I am going to have to have a talk with my Chi town buddies, they keep "borrowing" our girls and then failing to return them. lol
It's not role play, it's an unhappy ending...
If that hot looking 28 year old provider agrees to a two hour session for $150, she's probably someone's 49 year old wife.
The REAL moral of the story for both the men and the women here alike is SCREEN SCREEN SCREEN.
If either party had done their homework, this never would have happened.
...The REAL moral of the story is don't be a cheap ass graduate of JDU. If $200 for 2 hours isn't a good enough deal for you - even in Bumfuck, Texas - then you get what you deserve.
Karma's a bitch!
I don't think "negotiating" had a thing to do with this guy's problems.
I think the REAL moral of the story is, "if you are going to marry a hooker, don't marry an old fat, cheap hooker"
I also find it amusing that anyone from a state that can claim such cultural meccas as Bakersfield and Fresno, feels free to call anyplace else "bumfuck"
...The article only said she was 49. That may be relatively old, and she certainly was cheap, but how did you come to the conclusion that she was a gorda?
And don't forget Modesto. 
would you like to bet against it? lol
and 49 is not "relatively old" it's just plain OLD
...based on her rate. I suspect she was fea as well. But I have to disagree that 49 is old. I know it's old to you, but not everyone shares your opinion. I've seen some ladies in their 50's who weren't gorda or fea, and were amazing in bed. There are some women who age very well and are even better than when they were younger. Just my opinion. Of course, I doubt the one in this article is one of them.
-- Modified on 5/11/2017 7:26:57 AM
I am sure there are some women in their fifties that are simply wonderful, but they are most definitely the exception, not the rule. And I am perfectly willing to accept that most guys in their fifties are certainly no catch either, present company excepted of course. lol
BTW, I am inclined to believe Mr Envelope got it right, I haven't found this story anywhere else but the rather dubious source in the linked article. I think the whole thing is "Fake News" , but at least it was entertaining fake news.
What a bitter miserable misogynist you must be! How dare you imply that a 49 year old hooker could possibly be past her shelf life.
I am pretty sure I said it outright and without equivocation. lol
The guy gets all the blame in this story, right to the fact they white wash the fact that his wife was a lying bitch
He booked a 28 year old and got his fat old wife who is 21 years older than advertised. He SHOULD be pissed. lol
and I know double standards are commonplace, but why does the reporter mention that HE could be in legal trouble for booking a hooker, but once again the reporter completely glosses over the fact that the was IS a hooker.
This reporter must be a woman. or a serious BSU.
Not to mention that he glosses over the fact that she was hooking behind his back, for all we know she'd been up to this for awhile.
Also, I don't think there's a legal question here, being that no sexual anything happened for money. That whole bit just sounded like the reporter trying to make mountains out of molehills.
As I understand it, you don't have to actually exchange sex for money to get charged with solicitation, you just have to intend to. Otherwise, prostitution stings would never work unless the undercover female cop actually fucked the john.
what I've been saying for years to avoid disappointments when seeing a new girl: Always add 10 or more years to the age stated in the ad or on her website. If she was REALLY 28, he would have been fucking her at home for free.
-- Modified on 5/10/2017 4:43:40 PM
Can you imagine telling the cops you talked the "girl" down from $200 to $150?
These two idiots deserved each other.
What would possess anyone to tell this story to either a cop or a reporter?
... that this is Fake News?
I mean, the publication isn't exactly a Pulitzer Prize winning bastion of jounalistic excellence, right?
Yeah... the part that got to me was that the site had pics even though they didn't show her face. Unless the pics were fake, I have to wonder at a guy who can't recognize his own wife's body...
I always ask a new provider before we meet, "you're not my wife, are you?"
... and that is I will never again have sex with anyone--whether I'm married to her or not--in Texas.
According to the article, it's a crime to engage in any type of sexual activity in exchange for money or ANY form of compensation, even with one's spouse. Consider the implications...
"Honey, how about we go to bed early tonight?" 
"Only if you give me a massage first!" 
"Ok, I'd be glad to!"
BUSTED!
Or how about taking your wife out on the town for dinner, drinks, dancing, and then... BZZZZZ! Nope, don't even THINK about THAT--after all that "compensation", the follow-up activity is illegal.
selecting the provider. Did he even look at a photo, read a review, etc.?
And more so, the provider didn't even screen one bit. But, he must have used a hobby phone or app since she didn't recognize the phone number.
GaG would agree, things are bigger in Texas, but geeze.
Think this whole story is hilarious?
That's the kind of shit that would have happened to me had I been playing in this arena while still married.
What if it was an incall? Would the guy have had the balls to turn around and walk out because it was a B&S??
It's not role play, it's an unhappy ending...
Same "news" outlet, same story, different state. BULLSHIT.
Do you think he will stop by in the Carolinas next?
you are correct, more click bait.