You people make me sick

[Fractals]

This is true, which is why, I advocate honesty. If you can't be honest for whatever reason, be discrete or single. I don't believe in monogamy, but I do believe in respecting the person you are with, which means not unnecessarily hurting the person

hahaha, Do we know the same men? I'm kidding, sort of, lol


The fact is, that human beings aren't all built the same. You can absolutely love someone to pieces, but your wife/husband or gf/bf, may have a much higher or much lower sex drive than you. It may be completely different. What really turns someone on, may completely turn someone else off. You may have not known about this turn on/off before you got together or eachothers different sex drives, because you guys were lovey dovey. The honey moon wears off, then you got a wife or a husband that doesn't put out, for what ever reasons. I believe if you don't want your partner to stray, you better be willing to try new things and experiment. Sexuality is a fluid thing. I don't understand the big deal of having your sexual needs met elsewhere. Sex and love have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


I personally do not believe in monogamy. I have seen husbands who's wives have set up the appointment. I've had threesomes with married men, . I am an adult. You are an adult. I do not seek married men out. They find me. In my private life, I will not date anybody in a relationship, because I really don't like drama, ugh. I do everything to avoid it. Plus, I have always been capable of finding my own lovers. I don't need someone else's. I have ahd lovers cheat on me in the past. Like I said previously what get s me upset is being lied to and being treated like I'm dumb. I refuse to take responsibility for someone else's decisions or actions. I provide a service, they buy.



Its the breakdown of the relationship that happens before he picks up the phone that is the problem. I personally would hate to live in a society that had rigid rules around sex. I know many couples in committed healthy relationships, that are swingers, and have group sex. I also know men that see working girls with the permission of their SO. Who are you to decide that your moral rigidness/righteousness is the way we all should live?

I agree with your views on being open about sex, especially between couples. I have read reviews here about couples seeing an sp and I am turned on by it and see nothing wrong with it. Wife and husband enjoying wonderful time with an amazing SP constitutes sexual bliss in my book. I love it!

If a wife consents to having her husband see an SP that is wonderful.

Maybe monogamy is no longer tenable; I am willing to accept that.

What I am questioning really is how husbands who profess to love their wives dearly can have the courage to cheat their wives and potentially hurt them while at the same time not have the decency to talk to their wives first and tell them that their sexual needs are NOT being met and then later ask for permission to phone a friend/SP as you have said?

I am also questioning where most SP draw the line?

Those who sell something draw the line all the time. Liquor and cigarette stores don't sell to children. The government ban direct advertising of drugs to consumers. Older men (except pedophiles) do not have sex with children.

Even gun store owners draw the line. They will not sell guns or ammunition to people they know clearly is about to commit a crime.

Perhaps I was not very clear with my question. I wasn't putting the blame completely on SPs, because they are not at fault as you have articulated. I am not even suggesting that SPs screen their clients first to make sure that their clients are not married; that would be ridiculous.

What I am referring to are those cases where an SP knows for sure that the client they are seeing is married and that the visit does not have the blessing of the wife such that if the wife finds out all hell would break loose and spell disaster for the man's family. In cases like that, do SPs draw the line or just continue with the business transaction and not think about the potential harm?

 

[Fractals]

Fractals, OMG, are you a priest? a righteous man? A saint?

You can't blame the SPs for these married men's behaviours, these SPs did not go out to seek these men, whereas these men seek these SPs. Lots of people don't know is that women are emotional whereas men are more physical, therefore, they think differently most of the time - that's why men don't sit at home watching "Sleepless in Seattle" but UFC or NCIS.

Blaming the SPs for this OP's situation is not the way to go..., imagine if the wife can cook good food at home all the time, why would the husband want to eat out? It's not logical.

OMG hugedman, why you are so predisposed to invoking argumentum ad hominem in your posts. While that works for shills, it rarely does for reasoned arguments where you are expected to argue your position.

But to answer your question, no, I'm none of those things you mentioned.

I am actually a sinner who whose soul will probably burn in hell for eternity, that is, assuming: 1) we have a soul, 2) hell is real, and 3) a cruel and vengeful God that created 1 and 2 exists -- all tenuous assumptions IMHO.

As for your last statement: If a wife can not cook good food, well, the husband should do the cooking. Why does it always have to be the wife. Perhaps the husband should tell the wife that her cooking sucks and explore ways to improve the cooking. If that does not work also, then the husband should ask the wife if it's alright to eat out cause the cooking at home sucks. Perhaps the wife would understand and consent. Some men give little credit to their wives.

 

[Rafa93210]

My opinion is anyone trying to call a service provider a homewrecker needs to start thinking about what's actually going on. Nobody forces someone to go see a service provider. It's the choice made by the client. Being available doesn't make any sp a homewrecker.

Those that are busy acting really judgmental in the replies here about married guys who see service providers are also talking like guys who have never been married and have no idea what they're talking about. I was in one that had no affection or caring and, yes, for a variety of reasons I won't get into I felt stuck. While I wasn't with an sp while I was together with the women from being in that experience if I had a friend who was in a similar situation and wanted to go see an sp I'd bring him there and cover for him.

Harmony-bc also had it right when she said what if people have different sex drives. After a couple years of marriage people's sex drives change and regardless of whether people like it or not the fact is sex is a need; not a luxury. Under Mazlowe's hierarchy of needs it's down there with air, food, drink, shelter, warmth as something that needs to be satisfied. You could argue it's a breach of contract if the wife no longer has to have sex with the husband but leaving your marriage isn't like leaving a girlfriend. It's not as easy as just telling somebody to get their stuff out of their house and you don't know what the situation is in their marriage. Maybe the wife is telling the husband how unattractive, useless, fat, etc he is and for that reason he doesn't want to touch his wife; you don't know. Don't be condescending and pretend you do; there are lots of reasons married people see sps and you may find yourself agreeing with their reason if you knew what it was.

As for the original poster here's a question for you. If you want to insult sps why are you insulting them for doing something that honestly all women have done on one level or another. Show me a women that hasn't decided to date guy A instead of guy B because he had a nicer car, more money, could take her out to nicer places, etc at least once in her life. What do you think you just did? You just traded a relationship that has physical intimacy involved (or at least the potential of physical intimacy) for a financial reason. Superficial reasons control why women enter into a lot of relationships and they're just as bad for it as men. I don't see too many romance novels where the protagonist is a short, dumpy, ugly minimum wage worker who is really good with children and small animals. The reason why society puts a stigma on sps and is judgmental, in my opinion, is because of attempts to control sexuality for puritanical reasons and it doesn't like the honesty of the transaction. It's the NSA affair stripped to its essentials. The woman wants money; the guy wants a fantasy. Yet despite it being more honest society likes women more who will marry a guy for his money, divorce him and take what she can, or use a guy for financial reasons all of which is very damaging to the guy. Or on the flip side some people consider it better to lie to a woman, manipulate her, and use her for sex instead of seeing an sp. Both of those should be right by the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. I find what an sp does to be far more honest then, for example, dating a guy because he's rich. So before you start attacking sps on the basis of morality consider the moral of how people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

[Fractals]

Also, research has discovered that men who do not get regular sex suffer much higher rates of prostate cancer. So, denying sex is kinda like condemning a man to an early death, no? Or at least denying him a healthy life.

Active sex life may be protective according to this:
http://www.4-men.org/sex-and-prostate-cancer.html

 

[laurel love]

There are only 2 home wreckers in a marriage. It's the husband or the wife. Everyone else is just an extra on the movie set.

 

[hugedman]

OMG hugedman, why you are so predisposed to invoking argumentum ad hominem in your posts. While that works for shills, it rarely does for reasoned arguments where you are expected to argue your position.

But to answer your question, no, I'm none of those things you mentioned.

I am actually a sinner who whose soul will probably burn in hell for eternity, that is, assuming: 1) we have a soul, 2) hell is real, and 3) a cruel and vengeful God that created 1 and 2 exists -- all tenuous assumptions IMHO.

As for your last statement: If a wife can not cook good food, well, the husband should do the cooking. Why does it always have to be the wife. Perhaps the husband should tell the wife that her cooking sucks and explore ways to improve the cooking. If that does not work also, then the husband should ask the wife if it's alright to eat out cause the cooking at home sucks. Perhaps the wife would understand and consent. Some men give little credit to their wives.

If you really thinking that I am trying to be on the SPs side, you are dead wrong, I am only speaking from my own view, you can always take it with a grain of salt.
I am not here to argue with you about the wife's cooking thing, if you like to, there will always be pleasure to further discuss. Let's say that we agree to disagree!
I am sure you will give all the credit to your wife even though she does not deserve them - that's what you believe it should be done and life should be...eh??

 

[sybok1701]

Which is better?

When one is confronted with misplaced sexual issues in a marriage (e.g. the wife won't put out anymore), the thing that is generally considered "proper and moral" is:

1) Seek counseling, or
2) Stay married and just learn to live with it (somehow, there's supposed to be strength in not receiving bj's),
or, if you can't live with it and need sex elsewhere, then...
3) Get divorced

Somehow, it many people's minds, it's morally righteous to get divorced than it is to seek out sex on the side. Never mind the financial disruption to the family, the emotional effect on the children, etc.

My wife and I have sex once every 6-8 weeks...she hates all oral sex (giving and receiving...say's the act is "disgusting"...and yes, I'm a clean and trimmed guy), and we've been married for 26 yrs. Yes, I visit SP's, because I simply can't stand it any longer. Yet I've made a commitment to stay married and try to give my kids a decent childhood. So, I suppose many women would say that I should suffer, and just enjoy the (meager) sex that I have with my wife, or simply learn to do without. Suffering being good for the soul and all that. I say BS to that!

So tell me, am I a better man for staying with my family, providing for my kids, trying to give them a decent life, yet getting occasional sex on the side....or should I break up the family, hurt my kids, sell the house, force my new ex-wife to get a job (she's a stay at home mom), all so I can have my sexual needs taken care of in the way "society" thinks I should?

Sy

 

[Fractals]

If you really thinking that I am trying to be on the SPs side, you are dead wrong, I am only speaking from my own view, you can always take it with a grain of salt.
I am not here to argue with you about the wife's cooking thing, if you like to, there will always be pleasure to further discuss. Let's say that we agree to disagree!
I am sure you will give all the credit to your wife even though she does not deserve them - that's what you believe it should be done and life should be...eh??

No hugedman. I was not accusing you of anything. I was just referring to your tendency to discredit the identity of the poster whose views you happen to disagree. Remember it is your opinion that the OP is not real because of what she said. You also accused me of being any of those things you mentioned just because you don't like what I said. That is the reason why I mentioned ad hominem.

I give you credit for detecting bullshit when it comes to shills. You seem to be good at that. In cases like that, discrediting the claim just because the person is a potential shill is logical. However, when someone presents a reasoned argument it does not make sense to respond first by attacking the person's identity.

As for the comments on cooking, I thought my response was all about sex. I just used your analogy to elaborate my point.

Peace and happy holidays!

 

[Fractals]

When one is confronted with misplaced sexual issues in a marriage (e.g. the wife won't put out anymore), the thing that is generally considered "proper and moral" is:

1) Seek counseling, or
2) Stay married and just learn to live with it (somehow, there's supposed to be strength in not receiving bj's),
or, if you can't live with it and need sex elsewhere, then...
3) Get divorced

Somehow, it many people's minds, it's morally righteous to get divorced than it is to seek out sex on the side. Never mind the financial disruption to the family, the emotional effect on the children, etc.

My wife and I have sex once every 6-8 weeks...she hates all oral sex (giving and receiving...say's the act is "disgusting"...and yes, I'm a clean and trimmed guy), and we've been married for 26 yrs. Yes, I visit SP's, because I simply can't stand it any longer. Yet I've made a commitment to stay married and try to give my kids a decent childhood. So, I suppose many women would say that I should suffer, and just enjoy the (meager) sex that I have with my wife, or simply learn to do without. Suffering being good for the soul and all that. I say BS to that!

So tell me, am I a better man for staying with my family, providing for my kids, trying to give them a decent life, yet getting occasional sex on the side....or should I break up the family, hurt my kids, sell the house, force my new ex-wife to get a job (she's a stay at home mom), all so I can have my sexual needs taken care of in the way "society" thinks I should?

Sy

What if you get caught by your wife cheating and she decided to divorce you, which then forces her to get a job after being a stay at home mom for many years, and resulting in your kids being hurt and hating you for a long time?

Are all of the good things in your life worth risking just because you wanted more sex?

 

[Glen or Glenda?]

"Hookers have saved a lot of marriages"

The aforementioned quote was from my friend's Mom*

*there are two rules about my friend's Mom:
#1 She's always right
#2 See #1

 

[wilde]

If you have the kind of career where you can gain by spending evenings working, you work. If you do see SPs, it's never in the evening when you don't have the secretary telling people you are off-site or you can answer your direct line.

That's always been my belief. There are very few true workaholics out there, the rest are just running away from something... usually a bad marriage.

 

[fanichio]

I am also questioning where most SP draw the line?

Those who sell something draw the line all the time. Liquor and cigarette stores don't sell to children. The government ban direct advertising of drugs to consumers. Older men (except pedophiles) do not have sex with children.

Even gun store owners draw the line. They will not sell guns or ammunition to people they know clearly is about to commit a crime.

You do realize that none of those are actually the idea of the retailers, they are government mandated requirements? There wouldn't need to be laws about it if those establishments didn't originally sell to those markets. Direct drug advertising is present all the time, watch late night TV, every 2nd commercial is for the latest and greatest drug which will fix your life. Successful retailers don't refuse sales, generally speaking.

Go back a century or two, and what we now call pedophilia was simply called getting a wife. In Classical Greece it was common for older men to take on young boys to teach them the ropes, both sexually and in whatever trade/occupation the man did. In japan child pornography was legal and normal up until a mere decade or two ago, when they finally banned it due to UN pressures, although I'm sure it's likely still rather prevalent, just no longer openly.

What I found interesting about the OP is that she seems to feel that it's OK to withold sex in order to get help with what (if she is a stay home housewife, which her post seems to indicate) is essentially her job. First of all, this tactic will always backfire, because if the man wants it that bad he'll simply go elsewhere, but secondly why on earth should he do her job for her? As others have mentioned, there was a day and age where cooking, cleaning. laundry, etc was a more than full time job, but modern appliances mean these tasks can be done in hours rather than days. You would never hear the man saying "well honey, I'll go down on you if you come in and do my board presentation for me". Not to say that I think these are "womans jobs", just rather that if their arrangement is that he goes and earns and she looks after the house, then she's not really living up to that by expecting him to do his work for her. The same would be true in reverse were she the bread earner and he be a house husband.

 

[Harmony-bc]

I actually do draw a few lines.

1. I'm uncomfortable seeing anybody under 25, refuse anybody under 21, and prefer over 30

2. I won't see someone high or drunk. I enjoy sharing a bottle of wine, but I do not need a sloppy [or potentially dangerous] asshole in my place.

3. The other day, I got an email that said, "hey yo girl, wuts up? Wuts the $$. Hit me back." I chose not to even reply

The married man, though, is a grown man and can make decisions of his own. I hope if he is at my place without his wife knowing, that he will be discrete. I don't want the drama. I have trouble being faithful to lovers, so who am I to judge? I tell everyone I'm non monogamous. If people choose to still date me, then they go in eyes wide open. There have been times in the past where I haven't been honest for fear of judgment or losing the person that I really liked. These days, I'm honest.

People have many reasons why they see escorts. Am I supposed to interview everyone to make sure that they don't shop lift, speed, go to church every Sunday and that their wife knows that he's at my place? If I do that, will that make me more of a decent person? Even if those morals aren't mine? Make it appear that I'm less about the money?

Its silly, if you ask me, asking me to have responsibility over 2 grown ups relationship. Like I've said before, I don't seek out married men, they seek me out. I refuse to be responsible for a grown mans actions.

In the mean time, I will continue caring about the things that are important to me. Like my friends, my family, the environment, animal rights, equality for everyone, the legalization of prostitution, etc, etc The list of things that I'm passionate about is a long one.

 

[Fractals]

If your wife can't stand to have sex with you, what good things are you losing? Sure, lots of men decide to hang in and get the kids out of the house - there are huge benefits to doing that. However, a woman who can't stand to have sex with you isn't doing the "best friend" thing. In fact, you know that when you come home, you are going to be sniped at. Since the kids are already teens, they don't want to spend time with you. As long as you attend their games, etc. they are happy.

In my earlier post I actually said that if things are no longer working, it's probably time to call it quits. The kids will be fine as long as the parents will continue to support and love them.

Maybe it's better if marriage contracts have fixed terms, like say a minum of one year and a maximum of five or whatever. That way you renew the contract only when you want to. Then there would be no need for divorce. I bet divorce lawyers would not want that.

 

[Fractals]

You do realize that none of those are actually the idea of the retailers, they are government mandated requirements? There wouldn't need to be laws about it if those establishments didn't originally sell to those markets. Direct drug advertising is present all the time, watch late night TV, every 2nd commercial is for the latest and greatest drug which will fix your life. Successful retailers don't refuse sales, generally speaking.

Go back a century or two, and what we now call pedophilia was simply called getting a wife. In Classical Greece it was common for older men to take on young boys to teach them the ropes, both sexually and in whatever trade/occupation the man did. In japan child pornography was legal and normal up until a mere decade or two ago, when they finally banned it due to UN pressures, although I'm sure it's likely still rather prevalent, just no longer openly.

You are absolutely right there. The line has to be drawn by others in order to protect the weak and the vulnerable. We just can't trust drug companies nor retailers to draw the line because left to their own devices they would only think about the bottom line. I guess that's just the way things are, we just can not trust suppliers to draw the line because that will be in conflict with their business.

I will add slavery to the list of the things you mentioned that used to be accepted but are now sanctioned by the law and looked down upon at least overtly by modern society. More than a century ago, most people believe that slavery is just part of the natural order of things and that even God, himself, approved it. But now, we know better and apparently God has "changed" his mind because now slavery is no longer right. Drawing the line is so difficult in this case as a bloody war that divided a great nation has to take place before the line became clearly etched in the minds and hopefully in the hearts of everyone.

The Taliban also has some very repressive norms and rules against women in their society. To them that is the natural order of things and their rule benefited mostly the men in their society. Good thing (I know that is still arguable) a third party has decided to draw the line for them.

Same with women's rights. It is only in the last few hundred years that society has accepted that men and women must have equal rights and privileges. Because that is the right thing to do. Again, drawing the line was not easy as most men opposed it because of the benefit they enjoy from the previous status quo.

Societies evolve and some practices that were acceptable years ago are continually being reevaluated. Where there are evidence of people getting hurt or taken advantage of (e.g. children, women, African American) lines are drawn.

I guess what I realize now is that the sex industry can not be expected to draw the line in some situations if doing so will affect their bottom line. It is clear that those who benefit from the current order of things that may be disadvantageous or hurtful to other people could not and perhaps should not be expected to draw the line. They just won't do it.

 

[Pillowtalk]

I agree with your views on being open about sex, especially between couples. I have read reviews here about couples seeing an sp and I am turned on by it and see nothing wrong with it. Wife and husband enjoying wonderful time with an amazing SP constitutes sexual bliss in my book. I love it!

If a wife consents to having her husband see an SP that is wonderful.

Maybe monogamy is no longer tenable; I am willing to accept that.

What I am questioning really is how husbands who profess to love their wives dearly can have the courage to cheat their wives and potentially hurt them while at the same time not have the decency to talk to their wives first and tell them that their sexual needs are NOT being met and then later ask for permission to phone a friend/SP as you have said?

I am also questioning where most SP draw the line?

Those who sell something draw the line all the time. Liquor and cigarette stores don't sell to children. The government ban direct advertising of drugs to consumers. Older men (except pedophiles) do not have sex with children.

Even gun store owners draw the line. They will not sell guns or ammunition to people they know clearly is about to commit a crime.

Perhaps I was not very clear with my question. I wasn't putting the blame completely on SPs, because they are not at fault as you have articulated. I am not even suggesting that SPs screen their clients first to make sure that their clients are not married; that would be ridiculous.

What I am referring to are those cases where an SP knows for sure that the client they are seeing is married and that the visit does not have the blessing of the wife such that if the wife finds out all hell would break loose and spell disaster for the man's family. In cases like that, do SPs draw the line or just continue with the business transaction and not think about the potential harm?

You are making the classic mistake of trying to connect two unconnected things, then using examples that actually do not make your point. An sp seeing a married client is not the same thing as a liquor store not selling to minors. It is more similar to a liquor store selling to alcoholics. It is a legal transaction. Do you expect the clerk at the store to make a moral judgment about the alcoholic and decide to refuse to sell him the bottle? The store exists, it has things for sale. It does not lure in the alcholic nor prevent them from leaving if they chose not to buy, nor do they trick them into coming into the store by any means. To say an sp has any responsibilty in the event a married client without his SO's permission to see sps calls up the sp, spends time with her, and leaves, is not logical.

 

[Fractals]

Actually, there are parts of the world that have temporary marriage contracts. Of course, those temporary marriage contracts are not particularly empowering for the woman involved. Women don't get to keep their children, they don't get to remarry for 4 months, they don't get to move back into their father's house. About the only advantage, for the woman, is that the husband can't walk around the house 3 times saying "I divorce you". He remains married to her for the entire period of the contract.

Contrast that to Canada.

http://www.suite101.com/content/temporary-marriage-in-modern-iran-and-iraq-a188688

Interesting read.

In addition to having marriage contracts not have the " 'til death do us part' " clause, I would propose that when couples choose to renew their marriage licences, say after 5 years, they should be required to pay one grand for each year they'd like the new contract to be valid for.

That way only those who are really crazy for each other after so many years will choose to do renew their vows (how romantic!) and disssuade the ones who are just crazy (for torture and punishment).

 

[Fractals]

You are making the classic mistake of trying to connect two unconnected things, then using examples that actually do not make your point. An sp seeing a married client is not the same thing as a liquor store not selling to minors. It is more similar to a liquor store selling to alcoholics. It is a legal transaction. Do you expect the clerk at the store to make a moral judgment about the alcoholic and decide to refuse to sell him the bottle? The store exists, it has things for sale. It does not lure in the alcholic nor prevent them from leaving if they chose not to buy, nor do they trick them into coming into the store by any means. To say an sp has any responsibilty in the event a married client without his SO's permission to see sps calls up the sp, spends time with her, and leaves, is not logical.

You are right that the sale of alcohol to the alcoholics is a legal transaction. But then again, the regulation was meant to protect those who are at-risk of being alcoholic, and not the ones who are already alcoholic. The young and arguably impressionable members of our society needs protection from the alcohol industry because they are at-risk of being alcoholic, and becoming so at an early age will affect their chance of having a productive life. Alcoholics need treatment, not protection from becoming one as they already are.

I wish you had explained more why you cherry-picked the comparison of married man seeing sps to liquor stores selling to alcoholics. Without further explanation, your argument appears weak and not convincing.

My point really is to show that supplying something, sex, liquor or whatever, carries some responsibility. When someone sells or supplies something, there is an expectation for the supplier to exercise some sense so that consumers limit the harm they may cause to themselves or to others.

This is the reason why the comparison between not selling alcohol to minors and not selling sex to married men with unapproving SOs is logical. Both consumers are at-risk of harming themselves and others. The comparison with selling to alcoholics is not logical as the consumer in that case has already been harmed by alcohol (and may require treatment). The alcoholic is simply not at-risk of being alcoholic anymore by definition. Selling alcohol to alcoholics does not put one at-risk of becoming alcoholic the same way that sps selling sex to single men and married men with approving SOs does not put these men at risk of getting divorce just because they purchased sex. I hope you see that I am making the correct and logical analogy here.

One can not in good conscience state that s/he is just supplying goods/services to adult members of our society who should know what they are doing. When the supplier KNOWS FOR SURE that the consumer is using the service to harm himself or others it is now up to the supplier to exercise some judgment because at that point s/he can no longer claim that s/he is without a fault. Suppliers with good conscience will act to limit the supply in some situations. Otherwise, the supplier will be no different from drug dealers, gun runners and mercenaries whose main concern is the bottom line.

 

[Stbljmpr]

Harmony thank you for your voice of reason. How can and why should anyone be responsible for another adult?

 

[Pillowtalk]

You are right that the sale of alcohol to the alcoholics is a legal transaction. But then again, the regulation was meant to protect those who are at-risk of being alcoholic, and not the ones who are already alcoholic. The young and arguably impressionable members of our society needs protection from the alcohol industry because they are at-risk of being alcoholic, and becoming so at an early age will affect their chance of having a productive life. Alcoholics need treatment, not protection from becoming one as they already are.

I wish you had explained more why you cherry-picked the comparison of married man seeing sps to liquor stores selling to alcoholics. Without further explanation, your argument appears weak and not convincing.

My point really is to show that supplying something, sex, liquor or whatever, carries some responsibility. When someone sells or supplies something, there is an expectation for the supplier to exercise some sense so that consumers limit the harm they may cause to themselves or to others.

This is the reason why the comparison between not selling alcohol to minors and not selling sex to married men with unapproving SOs is logical. Both consumers are at-risk of harming themselves and others. The comparison with selling to alcoholics is not logical as the consumer in that case has already been harmed by alcohol (and may require treatment). The alcoholic is simply not at-risk of being alcoholic anymore by definition. Selling alcohol to alcoholics does not put one at-risk of becoming alcoholic the same way that sps selling sex to single men and married men with approving SOs does not put these men at risk of getting divorce just because they purchased sex. I hope you see that I am making the correct and logical analogy here.

One can not in good conscience state that s/he is just supplying goods/services to adult members of our society who should know what they are doing. When the supplier KNOWS FOR SURE that the consumer is using the service to harm himself or others it is now up to the supplier to exercise some judgment because at that point s/he can no longer claim that s/he is without a fault. Suppliers with good conscience will act to limit the supply in some situations. Otherwise, the supplier will be no different from drug dealers, gun runners and mercenaries whose main concern is the bottom line.

I'm sorry, should I have added "cigarette stores" to the so called "cherry picking"? You only gave 2 examples of specialized retail outlets for me to choose from; the obvious addiction angle you are pushing cannot be applied to gun stores, and the cigarettes are not restricted to being sold in one place only, nor I do these stores have restricted access to the products the same way a liquor store does. Sps restrict access by the fact that, like alcohol, there is a minimum age requirement, and there is limited access in that if they worked at an mp, a client would have to be of age to enter. If indy, that would be also a requirement.

Like smoking and excessive drinking, the onus is on the person doing these activities to exercise self control. Drinking is not a highly addictive activity, nor will you die if you don't get it. The same can be said for sex and sexual activity.

I just don't play that blame game. The last person to blame for a married guy seeing an escort is the escort herself. Just the same as the last person to blame for someone becoming an alcoholic is the one who sold him the booze. You are trying to take away personal responsibility in these situations. You are also trying to enforce some sort of new screening tool, where an sp requires a great deal of personal information from their clients. Considering that discretion is the number one priority for sps, just how many guys out there do you expect are going to go along with providing a resume before booking appts.

This has nothing to do with greed, which I see you trying to oh so subtly imply over and over, by saying that sps lack the moral fibre to refuse to see married men because they want to take their money because all sps are a bunch of greedy bitches. Whether you, she, or anyone else has a moral issue with married guys seeing sps is besides the point. The point is it is not her job to judge anyone for their own choices. She sees adults, not children, who are presumed to have the ability to choose their own path in life.

You cannot absolve the guy of responsibilty in this, just as you cannot absolve the alcoholic for responsibility of continuing to purchase booze. And no, no one actually expects the sellers of these products to be responsible for grown adults decisions and choices. That is what so many people have fought to preserve over centuries: the right to choose, the right to follow their own path (within the rules of the laws), and like it or not, alcohol is legal, cigarettes are legal, and prostitution is legal.