One thing I have found interesting is that we Providers see married clients, but MOST Providers I know will not be involved with married men in their 'real' lives..
Is that true for most of you..?

Oh Sedona,
It is so nice to see your thoughts.
If women are not willing to see married men, that means that married men must see providers. It is not that we won't stray. Unfortunately when we stray we must pay. And for women it is not that they won't have sex outside their significant relationship, they will only do so for money. TOO BAD isn't it.

Sounds like we're not the only hipocrites.

It says that the Ladies, as well as most the clients, differentiate between play time and reality.  That comes across on almost every page of this board; why should you find that odd on this thread?

And a single man you would? HMMMMMMM

I don't want any men, married, single or dead.

A married woman??  I'd have to think about that one!!

That getting involved outside of this work frequently implies emotional attachment on the part of one or both individuals.  In our scenario, the emotional committment issue is much reduced.  

Would I see a married woman as a provider?  Yes.  Would I see one who was in a happy committed relationship?  A lot of hesitation there.  Those things tend to start light and end up messy.

Etienne, only a Frenchman could be so perceptive regarding les femmes.

As a provider, I really enjoy my married clients. They seem to be more appreciative of my talents than the single guys.

But in my personal life, as a single girl, I'm not interested in dating a married man. The reason is not so much of a moral/ethical issue, but more for practical reasons--too much trouble and emotional pain.

I tried an affair with a married attorney a couple of years ago. It was frustrating not being able to call him whevever I wanted, or spend the night, or go on trips.

I also felt he never could truly care about me and my life if he had a wife (and kids) living with him at home. Plus, I didn't think he wanted a divorce causing him to lose 50% of his (considerable) assets.

The affair lasted about six weeks; I broke it off and have never been interested in a married man since.

Now I just wait patiently to date eligible single men who can be emotionally involved and committed to me. Sure, single men can be a pain too sometimes, LOL, but at least there's a potential of a permanent relationship.

Many years ago, I noticed if ever I was pursued by a man, they were always married. In my lifetime, I've seen three married men, for brief 'affairs' - more like Provider appointments actually, minus the $ !
I never felt good about it and stopped seeing them. Actually, one of them stalked me continuously so much so that I moved 200 mils away. What I did like about seeing these men, however, was that the time was always pleasurable, always brief, without any encumbrances and we went our separate ways, with no strings attached. That worked for me. But, I didn't like being with a married man.
Most of the Providers feel the way I do. That they do not see married men in their private lives but don't mind it at all with clients.
Here's the reasoning behind it. In the private sector, it's very clear what it is: an affair! I'm not interested in breaking up a marriage, stealing someone's heart, or being a part of someone's obvious deception; nor a party to someone's hurt.

And the difference if they are a client:
You're providing a service. They don't necessarily indicate whether or not they are married, though most are. It's fantasy land. And, as you say, there aren't emotions involved and he has paid his fare to Fantasy Land to take the tour for an hour or more only to return to his wife and family..refreshed and happy..
At least I hope so.

One scenario 'takes from', and the other 'adds to' and that's what I see as the difference. Having a relationship with a married man makes me feel 'hurtful'; being a Provider makes me feel 'helpful'.



-- Modified on 7/4/2003 9:06:14 AM

"....and committed to me" So this begs the obvious question...what does "...and committed to me" mean?

Does it mean an exclusive sexual relationship? Meaning we will not be having sex with anyone else?

If so, does that mean when you find this guy you plan to practice the same policy?

Or does it mean no otehr emotional relaitonships...but if would be free to have casual sex...with like, say...providers?

I am just curious the see how a woman who has sex with men for a living views the parameters of "committed" when talking about her own SOs...and if she expects those parameters to be different for herself.

My. S.O. and I have agreed to an open relationship, not only because of my profession but, also for a few other reasons (its a long distance relationship and we both have really high libidos).   Here's the problem I've run into though..and I don't think this is quite fair.  

He believes my clients should offer my only means of "enjoyment"...while, he, on the other hand, gets to pick and choose his own encounters with whom he wants and *when* he wants them.   Granted, my encounters supposedly happen much more frequently due to the fact that its business.  But, because it is business, its never someone I chose on my own and its not always at a time when *I* want it.   He thinks this is fair.  In fact, he tells me I have it much better than he does (although I think he's just trying to convince me of that by saying it).   But, I want, on occasion, to be able to pick someone of my own choosing and do it when I'm really ready for it.  

Am I being unreasonable??   Aren't there different variables to being with someone you picked out yourself versus being with someone who is paying you?   Or, is sex just sex...regardless of how it came to be?   Or, is my S.O. just trying to keep me from truly enjoying myself with some guy who really rocks my world?  lol