Probably the provider due to the double standard on gender and sexuality that has existed since the beginning of time.

That said, depending on your personal circumstances, individual men can lose so much more if outed ....

Who is arrested most, the johns or the provider?
We all know the answer to that.  And this is just in our country either.

Take Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian  woman who has been sentenced, to be stoned to death for adultery in her country, but absolutely no punishment has been issued for the man involved.

The barbaricness of this makes me sick to stomach.  Prior to her be stoned to death, she has been ordered to receive 99 lashes of a whip for being seen without wearing her head scarf.

Every woman in this country should go to bed tonight and say a prayer that we live in this country and not some other.

It always depends on the perspective of the listener. A cuckolded wife will look upon her husband with complete disdain while condemning the provider to death, figuratively, of course. The BF who finds out, will holler, "I knew you were a dirty whore." The minister will wonder how he missed on the signs and will confidently pray for your soul. If you are a provider and he's not into boy sex, he'll be looking to meet you on the side. If you are the male parishioner, he'll find a way to embarrass you into give more than your 10%. So it really depends. Believe me, hatred is a equal opportunity holiday and how you feel its wrath depends on who the listener is and how much they want to give you shit.

I was wondering who do you think society looks at with more disdain the men paying for the service or the women providing it? Is there a double standard or is the scrunity about equal in your opinion?

Edrienne, I agree with what you have stated in this thread.  It's a two-way street with both provider and hobbyist with much to lose.

I WAS wondering, however, how many providers have SO's that are not aware of their vocation?

Society will stigmatize a provider over a hobbyist.Just take a look at the tv,newspaper,online etc. the provider is usually the lady who is pimped,on drugs,underage,issues.If people know a gentleman is paying for a service some give him slap on the  back however some might be disgusted.The hobbyist is not going to be frowned upon  as  much as the provider.Society fails to realize that many  ladies do not fall into any of the categories I mentioned above.We are providers as well as mothers,sisters,daughters we take care of our households.We are just as normal as the lady next door your profession does not define you as a person.Whatever journey in life brought us to this point the provider gets the short end.Just my .02

END OF MESSAGE

Cultural morés and laws aren't universal.

If you're talking about the US... well, obviously the lady. David Vitter's about to be re-elected to the US Senate. The lady he saw killed herself after a conviction.

Could you expand on this?  

Ladies risk losing their relationships if their SO isn't aware of the nature of their work.  

If married and simply 'outed', they risk divorce, being blackmail by the husband (threats to expose the illegality of this work which brings a whole new level of legal trouble to bear) which would likely result in the loss of custody of children (and the child support that would go with a traditional divorce with some form of joint custody), loss of the potential of alimony and risk having to be the one to PAY child support/alimony from the proceeds of their working (if the courts don't know how the lady made X amount, they will still hold her to that level of income even though being outed will decrease her earning ability).

They risk being jailed and having an criminal record.

They risk having undue attention paid to every aspect of their life where the law is concerned (from driving, to legal employment, to parenting).

They risk losing their children to CPS and the scorn of their children if said child is old enough to understand.  

They risk being ostracized by society in general and by their extended families.  

They risk being viewed as "unsafe" by this community and therefore risk losing their source of income.

They risk IRS audits for presumed unpaid taxes (which in turn risks more legal troubles/jail time for evasion if that can be proven).  

They risk seizure of whatever funds are on them at the time of arrest as well as IRS seizure of assets presumed to be purchased with ill-gotten gains.  

They risk eviction from their incall apartments and the resultant damage to their credit.

What am I missing that a gent risks which a lady does not?

BOTH can risk most the things you mention:  divorce, blackmail, illegality of the meeting, loss of custody, loss of alimony, having to pay child support/alimony, jail, criminal record, undue attention, loss of children, scorn of children, ostracized by society, viewed as "unsafe" therefore losing income.

IRS audits I concede is a provider-only one, but is matched by audit of use of business funds.

What you list are true possibilities.  But they don't apply to every woman.  Go back and read slm's post:  "....depending on your personal circumstances, individual men can lose so much more....".  He never said "men always lose more".

You described a situation where the woman MIGHT lose a lot.  But if a man has a 200,000/yr job that goes POOF! with a conviction, loses his wife & kids (including a chance of split custody) while that particular woman was single, self employed, no kids, etc., then in that case he MIGHT lose a lot more than she does.

Because of the stupid self-righteousness of the laws BOTH are at risk to lose a lot.  There is no reason, not clear answer, to the argument "XXX will lose more".  It is in everyone's best interest if neither is outed.

END OF MESSAGE

Well, the IRS can come after you if you misuse tax exempt income for hiring escorts.

See link about Waterbury, CT pastor who used Church funds to hire male escorts under the guise of "undergoing treatments" for cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/kevin-gray-waterbury-prie_n_636342.html

I totally agree with that. I love what I do but if certain people found out, OMG the shit storm that would cause. It's my life so I don't mind, I'm not hurting anyone else but there's def a double standard. BUT the men, as stated above, DO have SO much to lose if outed. It's a shame b/c no one is hurting anyone here.

Alfred,

Of course BOTH risk a lot.  That was pretty much my point. I don't believe I ever said women risk MORE.  I simply asked what is it that men risk MORE which women do not and then listed some of the ways women risk.  

Perhaps we're dealing with semantics/logic misfire.  To me, the part of SLM's post about "depending on your personal circumstances" uses that phrase as an 'out' to lay more risk on the gent.  If he truly believed in that phrase, and understood it could very easily be reversed, there'd be no point in stating it. Hence the faulty logic.  On it's face it's true, but so is the opposite.  If that be the case then it serves no purpose being stated.  

The general reason people couch an offensive "truth" is so that they can then backtrack and point to their disclaimer to diffuse a confrontation of that "truth".  IMO, that's what's happening here.  Kind of what happens when someone says, "No one cares if you're fat, you've a nice personality!"  Someone can (and likely will) take offense at the truth of being called fat yet their left in a double bind of also being called nice - so can they really take offense at the whole statement?  It's a great passive aggressive way to get away with speaking a "truth" and also playing CYA if someone calls you on it.

Since I believe (and I could be wrong) this is what SLM was doing....I asked him to name a way a gent risks but a lady does not.  Even in general terms.   As yet, one hasn't been proffered.  

And, to be clear, I don't know SLM's intentions in posting what he did.  That's why I was inquiring OF HIM to clarify.  I freely admit to having been tired and a bit cranky when I read what he posted.  It is possible I was overly sensitive to an passive aggressive statement and should have not addressed it since that is how the majority of folks communicate (and see nothing wrong with doing so).  And it's also entirely possible that he wasn't intending to be PA but simply didn't take the time to consider how his post might 'read' to others by forgetting to add the logical and balancing phrase "and depending on the particular circumstances, the LADY has more to lose".

Again, that's why I asked HIM....  He is the only one who would be qualified to answer what was going on in his mind, after all.

That, depending on individual circumstances, SOME men can lose a whole lot more than SOME women ...

But, yes, generally speaking, women tend to lose more when outed.  But there are always exceptions ....

P.S.  I was just expressing my opinion matter of factly, not trying to be "passive agressive".

in my opinion. And yes there is a double standard. Most chalk a hobbyist's part in the encounter up to him just being a man and we all know "men have needs" right? I don't feel that a woman who escorts is given as lenient of a ruling. It really doesn't matter if we do it to feed our kids, we carry the scarlet letter.

.

Edrienne,

I understand what you are saying but I'll disagree with 2 points.

I didn't originally read anything agressive in slm's post, and even after rereading now it I don't see anything agressive about it.

And if you only want "HIM" to answer that is best done in a PM.  If it's on the open board it's usually going to be taken as an open question to all readers of the board.  I agree he's the only one who can knowledgable explain his intent but others can comment on their POVs.