providers online dating on the rise

You haven't hobbied while in a committed relationship? That sounds like you continue to hobby until things become committed, which means you aren't acting in the interests of full disclosure, yet you think a provider needs to quit providing immediately to allow the relationship to "blossom"?

That's a lot of hair-splitting and cognitive acrobatics in order to justify the premise that it's a problem for a woman to whore, but not for a man to be a whoremonger, while dating someone. Fascinating! Originally Posted by Datura

You are grasping for straws with the committed relationship vs relationship. The actual topic isn't disclosure as much as it is continuing to hobby while claiming to be in love.
As far as how soon disclosure on either side should come about, that is a no brainer. She fucks several people everyday for a LIVING which is a far cry from him telling her "I have seen a few hookers in the past".
You can't possibly be this clueless. In your anxious attempt to come up with a point you're ignoring that fairly huge detail.

4 sessions in a period of two years versus fucking 2-3 clients a day Hmmm.

In my specific case all four hobby sessions were together during the few months I was neither dating nor in a relationship period so your assumption is dead wrong making your entire point irrelevant.

I never waste money on the hobby if I am getting what I need BCD and I never date any woman who doesn't satisfy me BCD. Therefore I rarely hobby which is more than evident by my review and post history.

The actual topic at hand is relationship not random dating. No one suggested that a provider need tell every civie she goes out on a date with that she provides or that she must quit immediately. That is HER business.
However a civie may not take it so well when he finds out that she didn't disclose the fact that she's been kissing and fucking him only AFTER sucking dicks, spreading her legs and taking it in the ass all day as a job.
She exposed him without his consent. Few civies would be OK with that but that is a different topic altogether.

Stay focused. As I stated repeatedly once it appears there is potential for True love or something more than just friend fucking and love enters the picture she will have to cease making a living spreading her legs in order to nurture that love between them.

The term committed relationship means just that. In a non committed relationship both expect the other is likely seeing others but then again open dating vs sporadic monger sessions vs fucking several clients a day as a livelihood are worlds apart in terms of disclosure.

I don't believe any mongers here hobby for a living or participate anywhere close to that level of sessions. If they do then the same would obviously apply.

No one is saying it's not possible for a provider to find potential true love, be honest about what she does and quit hooking so it can blossom.

I don't believe true love can become realized when a provider continues to sell her body to other men out of choice. Of course that is just my opinion.

There are many stories of providers quitting the hobby to nurture potential new love and succeeding.
The key phrase is quitting the hobby immediately upon find it.

When it comes down to it, what kind of woman would really want a man who was perfectly fine with her continuing to have sex with other men while they are supposedly in love? Originally Posted by Codybeast

+1

I think it's interesting, from my point of view as a happy couple. We (my lady and I) DO call providers once in a while, to play. I have several friends that are swingers as well. In this light, there's a fine line between a fella that would "never be involved with a hooker on a "couple basis", but will go to a swingers party and share for free. The only apparent difference is $$$. Pussy doesn't necessarily mean "love", it's SEX. It's fun, it's healthy (done right). Just sayin', there's fine line...

And to tag onto what nuglet said, I have known more than one provider that was married while providing while also in the swing lifestyle. Their hubbies knew about their providing and were Ok with it. There were ground rules for them while providing as well as while swinging. There were also ground rules for the hubby as to seeing providers and what they did while swinging. But married providers I've known, even with a hubby that's OK with them providing, keep their marital status secret because most hobbyists can't quite wrap their heads around how it's possible for the hubby not to be jealous and cause a problem and the hobbyists' fears would hurt their business.

YUUUP! Jealousy can ruin ANY relationship, makes no difference what the circumstances are. Had a lady tell me one time... "it's not like sharing it, takes anything away. It's still there, none the worse for wear. It doesn't run out or expire".

I think it's interesting, from my point of view as a happy couple. We (my lady and I) DO call providers once in a while, to play. I have several friends that are swingers as well. In this light, there's a fine line between a fella that would "never be involved with a hooker on a "couple basis", but will go to a swingers party and share for free. The only apparent difference is $$$. Pussy doesn't necessarily mean "love", it's SEX. It's fun, it's healthy (done right). Just sayin', there's fine line... Originally Posted by nuglet

The SO I referred to earlier from 7 years back that talked me into the swinger's party was a sporadic uncommitted fuck buddy/die hard swinger rather than an actual GF, spouse or one-on-one relationship.

Speaking only for myself the whole benefit to being in a one-on-one loving relationship is that elusive magical bond and trust that can only exist between two people.
Fucking outsiders breaks that bond polluting that magic for the perpetrator whether or not the other partner finds out. I realize this opinion will sink like a brick on an escort site but it is My truth regardless.

The reason I've never cheated on a partner is not because I'm afraid she'll find out or because I'm better than anyone else but because it will ruin the magic for myself. I'd rather be single than be tied to an insincere relationship of convenience.

I would never swing with someone I share this bond with. First of all I wouldn't want any other woman and secondly she wouldn't want any other man. This is my romantic hangup I suppose but to this day not one single ex has a harsh word to say about me as a partner.

Jealousy has zero to do with it. I am not the sort to get jealous but I do have zero tolerance for any woman who would deliberately play head games in an attempt to make me jealous. As soon as I see it I smile and kick her ass to the curb because that behavior is the exact opposite of love.

And to tag onto what nuglet said, I have known more than one provider that was married while providing while also in the swing lifestyle. Their hubbies knew about their providing and were Ok with it. There were ground rules for them while providing as well as while swinging. There were also ground rules for the hubby as to seeing providers and what they did while swinging. But married providers I've known, even with a hubby that's OK with them providing, keep their marital status secret because most hobbyists can't quite wrap their heads around how it's possible for the hubby not to be jealous and cause a problem and the hobbyists' fears would hurt their business. Originally Posted by Carl

I don't know the true motivation behind a spouse being OK with his wife giving her body to other men or her being OK with him doing the same but it is simply something I don't comprehend nor do I care to.
I see nothing healthy or edifying about it but I'm sure one can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it. We humans are good at that.

I'm sure, for some, that's just a license to have sexual variety without hiding it. You might call it a license to cheat, but cheating implies that there's deception involved. That their primary concern is them getting variety, then they accept the price to get it: allowing the spouse to have their variety, too.

But, if the non-marital activities are out in the open and mutual, following set guidelines, then it might violate some people's sensibilities or ability to comprehend but it can't be cheating if the spouse knows about, agrees to it and exercises the same rights and options. It's then an adult relationship that doesn't fit in orthodox definitions.

I've never been a swinger, but I have known some. While I may be more possessive and romantically idealistic than they are, I don't stand to judge them if it works for them; even if I can't emotionally understand how they are capable of it.

Now, I have heard that with some swingers, it's a case of one partner really wanting to swing and the other coaxed or coerced to go along. That might qualify as a form of cheating. But I've known two non-provider couples in that lifestyle where that couldn't be further from the truth. They're able to compartmentalize the physical enjoyment of sex, with their spouse as well as others, from their love and commitment to each other. And BTW, I've never fucked with them, literally or figuratively.

While I can't understand quite how they're able to manage their feelings and attractions, I also can't understand how gay men can find another male body sexually arousing. A guy's body does nothing for me erotically. Zero, zip, nada. But just like I accept that gay brains are somehow wired a little bit differently than mine but still work fine, I also accept that these true swinger/polyamourous types also have their brains wired somehow a little bit differently but are still OK. They're just lucky to have found each other.

I'm sure, for some, that's just a license to have sexual variety without hiding it. You might call it a license to cheat, but cheating implies that there's deception involved. That their primary concern is them getting variety, then they accept the price to get it: allowing the spouse to have their variety, too.

But, if the non-marital activities are out in the open and mutual, following set guidelines, then it might violate some people's sensibilities or ability to comprehend but it can't be cheating if the spouse knows about, agrees to it and exercises the same rights and options. It's then an adult relationship that doesn't fit in orthodox definitions.

I've never been a swinger, but I have known some. While I may be more possessive and romantically idealistic than they are, I don't stand to judge them if it works for them; even if I can't emotionally understand how they are capable of it.

Now, I have heard that with some swingers, it's a case of one partner really wanting to swing and the other coaxed or coerced to go along. That might qualify as a form of cheating. But I've known two non-provider couples in that lifestyle where that couldn't be further from the truth. They're able to compartmentalize the physical enjoyment of sex, with their spouse as well as others, from their love and commitment to each other. And BTW, I've never fucked with them, literally or figuratively.

While I can't understand quite how they're able to manage their feelings and attractions, I also can't understand how gay men can find another male body sexually arousing. A guy's body does nothing for me erotically. Zero, zip, nada. But just like I accept that gay brains are somehow wired a little bit differently than mine but still work fine, I also accept that these true swinger/polyamourous types also have their brains wired somehow a little bit differently but are still OK. They're just lucky to have found each other. Originally Posted by Carl

Yes I agree that if both partners know about it then there is no cheating involved just as my FWB and I didn't cheat on one another while having multiple lovers.

My point is that I seriously doubt that true love exists if both parties are willing to share their loved ones bodies (Tied to spirit) with those outside of their union. I am not judging the individuals at all. I am questioning the existence of true love in such a situation.

Yes I agree that folks are wired differently which is why I highlighted "I speak only for myself".

That... And the woman that will wipe ur ass for u when u no longer can is a close second. Originally Posted by Mr Blonde

I hope I am worm food before I need anyone to do that for me

sixx

So, Cody / Carl.... how do you explain multi spousal relationships? Multi partners are a common way of life over the centuries.. Marriage is a relatively new thing for humans.

You are grasping for straws with the committed relationship vs relationship. The actual topic isn't disclosure as much as it is continuing to hobby while claiming to be in love.

I believe the "committed" word was yours, not mine. According to you, a provider not telling her date is "exposing him without his consent", but you don't reveal your hobbying to your dates. What about that woman's exposure? Do you think STDs care what your job title is, or that you've (supposedly) only paid a handful of women for sex? It just takes once.

Stay focused. As I stated repeatedly once it appears there is potential for True love or something more than just friend fucking and love enters the picture she will have to cease making a living spreading her legs in order to nurture that love between them.

You should be clear that you are speaking only for yourself, because other posters on this thread don't have as rigid an idea of what commitment entails. I know polyamorous couples, some happy, some not, mostly depending on their level of honest communication with each other. In general, the happiest LTRs I know are those who don't have a Disney idea that one person is going to fulfill every need you have, or that they will never look at another person with desire. Acting on those desires is a matter of both personal maturity and the agreements a couple has with each other, and your very narrow, black-and-white POV doesn't seem to work for most people.

The term committed relationship means just that. In a non committed relationship both expect the other is likely seeing others but then again open dating vs sporadic monger sessions vs fucking several clients a day as a livelihood are worlds apart in terms of disclosure.

Again, your definition of commitment is not by default everyone else's. What is the difference between seeing a paying client vs going on a date and having sex with another guy? You think the money alone taints the dynamic? My, how puritanical of you.

Kind of fits in with your Madonna-Whore Complex, tho... you only engage in hobbying when you aren't getting laid by civilian women. Not that I see anything wrong with that; it's the language you use, implying all providers are taking it in every hole multiple times a day, the skanks! You obviously don't think much of providers, and yet sometimes you need them. That must be quite a mindf@ck.

I think it was Ralphie who said he did tell women he dated about his hobbying. Good for him, it's probably working as an excellent filter to weed out women who are going to be too repressed to be the kind of partner he wants, AND he's operating from a place of integrity. After a few dates, I tell a guy I am seeing that some of my massage (I do have strictly therapeutic clients) is sensual. I personally am not interested in dating men with puritanical or repressed ideas about sex (too boring), and while the idea of sexual fidelity sounds nice, I've rarely seen it work, and I am open to variations of an open relationship.

If a dude can't handle my work, I don't have a problem with it, and I'm not going to try and convince him. But I'm also notoriously L1 with the majority of my clients, so I'm far less of a risk than the drunk girl in a bar on Sixth Street that he probably banged the week before. I can't speak for all providers, but many of the ones I've known had their boundaries and were vigilant about their health, and behave far differently in their personal lives than in their professional ones. Not every provider is "no holes barred" and a walking petri dish, like you seem to think. However, if those are the ones you sought out in your allegedly rare excursions, you really don't have a moral leg to stand on whatsoever.

Datura

What part of four sessions almost two years ago vs currently fucking several clients everyday do you not grasp? I really can't make that any clearer. You either get it or you don't.

Again the essential core of my post is about whether or not true love can survive if a provider continues providing upon finally finding it. You keep harping on this disclosure issue. I can't help you there either.

Nothing about my post hinted of a morality issue. No one here has a "Moral" leg to stand on but again that has Zero to do with the core topic of my post.

Who I saw two years ago is posted right there in my reviews. Every single provider has a rock solid rep. as a provider. I've had two annual physicals both including std testing since those sessions so again your point is out in left field comparing me to the exposure from a currently highly active provider. On top of that I've been in a monogamous for over a year up until a month ago which is why I'm contemplating a session.
You seem to think that jacking guys off makes you safe. You might want to review how many std's are skin transmitted rather than fluid transmitted before making that claim.

You seem hell bent on starting arguments that are neither based upon my actual words or the actual topic at hand. You started this riff between us in another thread by doing the exact same thing which I pointed out.

I realize my comment about you only having a few positive reviews over a years time in response probably stung a bit and I'll admit my reactive response was unnecessary.
I could have taken the high road. For that I apologize but you seem determined nonetheless.

You seem very bright in terms of your use of the English language however your ability to actually grasp subject matter before going on the offensive is questionable at best.

Keep trying. Eventually it'll either sink in or it won't.

So, Cody / Carl.... how do you explain multi spousal relationships? Multi partners are a common way of life over the centuries.. Marriage is a relatively new thing for humans. Originally Posted by nuglet

Unless I'm mistaken most of the marriages you're referring to were arranged and were more an issue of practicality than of being in love.

Women served a function as breeders and keepers of the castle and the man served as provider.

If a woman couldn't provide a child she was either removed from the picture or lowered to the level of servant.

I am referring to the extremely elusive soul deep, once or twice in a lifetime, romantic love of modern times.

The kind of love my parents shared. My father died shortly after my mother's passing simply because his heart couldn't continue beating without her and they were both relatively young. THAT kind of love. THAT kind of connection. The whole concept of sharing partners, swinging etc.. seems like totally superficial and self gratifying BS when compared to the real deal.

So, Cody / Carl.... how do you explain multi spousal relationships? Multi partners are a common way of life over the centuries.. Marriage is a relatively new thing for humans. Originally Posted by nuglet

The overwhelming bulk of those were polygamous not polyandrous. And I don't think they were based on the modern view of "romantic love" or as Cody refers to it as "true love." I think there are many facets to loving someone in a marriage: as a friend, as a companion, as a sex partner, as the parent of their children, as someone with shared attitudes, experiences and memories. The historical basis of multi-spousal marriage required dowries and approval of the marriage by, at minimum, the bride's family and also sometimes the groom's family. In those cultures a man could have as many wives as he could afford to marry. Often the marriages were arranged by families and the spouses never even chose each other. I don't think that in each of these multispousal marriages that each possible male/female dyad had the exact same cookie cutter emotional dynamic rooted only in true love. Each sub-relationship within the marriage I think is unique. Just like the love and relationship each parent has with multiple children. The attitude that marriages should be based solely on an idealized romantic love didn't become popular until the Middle Ages with the romantic stories and songs spread by troubadours.

While I do think that the sort of "true love" Cody accepts as the only desirable form of marital love can and does exist, I think it's rare. I see Cody as a "hopeless romantic." I see myself as more of a "selfish pragmatist." I don't feel particularly fond of sharing someone sexually that I am in an intimate relationship with, but I don't dismiss out of hand that others may be able to find it within themselves to share their S.O. and I don't feel I have to invalidate their use of the term "love" to describe their relationship, just like I don't feel the need to insist that King Solomon couldn't possibly have loved each of his many wives.

The overwhelming bulk of those were polygamous not polyandrous. And I don't think they were based on the modern view of "romantic love" or as Cody refers to it as "true love." I think there are many facets to loving someone in a marriage: as a friend, as a companion, as a sex partner, as the parent of their children, as someone with shared attitudes, experiences and memories. The historical basis of multi-spousal marriage required dowries and approval of the marriage by, at minimum, the bride's family and also sometimes the groom's family. In those cultures a man could have as many wives as he could afford to marry. Often the marriages were arranged by families and the spouses never even chose each other. I don't think that in each of these multispousal marriages that each possible male/female dyad had the exact same cookie cutter emotional dynamic rooted only in true love. Each sub-relationship within the marriage I think is unique. Just like the love and relationship each parent has with multiple children. The attitude that marriages should be based solely on an idealized romantic love didn't become popular until the Middle Ages with the romantic stories and songs spread by troubadours.

While I do think that the sort of "true love" Cody accepts as the only desirable form of marital love can and does exist, I think it's rare. I see Cody as a "hopeless romantic." I see myself as more of a "selfish pragmatist." I don't feel particularly fond of sharing someone sexually that I am in an intimate relationship with, but I don't dismiss out of hand that others may be able to find it within themselves to share their S.O. and I don't feel I have to invalidate their use of the term "love" to describe their relationship, just like I don't feel the need to insist that King Solomon couldn't possibly have loved each of his many wives. Originally Posted by Carl

I respect that. Nicely put.