/soul. If this is the understanding of love at its highest moment, then from this perspective sex can be seen as merely a physically pleasurable act - much like picking your nose might be to some people.

So if a wife is also an SP, it is possible that she engages in her "profession" as merely a provider of a physical service. This has nothing to do with the love she shares with her husband, except perhaps that he condones her chosen vocation.

However, not all is the color of roses. Some women, my SP-GF for example, tells me that she does not enjoy sex even physically with her clients. I have doubts about that, but I certainly believe she does not enjoy it on the same level (body/heart/mind/soul) as she does with me. As I am somewhat a jealous and insecure person, I don't even like the thought that she enjoys a physical pleasure with someone else. But despite this, I don't mistake her pleasure as any encroachment upon the love we share. Nevertheless, I have resolved to put up with this (due to her economic situation) but with a number of particular restrictions to ensure that her and my safety are protected, that her physical pleasure is minimized, and that no client of her's could hope that anything more could possibly transpire.

 

[DeaAphrodite]

I've read all the responses and I think I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I consider myself pretty open minded when it comes to swinging and stuff, but somehow this is just a bit different. I thought about this over dinner and although I respect people's choices and decisions, I still can't fathom how this could in any way be part of a "healthy marriage"... a broken marriage perhaps, but not a healthy one.

What I really wonder is, with the divorce rate at 60% or so, why isn't everyone questioning the current model of marriage and marriage-like relationships? The model is broken. I think we need to re-examine our expecations of what a relationship is "supposed" to be.

I think it is fairly safe to say that as a group, sp's think a little differently from most people. Perhaps a little more open minded? Maybe willing to entertain (and see) possibilities that others wouldn't? Even maybe love more than one person.

When you can let go of the "ownership" model of relationship, it allows for a lot of possibilities for growth and expansion of personal potential that aren't possible for a person who's identity is wrapped up in being "Bill's wife" or "Judy's husband". A person can just be the best of who they are and allow the same of others. In the spaces where lovers come together, there is love and sharing, but it doesn't have to be all-consuming, to the exclusion of other experiences and/or lovers.

I am of the opinion that all of one's past experiences and lovers make for a richer, fuller person, who in turn has more to give to everyone else... friends, lovers, or clients.

 

[badboy642]

******* love of my life.

It's like the film "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being".
You either get it or you don't.

.... we decided it was better to become more "seperate"..
.. not to do with the "biz" per se'.

... most beautiful person I have ever known...

... and the most interesting....

.. and still my best friend.



.... "what you do..

.... or what you do not do ..

is not..

who you are."

................................... think about it..

 

[maverick73]

I hate to take up another post... but thanks GBM... you explained it the best... I still think it's f$cked up, but have a better understanding now... I respect people's choices if they do that, but never in my lifetime could I tolerate having a wife that was an SP... I guess everybody's tolerance level is different... gf as temporary career choice that leads to something better is ok with me... but if we're gonna get married, no way I would even propose to her if she wanted to continue working. Speaking of marriage... I have an idea for another thread now... damnit, too many thread ideas, too little time.

I think I've gotten what I wanted to out of this thread... so for me, like Lionel Hutz says... it's "case closed."... rest of you feel free to carry on.

 

[Bakermn]

Guys - whats the big deal - like it has been said a few times we all have "real" lives outside pooning. I dare to say many of us are married too. Its a fantasy. If I feel comfortable with a lady I will repeat, if not - lesson learned and I move on - no hard feelings.

Some wonder about the "frequency" of wome of the women reveiwed here and find it a turn off. Judging by some of the reviewers in here, some of the pooners in here are probably busier than some of the women!

As to the thrust of this thread - and I believe spurred on by a remark from a reviewer that , "her husband is in this with her - which alarmed me somewhat - never know who may ring the bell."
Call me stupid - but reading this does not seem to indicate that her hubby is in the next room - he is "in it" with her could mean a lot of things. He is a protector - business partner - maybe he looks after laundering - I mean accounting for - all the the cash. Maybe he simply does not dissaprove.
To each their own - but to deny an SP the love of a man, not just the sexual yearnig of men with cash - is pretty shallow. Or should we just treat every woman as permanently wanting to boff us all?

Respect goes a long long way .
Cheers

 

[funnguy694u]

hmmmm,if you are paying for it???? Wut does it matter if she is married or has a b/f....Fucking think about it,your are not the only guy in her life anyways !!!!!!!!!

 

[DeaAphrodite]

Dea, I think I owe you an apology. I thought you meant I lost my integrity, but reading your post again, I realized you could have meant I lost my faith in people's integrity. Big difference.

If so, I misunderstood you and I am sorry.

Anita

Thank you, accepted.

In truth, the "you" was meant in a more general sense, to anyone who has lost their faith in people's goodness.

Dea

 

[DeaAphrodite]

As to the thrust of this thread - and I believe spurred on by a remark from a reviewer that , "her husband is in this with her - which alarmed me somewhat - never know who may ring the bell."
Call me stupid - but reading this does not seem to indicate that her hubby is in the next room - he is "in it" with her could mean a lot of things. He is a protector - business partner - maybe he looks after laundering - I mean accounting for - all the the cash. Maybe he simply does not dissaprove.
To each their own - but to deny an SP the love of a man, not just the sexual yearnig of men with cash - is pretty shallow. Or should we just treat every woman as permanently wanting to boff us all?

Respect goes a long long way .
Cheers

Very well said, Bakermn.

 

[Bakermn]

Thanks Dea

 

[old pooner]

When I am with an SP, I don't care if she has a SO. But knowing he is in the next room, I would just be worried about him coming in after I've paid my money and chasing out of the house with a machete. The integrity factor comes into play here. Being with one of the known SP, like our lovely PERBites on this site, I wouldn't worry about that. It's when we are out there doing "research" for the team that I would be concerned.

Mav, being an old timer myself (I don't if you are an oldtimer, but you admit to having old fashioned views) I understand your thought process, but the fact is, most "pooners" are married. Is there no difference to a married man going to an SP, or an SP being married?

 

[kehoe]

the morality or the creepiness doesn't matter to me, it's just a turnoff plain and simple.

 

[SugarSeed]

on the other hand ....

In Europe and some finer North American restaurants, it is not uncommon to find a male attendant in the washroom, with a towel or soap .... Perhaps this is the wave of the future for SPs?

Style-conscious SPs seeking to offer more luxury and comfort would advertise "male attendant on call" .....

"...can I help you fully unroll your condomn, sir? Please, allow me, sir."

"...would the good sir be wishing me to hold his balls from slapping while he bangs my ho??"

 

[shedevil]

I see why it would make someone uncomfortable. At the same time, we are people too and have our own lives outside of the job.

It WOULD be creepy if an SP mentioned an SO to a client. I would hardly see a repeat factor in this case and I see the obvious negative. It is bad for business.

For me, it is not worth the aggravation of having a partner. It makes the job that much harder and it would be really hard on the person I was with.

I would never ask someone to put up with it. Solo is best.

Then again, this is a smut board and the concept of what's right and wrong in this business is kind of tongue in cheek. We are paid companions, you are seeking them. Most do have SO's (be it the SP or pooner). We are all guitly of being immoral here.

MHO

SD

 

[JustAGuy]

What I really wonder is, with the divorce rate at 60% or so, why isn't everyone questioning the current model of marriage and marriage-like relationships? The model is broken. I think we need to re-examine our expecations of what a relationship is "supposed" to be.

I think it is fairly safe to say that as a group, sp's think a little differently from most people. Perhaps a little more open minded? Maybe willing to entertain (and see) possibilities that others wouldn't? Even maybe love more than one person.

When you can let go of the "ownership" model of relationship, it allows for a lot of possibilities for growth and expansion of personal potential that aren't possible for a person who's identity is wrapped up in being "Bill's wife" or "Judy's husband". A person can just be the best of who they are and allow the same of others. In the spaces where lovers come together, there is love and sharing, but it doesn't have to be all-consuming, to the exclusion of other experiences and/or lovers.

I am of the opinion that all of one's past experiences and lovers make for a richer, fuller person, who in turn has more to give to everyone else... friends, lovers, or clients.

What a great post, Dea. Maverick and others who think that way are cutting themselves off from a whole wealth of possibilities by having such a narrow definition of what marriage is/ought to be. And you are so right about the "ownership" model way of thinking being severely limiting in terms of growth as an individual.

For me, a key concept here and one GBM was describing without actually using the term is "unconditional love". I've experienced it twice in my life and it's absolutely mind-blowing when you realize that you've moved past being in love with someone to unconditionally loving them.

By bringing a truckload of preconceptions to a relationship and then being unwilling or unable to let go of those notions, people never do more than catch the occasional (and probably unsettling) glimpse of what might be if all that baggage wasn't there. Walking the high wire without a net below is certainly more dangerous but also infinitely more exhilarating.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I think she is telling you the truth. Women are no light bulbs, they don't get turned on just because the 5th customer walked in and wants them regardless of who they are and what they are like.

An indy is differrent. She knows in advance who is coming, can get herself in the mood is she wants to....

GBM, you should stop being so sceptical with your girlfriend. Appreciate her honesty instead of expecting her to tell you the stereotypes people usually believe about this business.

Agreed that women are not light bulbs (neither are men). But some women get turned on much more quickly than others.

She does know who is coming in advance. This is called a "booking", so she has time to prepare her mood, so to speak.

My skepticism is warranted only because her job involves having sex with other men. Were it any other job, she would get carte blanche faith from me. In this job, I expect accountability only because the crossing of the line from merely "customer" to "lover" is impossible to detect. This is no reflection on her, I would expect the same out of any SP I choose to date. In fact, she is as honest a person as can be expected under the circumstances and I celebrate her for who she is.

 

[Vesta]

Define "Immoral" please Seriously though, I've found that most everyone's definition varies with personal beliefs.

I think it is fairly safe to say that as a group, sp's think a little differently from most people. Perhaps a little more open minded? Maybe willing to entertain (and see) possibilities that others wouldn't? Even maybe love more than one person.

When you can let go of the "ownership" model of relationship, it allows for a lot of possibilities for growth and expansion of personal potential that aren't possible for a person who's identity is wrapped up in being "Bill's wife" or "Judy's husband". A person can just be the best of who they are and allow the same of others. In the spaces where lovers come together, there is love and sharing, but it doesn't have to be all-consuming, to the exclusion of other experiences and/or lovers.

I am of the opinion that all of one's past experiences and lovers make for a richer, fuller person, who in turn has more to give to everyone else... friends, lovers, or clients.

Well said. I applaud your way of thinking.

I have clients that solely want to have coffee dates with me and we sometimes talk quite a bit about issues like the above, or in league with this threads' topic. Today in fact, my client commented that no intelligent man would be willing to be "serious" with a woman who did what I do for a living. I asked him why; we're just having coffee (need I mention that he is paying for my time here) what's wrong with that? He of course had no response for that. What could he say, really.

In my opinion, if a couple are truly in love and are also secure with/in that love, they will be comfortable even with having an SO who sells her time. I've said it before and I'll say it again, most everyone in our Capitalist society sells their time. It's all in how you're willing to spend it (or sell it).

 

[georgebushmoron]

In my opinion, if a couple are truly in love and are also secure with/in that love, they will be comfortable even with having an SO who sells her time.

This is a myth. That true love is like a stalwart stone wall impregnable by all forces such that the beloved can withstand any discomfort is to not understand the nature of love. True love exposes the greatest risk to one's emotional security, and to be able to stay in it the beloved must be able to be assured that they can never be betrayed. True love is synonymous with the greatest insecurity - even the most confident of individuals, when confronted with true love, become insecure puppies. The closer you get to the fire of true love, the greater the feeling you are going to get burned.

In other words, if a couple are not in love at all, have no feelings of love for each other, then the partner will be comfortable even when his SO sells her body.

I have no idea where this popular fool's notion about love comes from. Perhaps too much reality television, for it reeks of Hollywood drama. It completely misunderstands human emotion.

 

[maverick73]

True love exposes the greatest risk to one's emotional security, and to be able to stay in it the beloved must be able to be assured that they can never be betrayed. True love is synonymous with the greatest insecurity - even the most confident of individuals, when confronted with true love, become insecure puppies. The closer you get to the fire of true love, the greater the feeling you are going to get burned.

I was just going to say something to that effect, but I could not put it into words properly like you just did. My explanation had to do with being betrayed... it is a different "type" of jealousy... one can be confident and not be jealous in the traditional sense... but if one invests his time and emotions into a lady, he does not want to be made a fool of... if one is involved with somebody and she is seeing all sorts of men behind closed doors, you can rest assured some of those men will be trying to woo her away... the argument then becomes that if somebody else woos her away, then your relationship with the girl was never meant to be in the first place... that she and the other man were the better match and that it was meant to be...

but then what if she realizes that they weren't meant to be and you were the better match in the first place? What if in the mean time you too have found somebody else... it makes things extremely complicated.

Then there is the saying that if you love something set it free and if it stays away it was never yours to begin with but if it comes back, it's yours? Ok so let's say you do that... and your love comes back to you... then what? I would say that at that point, if you've both experienced the rest and are satisfied you are with the best, why is there a need to continue seeing other people, unless you both agree to for "recreational group or swinging sex."

f$ck... I have so many thought running thru my mind right now I can't express it properly... I just finished a workout and I need to go take a shower and rest my mind... maybe I will have a clearer train of thought tommorow morning.

 

[logsplitter]

It never ceases to amaze me that you guys expect integrity in this business.

This business is based on sneakiness. You guys are sneaking around your SO's, women are sneaking around the law. Get over it, this is a sneaky business.

It doesn't mean everybody is sneaky. I am as straight forward as it gets

But please, don't act like you are BBB

It never fails to amaze me that you think that you rise above the rest hollier than thou??

 

[logsplitter]

There is this thing about boy friends and husbands. I like to think that the SP that I am with, who insists on protection, insists on protection with everyone (I know this isn't a perfect world so I am speaking in generalities). I seriously doubt that the boyfriend or husband covers up with the party hat for his fun.

If his S.O. is fucking everyone then he is probably fucking a few too. This is where the whole thing gets a little unsafe. I would rather have fun with SP's that do not have boyfriends or husbands. Many that I have known and particularly the regulars that I see have fun in their personal lives but to the best of my knowledge they don't have full time relationships. Not because they do not want them but because it is too complicated. The casual sex that they have in their personal lives is most often with the party hat on also (I am talking in generalities).