In a Serious Relationship With an ASP? Guys, Could You Handle It?

Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to get across...I am not saying anyone is "wrong" in their decisions. I simply don't get the explinations most people give when they try and explain open relationships to me. Everyone in an open relationship always says, "It's not about sex" when they are having sex with everyone. That's what I don't get. If it's NOT about sex, why must both parties demand it from other people? If one day he up and says, "Look I don't want to do this anymore" is the girl going to leave? I would think the couple that is married and faithful for 50 years who are NOT having sex, are the ones who have a relationship NOT based on sex.

I have many friends in these types of relationships, but they are also realists. They never use this same explination to define it.

BTW Buzz, trying to "prove" God exists is about as moot as trying to get your point across on Eccie when you're not logged in. You can't prove faith with science or explination. The very definition of faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN.

Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to get across...I am not saying anyone is "wrong" in their decisions. I simply don't get the explinations most people give when they try and explain open relationships to me. Everyone in an open relationship always says, "It's not about sex" when they are having sex with everyone. That's what I don't get. If it's NOT about sex, why must both parties demand it from other people? If one day he up and says, "Look I don't want to do this anymore" is the girl going to leave? I would think the couple that is married and faithful for 50 years who are NOT having sex, are the ones who have a relationship NOT based on sex.

I have many friends in these types of relationships, but they are also realists. They never use this same explination to define it.

BTW Buzz, trying to "prove" God exists is about as moot as trying to get your point across on Eccie when you're not logged in. You can't prove faith with science or explination. The very definition of faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN. Originally Posted by London Rayne

I think you "might " be a little confused about what many sexually open relationships are "based " on.* I don't believe we have ever tried to defend our sexually open relationship by saying "it's not about sex " (which, it is not).... just as sex is not "demanded " from others.... I have no idea, where you get that impression!* The types of relationships I and a few others are speaking about here, are "based " on honesty, trust, love, committment... just as any other traditional relationship is.* Sex is simply something that is openly "enjoyed " (and profited from, in the provider's case) without dishonesty, deceipt, or guilt.

I believe even you would agree that such a relationship is better than one in which lies, deceipt, mis-trust, and cheating is taking place , yes?

Obviously not for everyone.... but only because not everyone is even interested!!

I would like to think that a "Fairy Tale" could develop such as the movie Pretty Woman, but I'm sure that reality check would bounce! I believe it would be a rare find that both partners could except & trust each other completely! Jealousy is human nature & habits die hard!
If I could just find that one guy that could fulfill all my fantasies I need no other ;D (I'd try damn hard to make sure all his fantasies became reality)!

I think you "might " be a little confused about what many sexually open relationships are "based " on.* I don't believe we have ever tried to defend our sexually open relationship by saying "it's not about sex " (which, it is not).... just as sex is not "demanded " from others.... I have no idea, where you get that impression!* The types of relationships I and a few others are speaking about here, are "based " on honesty, trust, love, committment... just as any other traditional relationship is.* Sex is simply something that is openly "enjoyed " (and profited from, in the provider's case) without dishonesty, deceipt, or guilt.

I believe even you would agree that such a relationship is better than one in which lies, deceipt, mis-trust, and cheating is taking place , yes?o

Obviously not for everyone.... but only because not everyone is even interested!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

You have never done that, but look a few posts up and tell me where I got it from lol. If tomorrow your GF told you she refused to let you be with other people anymore would you still be with her? Would she with you if the roles were reversed? If not, then it IS about sex. That's what I am saying. I don't see how you can say it's about love, trust, and committment, when there IS no reason to think otherwise. How can you trust someone when they are allowed to do whatever they want to begin with? What's not to trust when no one has to be held accountable for anything? Do you mean you trust them not to leave?

How can there be a committment, when there is no committment? You may just have to pm me, so I can get this, because I honestly don't. Why would I have to worry about a guy who I let screw everyone in the first place? I see that's what some want...the ability not to have to worry, but I just don't think I would go about it that way. I do agree that it is better to be with someone who feels the same way vs. cheating and lying though...that I can get.

I am really not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't grasp this. Maybe it's just like you said...because I have never been interested in it, so I can't understand it.

Thank you, London, for this post. I've been curious myself. I tend to push people away IRL because of what I do, until I can find something that is comparable, that gives me freedom to be authentic. When I met my ex, I was a provider. I can't lie at all, so I told him early on. He wanted me to quit, that day, and I did out of respect for him, but was not prepared for it, and was too dependent on him. Then, I dated someone seriously for a few months last year, that I met through friends, that worked for the Supreme Court, and while he was intelligent enough to understand the business, and need for it, and my perspective, it made me uncomfortable(he wanted me out, but wasn't in a position to help get me out, and it killed me seeing that in his eyes everyday). Occasionally I meet someone I wish that I had met another way, and I have tried to give clients the benefit of the doubt sometimes, and date them, but it makes me uncomfortable that we met the way we did, and in the long run, I am expendable, and nobody wants to feel that way. I even had one client that stopped the session before anything happened, so that we could date(we had been talking for a while), but he had motive(a fetish that he was obsessed with). I think it would take a very special guy, that genuinely cares about you and your other talents, who could afford to give you time to heal & find something more condusive to a relationship. On the flipside, I think providers past & present make excellent SO's....we appreciate love and kindness, we understand the "Nature of the Beast", don't begrudge men their instincts, flaws, know what we are getting into and are not threatened by it, we generally don't subscribe to typical female behaviors and pettiness, and know what's important.(At least those of us that are somewhat "normal", not cracked-out, scandalous thieves, that is

You have never done that, but look a few posts up and tell me where I got it from lol. If tomorrow your GF told you she refused to let you be with other people anymore would you still be with her? Would she with you if the roles were reversed? If not, then it IS about sex. That's what I am saying. I don't see how you can say it's about love, trust, and committment, when there IS no reason to think otherwise. How can you trust someone when they are allowed to do whatever they want to begin with? What's not to trust when no one has to be held accountable for anything? Do you mean you trust them not to leave?

How can there be a committment, when there is no committment? You may just have to pm me, so I can get this, because I honestly don't. Why would I have to worry about a guy who I let screw everyone in the first place? I see that's what some want...the ability not to have to worry, but I just don't think I would go about it that way. I do agree that it is better to be with someone who feels the same way vs. cheating and lying though...that I can get.

I am really not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't grasp this. Maybe it's just like you said...because I have never been interested in it, so I can't understand it. Originally Posted by London Rayne

I believe your last two sentences pretty much sums up your position of understanding and acceptance fairly well.... so be it.

I can understand someone saying they couldn't or wouldn't be "able" to do it, for whatever reason "they " see fit.... but those who say it would be "wrong " for anyone else to do so are simply narrow-minded, self-righteous, bigots!

Sex is sex... love is love... honesty is honesty... trust is trust... nobody, no group, no government, no religion holds any moral position over the decisions two adults make between themselves! PERIOD!

Of course... that's just my opinion Originally Posted by MrGiz

LOL, you really think so? I think you better think about that.

LOL, you really think so? I think you better think about that. Originally Posted by Shayla

Key word in my statement was "moral ". . . . I can assure! you that I am correct on that point!

I would like to think that a "Fairy Tale" could develop such as the movie Pretty Woman, but I'm sure that reality check would bounce! Originally Posted by Rachelle69Romance

I would looooooove that. *sigh* Any Richard Gere lookalikes here? Let's role play.

Key word in my statement was "moral ". . . . I can assure! you that I am correct on that point! Originally Posted by MrGiz

So tell me then - where do your morals stem from?

One of my favorite providers always leaves me asking myself this question. I guess that proves how good she is at the fantasy. IMO the ladies would handle it better than the guys.

So tell me then - where do your morals stem from? Originally Posted by Shayla

From my own innate, human, sense of right & wrong. I have never allowed societal consensus to dictate or mandate what is "moral " for me!

From my own innate, human, sense of right & wrong. I have never let societal consensus dictate what is "moral " for me! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Society dictates most of our morals. Some just choose to ignore them.
Your 'innate, human sense' of right and wrong was a direct influence of what you've been taught.

So tell me then - where do your morals stem from? Originally Posted by Shayla

It looks to me like there is an inconsistant definition of "moral" here. Maybe if each defined their perception of moral it might clear up.

A clear example is that many people would define a providers activities as immoral. I would not. I would define them as immoral only if they were harming themselves or their client. As long as both parties agreed to the terms and both parties fulfilled their end of the agreement and were happy at the end then I believe that the activity is moral.

Another example is an insurance or investment salesman that sell a policy or investment that makes him the higher commision when other better alternatives were available is considered moral and I would consider it immoral.

I would looooooove that. *sigh* Any Richard Gere lookalikes here? Let's role play. Originally Posted by Naomi4u

Sorry, I only look like George Clooney