Quite frankly, given the number of married men who end up turning to professionals in their sexless marriages, I think they'd be delighted to give their wives 20$ instead of a pro 200$ for the same service. Smart for the wives, too. Keeps the money in the household.

Try looking up a few of the studies and surveys that have been done recently about sexless marriages. Many, many, men are reporting that they have sex with their wives five times or less a year. The last one I saw said that nearly 20% had no sex with their wives for more than one year.

[Link]

If being in a partnership and everything that implies (separation / sharing of duties, rewards, etc. more or less equally) is attractive to you, you make concessions. If your only concern is your own wants and needs, that tends to make a marriage difficult for the other partner, if not impossible to sustain, unless you / they are a glutton for punishment, co-dependent, insecure, etc. and so on, ad infinitum.

One of the main things I enjoy about being married is being part of something bigger than myself, and giving a shit about other people's wants and needs over my own. Occasionally, I expect that pendulum to swing back the other way, in my favor. Is that so much to ask?

If my wife started charging for sex or withholding it or using it as some kind of warped reward system, I'd start thinking of her and treating her with a whole lot less respect and admiration. I might start thinking of her as a selfish, manipulative person whose first priority is no longer the artifice we have created but her own little microcosm and that would not make me smile.

I'd get my money's worth first, but ultimately the demotion from "equal" to "service provider" would undermine my ability to feel love. Affection, sure. Admiration, even. But not real, romantic, "I don't want to live without you" love.

[Link]

I've posted in another thread that I do think husbands and wives should give it up on a regular basis just for harmony and stability in the relationship. I honestly don't think that, even if it's a truly miserable experience, it would be even moderately inconvenient for most partners to put out for a short time at least once a month. Sacrifice for greater good isn't outside my realm of thought. Sacrifice and compromise aren't the same thing, though. They're close, but not the same. A lot of people are willing to compromise, not so many are willing to sacrifice.

I don't see any problem with either solution.

The compromise gives the woman a bit more power, and probably sets the sex outside the bounds of intimacy, which may not be what the husband wants.

A sacrifice often goes unnoticed and leaves the giver feeling unappreciated and taken for granted. If a sexual sacrifice is brought to light, I think many partners would feel hurt to know the only reason their spouse puts out is so the relationship remains stable.

Goodness sakes, I am so glad I don't ever want to be married again! Also, I am equally glad that I am shallow enough to reject unsuitable bedmates as relationship partners.

[Link]

There are people on this board whose current sex lives reflect a change in frequency and desire that happened over the course of years. They didn't marry someone who didn't like sex, or they didn't know, or it hadn't happened yet, or any number of other possibilities (one or the other is really gay, or bi, or not cut out for monogamy, or were raped or any number of other things that change the entire landscape of the relationship drastically). I'd say "sea change" but Harri might get upset.

Would I, cobalt60, force a woman who did not want to have sex, to do it just because "if you want to stay married to me, you'll do it and act like you like it?" Maybe once, and I reckon that would be rape no matter what else you choose to call it, and I certainly wouldn't like myself very much afterward.

So disregard any macho posturing I may have made. I don't know that guy, really, he just gets loose on the Internet sometimes and doesn't really mean any harm.

But neither would I concede to this "pay for play" scenario bud described.

There's something ugly about it, after all, and no matter what kind of light you shine on it, it still cowers in the corner and trembles.

[Link]

I don't see anything but bad coming out of this discussion, so I will recuse myself out of honestly having nothing valuable to add other than flippant conjecture and resentment towards a God that, if it exists, wired men and women so drastically differently that it's amazing there haven't been true gender wars up to now.

[Link]

By "do things we don't want to do", I mean it philosophically, not "against our will". I mean things like mowing the lawn or taking out the trash or a ten minute blowjob. It's not exactly back breaking labor, any of it, and like Kimi said, it's worth it for some peace of mind. Or just peace and quiet!

I don't know why I'm still talking. I forgot to think before I speak. It won't happen again.

[Link]

If she ever demanded money in return for sex, there would be no more sex until she asked me, and she would have to ask very nicely, to convince me she really wanted it.

I guess this is why escorts have only played a minor part in my life. It takes a lot of skill to get me to "suspend my disbelief".

[Link]

That is all.

[Link]

Why should she?

Most things that we do that we don't like have some incentive result that we desire. Sometimes that's punishment, like what results in not paying taxes, sometimes it's reward, like a paycheck at the end of the week.

This wife apparently doesn't see any incentive to just putting out. So she asked for one.

[Link]

Seriously, though, .. no, I'm serious. The train wreck that was me trying to imagine a wife charging me to fuck her has damaged me enough as it is, and I hereby plug my ears.

La la la la!! Can't hear you!!

La la la la la!!

[Link]

I'd wonder about the prostitute wife. Is she getting off with this sex, or is she dissociating during it? Is she just letting him use her as a living sex doll to cum into, or does she enjoy it too? Hmm...with all the fetishes in the world, why couldn't money be something that makes a woman wet?

I've had sex used as a reward on me before, but not as a habit. It was like "we will not have sex until we fix this thing in our relationship." But that's not really the same...

But my partner's enjoyment is key to me. I feel like entering someone's intimate space is a time to be connected, not disconnected. Real prostitutes dissociate to do their jobs. Wives shouldn't have to. I'd say if you don't want him in you, then you shouldn't have to have him in you at all. And maybe get some professional help on fixing that if you want. If my partner didn't want me, I wouldn't want to have sex with her. Like Cobalt implied, it would be sexual assault, even if it were consensual.

Yes, there are plenty of sexless and near sexless marriages. But what the couple needs to do is seek professional help. You've all seen the talk shows. If a marriage is sexless, neither half really wants it to be. Both always say that they wish it was better. But, on their own without help, the couple couldn't agree on how to make it better. Maybe he's giving all his cum to porn addiction. Maybe she deeply resents him not helping with the kids. I'll tell you what, most couples would agree that going outside the relationship for sex is not what they both want.

Yeah, I'd think that $200 for a pro is cheaper than $20 to your wife...but the fact is that for many men giving up a couple of benjamins for a hooker or an affair is the lazy way out of doing the real work of fixing the relationship.

Cobalt...brotherman...sometimes when you write earnet posts like that they literally make me tear up here in my living room. That stuff you wrote is real man stuff. You gotta call that love, man. If you got it today you dont want it tomorrow, man. Cause you dont need it. Cause as a matter of fact, as we discovered on the train, tomorrow never happens, man. It's all the same fucking day, man. So you gotta...when you wanna hold on to somebody, you gotta hold him like it's the last day of your life.

/janis off

Thank you Cobalt.

[Link]

Kids are not separate from the parents' relationship. If there's poison in it, the kids get poisoned too. Living together with someone you want to see dead doesn't make the best parenting. Having 2 happy but separated parents is better than having 2 tense, grumpy parents living together. I don't believe in "staying together for the kids" because kids aren't blind. If the parents don't like each other, the kids will probably see it before you do. And what does that teach kids? To put up with unhappiness. In addition, the kids will very likely think it's their fault that you're unhappy.

I'm not taking away from your friend's awesomeness as a dad. But our kids learn how to be in relationships from us.

[Link]

And last but not least:

Sometimes, when people let themselves be people and not just sides of an issue, it's a beautiful thing.

All I know right now is - my wife's been in Houston all week and if she handed me a price sheet when she gets home tomorrow night, I'll sell the children if I have to.

[Link]

I say, he charges her a small fee for his ongoing love of her in general. Make everything contingent on a small fee being paid.

That is all.

[Link]

I have absolutely no desire for sex with an uninterested partner. I would rather have no sex at all.

So, the only answer I can give to your question of "Why should she?" is simply "She should not".

[Link]

Should she do something she doesn't like? Maybe, depends on what is more important to her. If this is an eventual breaking point in the marriage, then if she values her marriage (for whatever reason) more than not having sex, then doing something she doesn't like might be an option.

It seems that women have hired plumbers or electricians when the husband doesn't want to do the related home repairs. Why shouldn't sex be sought out of marriage? If this woman is reducing sex to a dollar value, then the act of getting a plumber is no different than finding somebody else to take care of the sex - mere outsourcing.

I don't suggest that marriage should break down because of this, but if at every point in a marriage it is about getting paid for doing things you don't like, there is no point in the marriage. Or at least keep a spreadsheet so that net points can be tracked more easily to keep things equitable.

[Link]

Saving a marriage that requires her to do something she doesn't like may not be much of an incentive to her, but apparently a new pair of shoes is. Why fight that?

Some women don't get the same things out of sex that their husbands do, sucks to be them, and sucks to be their husbands. I dunno why he'd fuss if he already knows she isn't into the sex, but he would still like to have sex with her, why he can't make the outcome (a reward outside of the sex) pleasant for her since the act itself isn't.

If he [any guy, not the specific guy of the story] decides to take the sex outside of the marriage, well I can only hope he chooses to be gentle with his wife's feelings, since I don't really think wives intend cruelty with their disinterest.

[Link]

My point was why bother with the marriage at all? At least on his side.

Since in this case it is the wife that is making sex strictly an accounting exercise, it doesn't matter how she intended it to sound - she made it buisness. So sometimes McDonalds loses buisness to Burger King and the customers don't worry much about how that sounds to the burger flipper. She should see any outside sex as just buisness, just like sex in the marriage.

Should the man have animosity about it? Depends on how personal he took it. Given that it is a marriage, I would guess that it was taken personally.

You really can't expect to have it both ways. People talk about going from Netflix to others based on delivery, etc. Didn't mean to hurt feelings, but buisness is buisness - it isn't a personal relationship.

Edited by - croy on 4/27/2007 5:28:42 AM

[Link]

A stable couple raising children is probably a good thing. It's so rare I can't be certain, but I'm gonna gamble on the thought and believe it's a good thing. I think it's probably not necessary for the stable couple to live in the same house. That's just a matter of convenience and support.

My views aren't the only views, but I just can't see getting riled up about things like this. If the sex doesn't work, and it's a critical element, then it must be dealt with either outside the relationship or at some compromise level within the relationship. You can't turn a cow's ear into a silk purse.

The wife offered a compromise. The husband rejected it. I didn't hear any compromise offer he extended, so I can't make any statements to that.

[Link]

If she just doesn't like sex with him...why stay with him? Why torture him? Why torture yourself? You'll just end up resenting him. And the more this breathing, sweating hulk humps up inside you, the more you will seethingly despise him, no matter how much money he gives you.

Not liking sex with someone is the clearest sign of wanting to block them off emotionally from you. Why be with them in an LTR if you don't want to be intimate with them?

[Link]

Besides, if it is THE duty fuck from hell, 20 bucks is really cheap, she should sell for a better price, and why not go all the way then and become a professional? A professional whore is at least an honest woman after all.

Edited by - MissJanet on 4/29/2007 7:10:05 PM

[Link]

Really the three of them need only a collective eleven divorces to equal mom, so they have time.

[Link]

Good question. If I was married to a woman who didn't want to have sex with me I wouldn't have sex with her. I would also move out and begin divorce proceedings immediately. It's true that intercourse is painful for some ladies. Endometriosis makes having sexual relations painful for the lady but most gals would try to accomodate their husbands sexually. They would try handjobs, mutual masturbation, blowjobs, footjobs, anal sex, watching porn together--some form of physical intimacy that didn't involve penis entering pussy. In Don and Sharon's case, she wanted 'something in return' for having sex with her husband.
What kind of wife would demand monetary compensation for providing her husband with her sexual services? I don't think a lifetime of therapy could cure her of this fucked-up mentality.

[Link]

I've heard plenty of guys complain something along these lines... "I go to work every day, I pay all the bills, she's got everything she wants, is it so much to ask that she give me a little something now and then?"

To my ears, this sounds like he is saying, "I already paid for it, she should put out."

He's already viewing her intimacy as a tit for tat service. Why the fuss when she asks for a raise?

I don't talk to a lot of women, so I don't hear the other side of the story. However, I am having relations with the husbands. If this is what the wives get, I don't blame them for asking for compensation above and beyond their daily household grind. Seriously, there is no way on earth I would have sex with some of these guys without payment. They're nice guys, I'd live with them for free, do the cookin' and cleanin' for room and board. But that level of sexual incompetence calls for overtime payment. Time and a half holiday plus! I'm not fooling! It's BAD!

Now, I admit, there are some guys who are just fine in bed who have wives that don't put out. I don't know what's wrong with those wives. I really don't.

[Link]

In a successful marriage, sex is an exchange, I won't argue that. But it's a mutual exchange of intimacy, playfulness, love and affection. If all you get is money in exchange for sex, then the whole reason for being married has dissovled down to just the transactional components.

I've had a successful marriage for almost 19 years now. We've been thru a lot....loss of a child, battling cancer, loss of a business, success of another, 3 wonderful children, etc. And we still have sex at least 3-5 times a week and it's GREAT sex. The only times we stopped having sex was when my wife was in the midst of chemo or after surgeries. And I would have gladly forgone it much longer but it was SHE who re-initiated it....not as a means of trying to fulfill my sexual needs, because to be blunt I wasn't much in the mood for sex when facing her mortality. But because of a means of fulfilling her desires for intimacy. Sex holds our marriage together as much as love and devotion. Not money.

If money is the "compromise" here, then what was really compromised was the marriage. When relationships are transactional in nature, there is no future.

[Link]

I believe that sex is only one part of a relationship, only one path to intimacy, only one kind of physical contact, and only one kind of a lot of things - including ways to make a baby. I absolutely believe a marriage can be strong and continue with no sex at all, provided the partners agree on the subject. When there is disagreement, for whatever reason, a compromise is generally the solution. All compromises may not be created equal, and all compromises may not be acceptable, however, to simply discard one compromise as a cold-hearted transaction is to demand that your partner feel the way you do about a subject they obviously feel differently about. That doesn't mean you have to accept the compromise, but that also doesn't mean you have to ridicule it.

[Link]

a) a total pratt
b) very rich
c) both

I wouldn't pay that much money for any woman. Even if I had Olivia O'Lovely, Briana Banks, Danielle Rush and Tiffany Mynx for a whole week together.

[Link]