A few months ago the husband of a provider I know (we do doubles sometimes) asked to see me for a session--one that would be kept secret from the provider.
I saw nothing but red lights and "Danger, Will Robsinon," ahead so I wrote him back and told him I didn't want to see him. I kept quiet and never told my friend he contacted me.
Last week I was at an escort party. My friend told us she found out her husband was seeing providers and they are now separated.
She said she couldn't believe he would be on the prowl behind her back because he had a lot of sexual variety as they went to singles clubs often. Plus, on his birthday every year they had a double with an escort he picked from Eros.
Anyway, she is hurt that this has been going on for months and no one told her about her wayward hubby until now. She said she feels humiliated that "everyone knew except me."
She says a true friend would have told her right away.
Now I'm feeling a little guilty that I should have spoken up.
Ladies (and gents), what do you think?
Seems a little hypocritical to me -- provided he has his own source of income.
You did the right thing to mind your own business.
I don't understand the double standard. She is allowed to be a provider but he can't hobby !!! It is seems like it is acceptable for women to be players but not the men.
I hear the same crap from every provider that I have been with. I just crack up laughing because by being a provider and being with Married men they contribute to men being unfaithful to their wives.
Yes, the right thing was done by not seeing the man, and by not mentioning anything. Without being directly involved it is not her business and would only be gossip "your partner contacted me" is much different from "your partner saw me". Even HAD she seen the gentleman... a provider of all people should understand discretion and why she was not told.
As to the double standard, I disagree that it exists. It sounds as if they had a clear agreement of what was allowed in the relationship. If that was not good enough the relationship should have been renegotiated. Honesty is honesty.
As to the lady "getting it" - hey, she's working! Especially in a marriage where it is open and known, that should not be held against her!
xoxo,
Sola
-- Modified on 4/30/2005 3:30:12 PM
they are both screwed up. Find new friends!
I find it very interesting that a number of replies here see a double standard between a woman working openly as a provider and a man surreptitiously seeing providers.
For the provider, though she may enjoy her work, it is still work, and she was doing her work with her husband's knowledge. The husband was partaking of providers for pleasure and doing so without his wife's knowledge. How is that a double standard exactly? How are the two situations even comparable?
The provider also, though she may like and enjoy her clients, is not necessarily getting anything out of the situation other than money, and would not necssarily see any of her clients in an intimate situation if there were no remunerations. The husband is, most likely, choosing providers he is attracted to, wants sexual intimacy with, and doing is so for his own delectation.
That is not the same situation no matter how much one wants to say it is.
Though the real difference in the situation is secrecy. In an otherwise, relatively, open sexual relationship (implied by the mention of singles clubs and a provider on his birthday) why would he feel the need to hide his desire to see providers?
In a relationship one can not, and should not, take it upon themselves to unilaterally change the understandings and agreements of the nature of the realtionship. One member of a realtionship does not have the right to decide that the rules have changed and then act upon that, not if it is a relationship built on any amount of trust or sincerity. It also betrays an attitude of superiority on the part of the one thinking they can do so. A realtioship in which one party thinks they are superior to the other, and can do for themselves without the others knowledge is one of feigned affection, and lacking in respect.
An aside to the person that responded with a reference to a bi-sexual woman seeing other woman, and being grounds for the man to see other women as well. Actually, it would be grounds for the man to see other men, for that would be the equivalent, if you want to talk "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".
OK, now to the statement that providers "contribute to men being unfaithful to their wives".....you are funny...I can't stop laughing at that...I know why you crack up laughing...that is too humorous a thought.
The idea that men would be faithful if only there were no providers leading them astray.
I mean of course no man would be unfaithful if the only option were an afffair.
It is those wily, temptress providers leading the men to infidelity...cover yourselves you wanton hussies lest another good man be led to unfaithful behavior by your sedutive ways.
Quick men cover your eyes...don't look, you maybe enchanted so as to be powerless to resist the ladies' pleasures...
You know, I have never seen a single person, provider or civvie, stand up in front of their "DoC", family, friends, clergy, community, respresentative of their state, etc. and vow to forsake all married people, people who might be married or people they find out are married. I have seen married people do this though, "forsaking all other's" at almost every wedding I have ever been to...I don't see the contributory guilt in that.
You do know that the married person, barring some sort of fuge state, pretty much knows they are married when they look at ads, read reviews, make calls, set appointments, go to appointments, etc? on the other hand the provider only knows if the person is married if they tell her so. It's not like she is sifting through reams of public documents searching out marriage certificates, and then cold-calling married men to temp and seduce them into being unfaithful. There isn't shared culpability in this situation, and to try and rationalise it is just an effort at self-absolution for one's own acts. The married person makes a choice to seek a means to be unfaithful, and acts upon that choice in opposition to their responsibility to their spouse or SO...the provider has no responsibility to this person's SO, and therefore can not oppose or betray it.
Now, for the original query, you were right not to mention it.
I had a young bar-girlfriend in Thailand years ago who would take me home at closing time gratis. One night, just as I arrived at the bar, I saw her leaving with another GI. She brought him over and told me "Honey, I no butterfly, I only make baht".
That was 1964 and I still see her face in my mind's eye.
"The husband was partaking of providers for pleasure and doing so without his wife's knowledge. How is that a double standard exactly? How are the two situations even comparable?"
Oh, WebT. You disappoint me.
Sorry Lex....at heart I'm just not an evil villian...alas...can you ever forgive me?
I apprecaite you exactly the way you are. Your post rocked and was right on. You go, girl.
Awwwww....Thanks Mr.SelfDestruct. *blush*
I like your posts too...often I am about to answer a thread but realise you had already said what I would have.
If a man has "meaningless sex" he's a bastard, so if his wife reciprocates, she's just getting even.
But if a woman has meaningless sex (albeit for money), and her husband reciprocates, he's still the bastard?
Sorry, but that's just plain bullshit. Fucking is fucking. If one of them gets to have sex with strangers a dozen times a week, then so does the other. Any prior agreements to the contrary would be heartless, unrealistic, and ridiculous.
Generally, I see your points, even if I disagree with them, but this time you're just plain kissing ass.
-- Modified on 5/1/2005 2:08:19 AM
Nope, you gots it all wrong...it's about agreement...he knew she was a provider, but he secretly went and saw providers specifically not wanting her to know.
If he wanted to play, and knew what she did, then they should have talked about it. If he couldn't handle her job then maybe he shouldn't have been with her. It's an issue of knowledge and respect, she respected him enough to let him know what she did for a living, he didn't respect her enough to let her know he wanted to see providers.
Maybe she wouldn't have liked it, maybe she would have said she didn't want him to, maybe wanting it in itself would have impacted the relationship...but he didn't have enough respect for her to broach it and find out...he didn't give her the chance to say no, but he didn't give her the chance to say yes either.
When we try and prevent people from being able to do the wrong thing, we prevent them from being able to do the right thing too.
Though I still don't see him getting his pleasures from other providers being quite equatable to her giving pleasure to others....
But hey see it as you will....oh and just so you know...I think getting even is petty, selfish and cruel no matter who does it, and I think relationships should be something more than just "fair".
Edited for typos aplenty...damn I'm a bad typist
-- Modified on 5/1/2005 5:15:32 AM
-- Modified on 5/1/2005 7:11:00 AM
the double standard is lack of communication. He knew she didn't, therefore the lie is on him and that is the betrayal. If anyone should understand that it should be LEX ( sorry lex I still Lust ya though). And yes Getting even is just a childish game that does no one any good.
First off, I don't kiss anyone's ass on here...no matter what anyone thinks (like I care). I support people I like, or people I think have said something worthwhile, or at least were generous in saying something I didn't agree with. SS344 is someone I have serious conflicts with in terms of beliefs, I have gotten into it with Cynicalman many a time, and Ciara and I have entirely different positions on the whole civvie issue...however, we all get along, because I respect their position and they are generous in stating them. I didn't need to kiss ass to maintain that respect (nor did they), and my saying nice things about people I like on here is called being supportive (or flirting, as someone told me), not kissing ass. The only ass I kiss is one that is bared to me, and I would be glad to kiss WT's ass, because she is one of the smartest people on this board these days, and her responses stimulate me. Intelligence is attractive.
As for the rest, WT said everything necessary in her response. Given that the husband knew full well what she did for a living and was trying to see women on the sly (and peers of his wife, no less), it is your position that is heartless, unrealistic, and ridiculous, IMO.
"If a man has "meaningless sex" he's a bastard, so if his wife reciprocates, she's just getting even.
But if a woman has meaningless sex (albeit for money), and her husband reciprocates, he's still the bastard?"
Eventually all men learn their place
It simply is a no win situation Lex and expecting a level playing field is just plain unrealistic. It's their dice, they're loaded and you lose baby. lol
I've learned to live with it
"the statement that providers contribute to men being unfaithful to their wives is funny. . the provider only knows if the person is married if they tell her so."
I may be off the mark, but I always thought escorts sought cash in exchange for sex regardless of the customer's marital status. "I don't know and I don't care" would be an honest reply to whether escorts encourage infidelity. The idea of prostitution being consistent with fidelity is absurd.
"I hear the same crap from every provider that I have been with."
I've always found this sort of odd. The only guideline I've ever instituted with my partners is that they not see personal friends of mine if they choose to hobby. I think that's pretty reasonable, personally.
Morgan
and so should you. Nobody wins here.
(didn't mean this to sound so harsh - you are welcome to bc me for more).
-- Modified on 4/30/2005 2:34:30 PM
Fair is fair, she sees others for sex even if paid so where is it written he cannot go for some extra fun too?
I would see it the same as a wife going out with another female because she is bi and hubby is not into it OR he is not into making her happy just himself so she goes out finding a Male provider.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As long as she was not the only support in the household that is.
for a simple mind such as mine to plumb. Agree with other poster though that this was a no-win situation.
This thread touched a personal note that left me dark and stormy, which is not a state I can not stand being in for very long...and since a sweet provider friend just phoned and invited me out to go clubbing and hang tonite I'm on the roller-coaster upswing..so I thought I'd share with the community some humor in the above thread...Sooo....
...I'm in this brothel having a drink with the Madame while waiting on a girl, and she leans in close to me and whispers seductively, "You know, some guys like to take TWO girls upstairs for the evening..."
I smiled and politely declined her offer, all the while its taking a major effort to just keep my mouth shut since all I can think of to say is "NO THANK YOU!! I GET ENOUGH OF THAT SHIT AT HOME!"
I spent that evening lost in the embrace of a sweet sweet gal with skin the color of indian ink and huge doe eyes like moonlit reflecting pools...
Life is funny, and sometimes laughing is all you can do.
-- DH
We expect confidentiality.
Sorry to say, but your provider friend needs to get a grip.
A man who sees a provider respects his wife by keeping his activites out of their personal circle of friends/the secretary/etc. He protects her from the ridicule and inevitable hurt.
This husband already had options for sexual variety. Yet he chose to pursue her peers, knowing this was about the only way that sex could be used as a tool for power against this particular lady.
I think providerXXX should be commended for steering clear of the whole thing. Like that primun non nocere thing, "first of all, do no harm".
I've asked this question to many providers when we get to one of my favorite subjects, separating your on the clock and off the clock life.
It seems hypocritical but IMHO, when a provider is on the clock, she is working. The fact that she has different rules for her off the clock life is actually healthy. At least she is not walling off her emotions like many in the business seem to do.
thirsty
Concerning the married ex bf LE, I would set him up to be busted. Contact his commanding officer and explain he is seeking the services of a provider but use the words they love to hear, a prostitute and you don't want that sort of LE on the force. Explain how can you trust one who is suppose to enforce the law when he is breaking it on his own time.
Do this from a pay phone and forget about it as they will set him up for a big bust, his own.
I am friends with a provider. Her married LE ex-boyfriend is now making her life crazy. We set up to get together. He's sent her emails using my email name, but a different ISP with things in them he would know if he's reading our emails somehow. He got parts of the thing, but is missing or wrong on other parts. She's scared and I'm nervous. He's tried to entrap her and I at least once. Posed as somebody else and went looking for information about her. Not a fun time.
Just another cop making the world safe for the good people, I see.
The first part is a no-brainer. On the second one, not divulging his unfaithfulness to her, you couldn't have made a different decision and been right. A provider's work, especially in this society, depends upon its secrecy. How could it ever be right for a provider to snitch on a husband? That breaks the most basic trust of your profession. Moreover, their marriage is not something you're obligated to hurl a bomb into. Whether she's offended with her husband's covert sex is up to her own feelings of what she could accept, and that problem is between him and her. It was apparently not his intention to break up the marriage, and that's the trust you're keeping, part of the quid pro quo of your work, I would say.
Besides, if this is ever the accepted practice among providers, that they owe it to each other to snitch on their husbands or SO's, it could really poison the entire hobby. You did completely the right thing.
Your friend is just rocking and reeling with this, and I don't blame her. Hopefully when the emotional shock is over, she will realize that the only one to betray her here was her husband. Her sisters in the craft, as far as secrecy goes, did what they had to.
It may no longer be customary or legal but when it's bad news people still want to
"Kill the messenger"
FR.
It appears that he approves, if not encourages, her choice of profession. As such, it is not "cheating" when she is "working".
He took a risk when he contacted you for a date. In fact, you mention that he asked you to keep it a secret. Because he knew that you were his wife's friend, he had no reasonable expectation of business privacy, and your obligation as a friend takes priority over your business obligation to keep a secret.
Had I been in his shoes and wanted to keep it a secret, I would have first talked to you in a non-business situation, and innocently asked "what would you do if..". Only if I got a good response would I proceed carefully.
Had he not known that you knew his wife, then the situation is more difficult. I think then your business obligation takes priority. He had no expectation of more than a business relationship. Whereas, in your situation, he knew that he was asking for you to violate your friendship with his wife. He had no right to ask, and that is where he went over the line. He knew there was a risk that you would tell.
A clear exception to telling is when he is an unwilling participant in her choice of profession. I know one other lady that is truly in that situation. She allows him to see paid escorts for the physical thrill, but not unpaid because of the implied emotional connection. Even if there is no understanding, her working against his desires gives her no right to complain about his actions.
If he were truly in the dark, then I would still not tell. She has her secret, and he has his.
Just my 2 cents.
As long as my husband shares the woman he is going to play with he better invite me. I would love to watch my man make her squirm.