save the frogs

Good post. We probably should stop using the word "love" altogether. Over-used and too abstract to mean anything. Intimacy, companionship - those are more practical words. And you don't get it with one nighters.

Your whole argument of "women extracting money from men is bad" is overly simplistic. Keep in mind it was common in many cultures around the world until recently that women didn't work while men worked and paid for everything. The women took care of family while the man worked.

MANGA - Make AN Great Again By getting rid of all these threads on US politics

exactly. why you try suit you no buy?

I believe in unicorns!

generally speaking, police around the world dont care if gang members take each other out. it's less work for them. if innocent bystanders get attacked, then they usually jump in.

drugs are not meant to be taken forever. they can save your life in the short term, but if you dont address the root cause of the issue, your health will not get better.

no, your argument is not valid because there is much more potential for ABUSE of exchange of money in relationships. a woman can stay married to a man she doesnt love for 20 years just for money. thats much more sad than paying a girl for an hour.

yeah, go finish your high school degree getting vulgar with a woman and her daughter who accidentally bump into you and apologize

yes, agree but you need to be stupid and crazy to start fighting with bar girls or any girls on the streets. its only a matter of time before a thai thug jumps in.

Not exactly, because it depends on the 2 people involved. Not all human beings are created equal. Some people are gifted athletically and others not so much. Some people have a much higher capacity to love on a deeper level, to bond more deeply with another person. If you don't, and if being with the same woman 20 years is the same as short-term for you .... and it is for many people, then you probably shouldn't bother getting married. Because for these types of people, you're basically paying too much for transactional sex with too many possible downsides. I like the depth of emotion of relationships. Short term is a different experience, but not the same at all and cannot replace relationships for me. Some people actually .... (gasp) ... "make love" ... and you can't "make love" to a hooker. Figure out what type of person you are. And then stick with short-term if that's more advantageous and you get nothing out of relationships besides sex.

This guy is a therapist. He has a very unconventional view on hookers. He did a 3 part series on hookers. He makes some brilliant points. One being that with a hooker you can never attain the highs that you might in a real relationship, but the downsides are also mitigated. Anyway, it doesn't do any justice for me to quote him. You need to give him a listen as he makes a lot of interesting points.

Right now, we only have 2 options - hookers or married for life. Why not have other options? Like if you can have a relationship for 2 years, then it's considered a success and you can move on if things aren't working? Why is a relationship considered a failure if it doesn't last forever? What is "long-term"? Forever? Why?

you are perhaps overly idealistic about women. they're not all holy and pure. many of them actually enjoy sleeping with strangers and have other twisted fantasies that might make you squeamish.

to use the term violence is sensationalist propaganda. it's only violence if you physically assault someone.

I've dated several crazy women. That harms your life when you're romantically involved with these women. If you're lucky, you will date a well-adjusted woman and you yourself are well-adjusted. But a lot of people who pretend to live normal lives are not that well-adjusted. My brother beat his kids and would have been better off not getting married and seeing hookers than trying to pretending to be normal and raising a family.

I really think the Jesus comment triggered him somehow, but we'll never know for sure. Take care, beachlover

And the problem with that in marriage is that it's too vague. How do you define financial security? A 100K house? Some women need a 200K house. Other women might want a 500K house and then financial security can devolve into endless greed. And some women might never be content with what you're offering. It might never be enough with the Keeping Up With the Joneses that is so prevalent in "proper society".

yep ... pain ... and ... soul growth. wait ... not everyone on AN has a soul, by their own admission. haha.. if you don't have a soul, definitely stay away from relationships

because religions are corrupt?

Jordan Peterson, who many people hate, I think said sth like men who are in perpetual one night stands (which is similar to hookers) are sociopathic. He's probably not far from the truth. So yeah, I don't disagree with this last comment of yours. Cheers.

Yeah, but you're shooting yourself in the foot. "choices in women you trusted" might be 50% of the female population cannot be trusted to be in a committed relationship. many women are better off in bars than in marriages.

you need to walk around with a freakin' stick in this day and age with all these vicious dogs

Most people are not capable of deep loving bonds. It takes a very spiritual and deep person to do so, and most people ain't either. And therefore most "normal" relationships are much more transactional than "proper society folks" like you would care to admit. And therefore, the argument for or against prostitution becomes blurred and is not black and white at all. It's based on the false supposition that married couples are not engaging in transactions, and it's all "pure love". Doesn't exist.

I had remarked that it's "shallow" in another thread. It's ok for a while maybe, but not indefinitely. Unless maybe you can get a pet and at the very least bond with an animal and take care of a pet. You gotta bond and take care of something, if not a woman. Sex is just greedily getting needs met. You're not expressing love, which human beings are designed for.