Many male 'mongers are hypocrites. Should we feel guilty for it?

The whole "bash a category of ladies, then book 'em on the sly" thing comes down to 'mongers wanting the approval of their fellow 'mongers in public, but booking whoever they want or perhaps whoever they feel is actually willing to see them in private. Guys who've been rejected a lot in RW dating scenarios might not feel that they actually have a chance with ladies of their preferred type until they've had a few sessions and hopefully some improved confidence.

I know a monger that looks like justin timberlake that loves his curvy women...and we love him back ...but in my real world relationships...I likes the chubs..they are cuddle-rific!

...but in my real world relationships...I likes the chubs..they are cuddle-rific! Originally Posted by gingerpie

Y'all hear that, ladies? We're cuddle-rific.

It's true. I'll even prove it to you.. I'm running a special.. only $37.50 (I don't even need a sammich).

... you want to throw another log on the fire ... fine ... have at it.

good thing for me .. i'm shallow and without much of a conscience ...

It's not one of the longest running professions without merit. Infinite reasons that man seeks woman, lol. I've concluded variety is the spice of life.

we pay women Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

I've quoted the part of the OP's original statement that should logically quell most debates on the topic of attraction. Feigned or not.

I'm not sure if its because people like to rationalize this hobby to themselves or what. But, I notice when a lot of people speak on the hobby on these boards they leave out the part about money exchanging hands for a service. I find it humorous that people try to inject some sense of moral responsibility onto the monger like we are supposed to lower our standards because she is "trying her bestest" or its all that she can offer.

I think the word "hypocrite" could never really apply to this hobby in that manner because the exchange of money is not going both ways. I expect a certain quality for my money. The day an escort "pays" me for something and I dont deliver + tell them to deal with my quality because its what i think they are supposed to have, is the day that I become a hypocrite.

I asked a woman here what big deal about K9 in all the reviews was, she said a lot guys are so fat that bending over and letting them use her back as a shelf is about the only way they can do it. Originally Posted by Stock Trader

Ah feel laik Ah've bin outted!

Ok here is what I think, I like to rent equipment as I get the best the industry has to offer at a reasonable price to get my job done. I don't have to deal with the high maintenance. I don't want to buy my equipment as there are to many and I only want one when I need it.
Does the equipment rental place care if I like Case, JD, bobcat, or any other manufacturers.
No they all have there place and some like Case and some like JD, it would not be hypocritical to rent a JD if you are a Case guy, but if you were a stanch supporter of one and went to great lengths to promot one and bash the other then one day all there was, was the one you hate but hell the job has to get done and you go there, that might be hypocritical

IB

I do not see it as being a hypocrite unless you are fat disgusting slob who couldn't get laid in a morgue and you bash ladies who are BBWs or chubby.

fortunately I am considered by many to be an attractive man. I have fuked many hotties in my day for 'free'. I have never dated any girl under an 8 looks wise. I have had many Providers gasp a sigh of relief when they open the door and meet me.
However I do not bash others for their looks or what they want. I only make fun of girls who charge $500 for a cbj.

I have paid for 10s and I have paid for 5's,, to me its about your enthusiasm and your personality..

In a perfect capitalistic system, this attractivness factor would be accounted for. Most of the ladies here are in the 6 to 10 range. Most of the clients are 0 to 6.
I'd like to propose a sliding rate scale of
Price =$150 + (N-M)*$50
Where N is her #, and M is his #.

While I am probably going to hear a lot of complaints about this equitable solution, my only observation is that it is not complicated enough. For instance, some ladies would require much more than $650 to meet with Whispers; and some would accept much less than that to pity-fuck David Duechbeak.
Hypothetically yours,
Mr. Peabody

I think it's silly to say a big boy can't see a petite provider. You're not a hypocrite for liking something that's out of your normal league; that's how sex usually works. Most women don't want to sleep with most men already. If you think it's due to the size or shape of your body or face, you've blinked and missed the point.

I get the feeling from some recent conversations that you expect us to have a feeling one way or the other on your attractiveness, and that it makes a session easier if you're cute. I'm far too concerned with making sure you're not there to kill or rob me (for new clients), or if I know you're cool, it's probably well established that we have a mental connection, and that's what actually stimulates me to a point where long-term clients do become more aesthetically pleasing, but that takes time to develop, and it's mostly irrelevant to our interaction. Make me laugh in your PM and then see how wet my pussy gets when we fuck. I dare you.

"They all look the same when I pull down the shades and turn out the light,"

To round this out for the blinkers: don't be an asshole to women, lose the shitty attitudes fed to you by PUA con men, and you'll either get laid for free, or be someone's favorite client. If a lady doesn't want to see obese men, that's her prerogative as it *does* come with a certain set of physical challenges, but mais fica. Looks are irrelevant. Attitude is everything.

In a perfect capitalistic system, this attractivness factor would be accounted for. Most of the ladies here are in the 6 to 10 range. Most of the clients are 0 to 6.
I'd like to propose a sliding rate scale of
Price =$150 + (N-M)*$50
Where N is her #, and M is his #.

While I am probably going to hear a lot of complaints about this equitable solution, my only observation is that it is not complicated enough. For instance, some ladies would require much more than $650 to meet with Whispers; and some would accept much less than that to pity-fuck David Duechbeak.
Hypothetically yours,
Mr. Peabody Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

And, using Mr P's ingenious formula I calculate out at $37.50. Which I knew all along...

I think it's silly to say a big boy can't see a petite provider. You're not a hypocrite for liking something that's out of your normal league; that's how sex usually works. Most women don't want to sleep with most men already. If you think it's due to the size or shape of your body or face, you've blinked and missed the point.

I get the feeling from some recent conversations that you expect us to have a feeling one way or the other on your attractiveness, and that it makes a session easier if you're cute. I'm far too concerned with making sure you're not there to kill or rob me (for new clients), or if I know you're cool, it's probably well established that we have a mental connection, and that's what actually stimulates me to a point where long-term clients do become more aesthetically pleasing, but that takes time to develop, and it's mostly irrelevant to our interaction. Make me laugh in your PM and then see how wet my pussy gets when we fuck. I dare you.

"They all look the same when I pull down the shades and turn out the light,"

To round this out for the blinkers: don't be an asshole to women, lose the shitty attitudes fed to you by PUA con men, and you'll either get laid for free, or be someone's favorite client. If a lady doesn't want to see obese men, that's her prerogative as it *does* come with a certain set of physical challenges, but mais fica. Looks are irrelevant. Attitude is everything. Originally Posted by BiancaBonVivant

^ I love this. So true...men are visual. Women are mental.

... you want to throw another log on the fire ... fine ... have at it.

good thing for me .. i'm shallow and without much of a conscience ... Originally Posted by dodger

I never felt guilty about participating in the Hobby. Perhaps if I were married, there would be a legitimate reason for guilt if I was deceiving the wife about being exclusively hers physically, but as a single guy? The only reason I'd have for feeling guilt about hobbying in general would be if I went to see ladies who were coerced into sex work, and knew they weren't there of their own free will, *and went in anyway.*

---

Sometimes I wonder if the root reason for the dislike of the Hobby by the mainstream is that it does allow guys to have sex with ladies 'out of their league' without having to earn that right in the mainstream dating arena.

Hostility to the provider is based on the fact that her business is based around allowing men to dodge the rules of the dating/marriage market.

Are those rules valid? Eh, not really.. but I still feel bound by them nonetheless, and I'll always feel like I'm a lesser-quality man for not playing & winning by those rules that I don't really agree with.

(Irrational, much? )

I think the dominant form of hostility towards sex work is that it gives women economic potential, primarily, and that we get to control our own bodies, secondarily. After that, the third most important hostility comes from women who I'll class as wives for now, because they see their errant husbands as mere putty in our silken claws. The Wife Class will always blame the woman though, whether it's p4p or civvie cheating.

Everyone knows men with resources have the pick of the litter when it comes to pussy, and it's always been that way. This has only recently come under scrutiny, so I doubt any major form of hostility towards sex work is due to men getting to play outside of the rules, as this is completely within the rules that men made to begin with.

I think it's inherently classist that it works this way, and I do sex work partially as an artistic stance against capitalism, but I think that's a discussion for another time and place.