I was wondering why there are fewer, far far fewer, male providers than female providers? Let's look at it from a straight angle. 1) Women are most successful than in the past. 2)Most of them can take care financially of a house hold without the financial help of their male significant. 3) Percentage of married women has been dropping since the mid-1950s. and 5) women are sexually more free and liberated then 40 years ago, having sex for the sake of having sex is no longer a taboo...and many other reasons...All of these are reasons that favor a growing market for male providers, but male providers are a rare breed. Why is that? Would women hire male providers if they were available?
Or women seek more than a quick hump? Or maybe male cannot perform 4 times per day everyday of the week, they are just built differently. Or women seek intimacy more than pure sex.

It'd be interested to hear LG's opinion about this and other women's opinions.

Dear Lostfame,

We have gone over this topic many times, in varying formats and from various angles on this forum.

The overarching explanation to your query lies in the theories of evolutionary theory/psychology. But from a bare-bones perspective, women simply do NOT have the same sex drive as men. Not even close! Men produce between 50 to 100 times more testosterone than women. Testosterone is the androgen hormone of sexual desire and also aggression. Women are like sterile Medflies compared to men in that arena. Hence, they do not need to discharge that drive as frequently as men do.

And yes, women in general seek more than a quick hump. Of course, women are also given to short term mating, either for material goods or for kicks when the urge strikes, but the most important factor in women's sexuality is the goal of a lasting relationship. Yes, women do seek intimacy more than just pure sex. Why? See above. Women are not hormonally configured to desire constant sex with various partners. Why? Because, to paraphrase Woody Allen, "women cater to only one egg, while men have millions of sperm screaming, 'let us out, let us out!' "

It's really pointless to compare women and men in this area. Of course, post-war social constructionists and feminists have done a splendid job for the past 40 years or so, in convincing us all that men and women function in the same way in the sexual arena. Well, they don't. See above.

Now this doesn't mean that women don't have the CAPACITY for screwing 4 times a day, all with different partners. They do. But do they seek it freely and willingly, with the only reward being orgasm? No, not really.

In addition, we're talking about women paying someone for sex. Why should they, when the men of this world are paying them? Maybe the boys should learn from the Greek comedy Lysistrate, and go on a sex strike? Maybe then, women would finally get horny and cave in? Yes, maybe a couple of times a month, if you men are lucky. But in this case, I believe it's a seller's market. As long as men want sex more than women do, it will be a forever uphill battle for male HETEROSEXUAL providers.

N.b. that there is no shortage of male prostitutes in the gay arena. Now why is that, I wonder...

Think it's got to do with driiiiiive,
the Love Goddess

I was wondering about a service where the male provider attempts to get the woman pregant.
The angle would be that this method would be "more natural" than IVF, and wouldn't carry the ethical questions about the remaining embryos etc. The target market would be hetero and lesbian couples who don't mind a third party in the bedroom, for the sake of a child.
The provider or agency would prepare a few months in advance, plotting the mother-to-be's ovulation cycle, and at the proper time, a preselected young sperm donor would arrive to administer treatments.
Hubby could be sent away for the week with his own provider, to keep his mind off of what's going on at home. Then he returns to his pregnant wife, and they raise a family.
Young donor, having signed away parental rights, returns to college with a nice bankroll, a sore penis, and a unique memory of a killer vacation.

OK, so this is obviously a joke, but what do you think LG, would this be prostitution? Or a medical service? Does the method of fertilization make that huge of a difference? Or are IFV clinics actually hotbeds of debaucherie?

Aside from the legal angles, the other problem is:are there enough eligible donors willing to give up a kid they might make? The sperm banks seem to be full, so maybe.

If any of you rich buggers out there start up this service, I want a cut! Or at least to be put on the donor list, LOL.

Dear sifujeff,

There are no laws in the US that specifically prohibit private arrangements. Witness Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher. The father of their child is David Crosby of Crosby, Stills and Nash. Regardless of what one might think of him or his lifestyle, one would only hope that he at least has declared his intent to come forward as the biological father, should the child desire to know the truth.

As to prostitution, selling sperm or having sex with someone to make her pregnant cannot be legally defined as prostitution per se. The intent is not to sell sex, the intent is pregnancy. And no, IVF clinics are anything but hotbeds of debaucherie...unless you are talking financial debaucherie, because the owners of said clinics make indecent amounts of money.

I have had both professional and personal experiences with couples trying desperately to get pregnant, some with good results, others with disastrous moral implications. We have to keep in mind that none of these things are IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD, which should be paramount, from a moral perspective.

I can also tell you, that for the right price, it is perfectly legal to go to California Cryobank, pick out a donor out of a catalogue, then head to California Fertility Partners [Dr. Marrs, huge celeb in IVF circles] and pick out a "genetically superior" egg donor. You can then mix the sperm and the egg, take said embryo and implant it in a woman who has paid handsomely for all this, and who is under ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to disclose to her child that s/he is not genetically related to her.

I personally consider this immoral and extremely selfish. Taking into account disorders and syndromes with genetic significance, it is every person's right to know his/her origin. This is even stipulated in the UN Hague Convention. In Scandinavia, there is now a law stating that parents have the duty to tell their child, before s/he is 18, if s/he was conceived using donor eggs and/or donor sperm.

So while your scheme is mildly amusing for some to consider, the emotional and legal implications thereof are clearly significant. I'm afraid I can't see the levity in it, only because I have had clients who have been near suicide, much because of these complicated arrangements. This includes the offspring of donors who are seriously depressed because they can't find their genetic parent. And, it includes a father who is deeply enraged because his wife, who carried a purchased embryo, ran away from the US, divorced him in absentia, gave birth to the baby and put someone else's name as the father on the birth certificate. And no, it's not Larry Birkhead we're talking about. These things happen because at least in the US, infertility clinics are treading in a lawless morass, to the benefit of none other than those who own them.

Blood is thicker than water,
the Love Goddess

LG, true enough as far as that goes, but why not look at the much more basic truth?  If I, as a male, suggest to a woman I just met that we go somewhere to have sex, I would probably be accused of sexual harrassment, or at the very least slapped in the face.  If you, as an attractive female, suggest to a man you just met that you go somewhere to have sex, he'd probably say yes.  Women need male escorts far less than we men need female companions ...