paperboy48 Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) When a woman hooks up with a bartender at a club that is known for hookups and she does this because she can, what is the difference between that and a guy going to an escort service? In other words if a woman who is at the very least average on the scale of looks, hooks up with a bartender because most male bartenders in clubs are an easy hook up, what is the difference between that and a man going to an escort service? Most guys can't walk into a bar/club and hook up with a hot woman bartender, most woman who are at least decent looking can get an easy lay if they chose to do so with a male bartender. Edited June 27, 2012 by paperboy48
Emilia Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 In other words if a woman who is at the very least average on the scale of looks, hooks up with a bartender because most male bartenders in clubs are an easy hook up, what is the difference between that and a man going to an escort service? Most guys can't walk into a bar/club and hook up with a hot woman bartender, most woman who are at least decent looking can get an easy lay if they chose to do so with a male bartender. If I was a male bartender I would take an exception to this! But then again since they are so slutty apparently they are too busy screwing to read posts on LS
Vintage79 Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Money is a distinct difference. Moreover, I would argue that it's very easy for a guy to walk into a club that's known for hook-ups, and hook-up [i know from personal experience]. If you want to make it really easy on yourself, get there an hour or so before close and find the drunk girl who's friends have already found someone...
FitChick Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Are tips so bad these days that bartenders have to charge for sex? 2
Oxy Moronovich Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Wolf, escorts sometimes list the types of sex acts they are willing to do. Plus, they tend to come to you. Not you go to them.
SincereOnlineGuy Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 (what is the difference between a) Woman hooking up with a Bartender vs. A Man hiring an Escort Service? Um, the law in most U.S. locales.
udolipixie Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The difference between a gal hooking up and a guy paying an escort is money and genuine desire from the other party being a likely possibillity. In my experience a guy who is at least average can hookup and often do so. In my opinion most guys can hookup with a gal they simply chose to restrict their options.
somedude81 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Interesting idea. IMO, woman who engages in frequent ONS is just as bad as a guy who pays for sex. The only difference is that the girl doesn't have to pay anybody get laid.
maysj18 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Interesting idea. IMO, woman who engages in frequent ONS is just as bad as a guy who pays for sex. The only difference is that the girl doesn't have to pay anybody get laid. I agree with you.
Author paperboy48 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 IMO, woman who engages in frequent ONS is just as bad as a guy who pays for sex. The only difference is that the girl doesn't have to pay anybody get laid. That's what I am saying, there's NO difference.
SmileFace Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 So what do you consider a women who pays for sex. 1
Author paperboy48 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 So what do you consider a women who pays for sex. That happens?
SmileFace Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 That happens? You can equate prostitution with casual sex but you can't fathom the idea that women use prostitutes? 1
seachangeoflove Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Interesting idea. IMO, woman who engages in frequent ONS is just as bad as a guy who pays for sex. The only difference is that the girl doesn't have to pay anybody get laid. uh, why are either of those things 'bad'. At least men always get off, sometimes the woman goes home with a guy and he's done in 5 seconds and doesn't even get the woman off. At least with an escort the man is gonna git what he pays for. Hell, I'd rather pay and know I will get my orgasm then toss the dice with a random dude in a bar. Outside of prostituion being illegal in SOME areas what is wrong with two consulting adults gettin' it on as long as no one gets hurt? And if money is exchanged well that's between the adults now isn't it? are people on love shack stuck in the '50s? ]
somedude81 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 uh, why are either of those things 'bad'. It's up to the individual if they are bad or not. The main point I wanted to make was that they are equal. At least men always get off, sometimes the woman goes home with a guy and he's done in 5 seconds and doesn't even get the woman off. At least with an escort the man is gonna git what he pays for. Hell, I'd rather pay and know I will get my orgasm then toss the dice with a random dude in a bar. That's just one of the risks of having casual sex.
SmileFace Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 It's up to the individual if they are bad or not. The main point I wanted to make was that they are equal. That's just one of the risks of having casual sex. How exactly is it equal? Isn't casual sex consensual? Men and women don't get off in sex even in relationships -- actually it is more common in relationships. How is that a risk of casual sex? Isnt' it a risk of having sex?
udolipixie Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Interesting idea. IMO, woman who engages in frequent ONS is just as bad as a guy who pays for sex. The only difference is that the girl doesn't have to pay anybody get laid. The main point I wanted to make was that they are equal. Why is having a guy and a gal having sex out of desire just as bad as or equal to a guy paying a gal for sex? I'm not seeing the equality as one is casual sex out of desire and the other is monetary sex done out of desire for money. Edited June 28, 2012 by udolipixie
SmileFace Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why is having a guy and a gal having sex out of desire just as bad as a guy paying a gal for sex? Because a women who indulges in casual sex is desperate. Well that is what is inferred but lets wait and see....shall we
ascendotum Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why is having a guy and a gal having sex out of desire just as bad as a guy paying a gal for sex? I dont think its a whole lot different. (I wouldn't use the word 'bad' though). In the 2nd scenario its also consentual, and its him:desire to have sex with attractive woman...with her its:desire to make easy money to enjoy a better lifestyle.
somedude81 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why is having a guy and a gal having sex out of desire just as bad as or equal to a guy paying a gal for sex? I'm not seeing the equality as one is casual sex out of desire and the other is monetary sex done out of desire for money. How are they different? Both are about having sex for the sake of having sex. No deeper feelings, no commitment. Just because a woman can get laid without having to pay money, doesn't her non-intimacy sex any better or more right, then a man who pays for sex. Both are still two people having sex who may have no intention of ever seeing each other again. How about this scenario. A man and a woman meet at a bar. The woman arrived with friends but she leaves her friends and goes to the guys place. They have sex. The next morning, he gives her money for a taxi, which she takes, and shortly afterwards, she leaves and they never see each other again. She just became a hooker
yongyong Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 All girls on internet are very good girls. In fact they are so pure that even virgin mary will look like a slut next to them.
udolipixie Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 How are they different? Both are about having sex for the sake of having sex. No deeper feelings, no commitment. Just because a woman can get laid without having to pay money, doesn't her non-intimacy sex any better or more right, then a man who pays for sex. Both are still two people having sex who may have no intention of ever seeing each other again. How about this scenario. A man and a woman meet at a bar. The woman arrived with friends but she leaves her friends and goes to the guys place. They have sex. The next morning, he gives her money for a taxi, which she takes, and shortly afterwards, she leaves and they never see each other again. She just became a hooker They're different to me as one is having sex for money and the other is having sex for sex. Both aren't having sex for the sake of having sex. The hookup is having sex for the sake of sex the escort is having sex for the sake of money. Nowhere did I state that a gal having sex with someone is better or more than a guy paying a gal to have sex with him. I questioned how is a having sex with someone just as bad or equal to paying someone to have sex with you. As for your scenario she didn't just become a hooker as she didn't set a monetary price for having sex, was arranged to have sex for a set price, or had sex for the intention of getting money. Seems like equating hooking up with a person to paying a person for sex is a defense mechanism for guilt, judgement, and other negatives associated with paying for sex.
denise_xo Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 How are they different? Both are about having sex for the sake of having sex. No deeper feelings, no commitment. ONS: a person is having sex with someone who wants to have sex with them, for the sex. Prostitution: a person is having sex with someone who is having sex with them to take their money. Slight difference there, as far as I'm concerned. 1
sally4sara Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why specifically a bartender? This is what is confusing me the most. A guy who is "known for hookups" isn't always the damn bartender. It could be any guy really as the vast majority of my guy friends either had limited luck with women or had a period of time where they'd sleep with almost any woman willing. This didn't seem to be dependent on their job either. So you're suggesting really that any woman who sleeps with a guy who had a streak of sleeping around is doing the same as a guy hiring an escort. Nope I'd say not because a guy has to pay an escort and the woman did not have to pay the guy in question. The guy hiring the escort isn't open to forging a relationship with the escort where the woman sometimes does move from the initial hook up to a relationship with the guy.
sally4sara Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 A man and a woman meet at a bar. The woman arrived with friends but she leaves her friends and goes to the guys place. They have sex. The next morning, he gives her money for a taxi, which she takes, and shortly afterwards, she leaves and they never see each other again. She just became a hooker This only makes sense if you minimize the point of sex for a woman and don't think women can enjoy sex for the sex alone. She can only be considered a hooker if they had to negotiate a price for her to be willing to have sex with him. Hookers are not having sex for the simple enjoyment of sex, they are doing it to make money. It requires a guy who wants to get laid and a woman who'd otherwise not have sex with him but will if he pays her. This is in no way similar to a man and a woman all hot and bothered over each other and both wanting to screw. They get the pleasure of sex from each other and that's why they do it. I think you see sex as something men do to women and women only tolerate it for some other agenda. Maybe women only tolerate sex with you and never enjoy it and that's why you don't think women have sex for their own pleasure? 2
Recommended Posts