Is a prostitute and one-night stand the same?

[Skwim]

One night = one night stand    Two nights ≠ one night stand

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Now, this is just a prime example of what I am talking about.

You seem to be making some kind of jibe that I have no experience of one-night stands - and thus my supposed 'manhood' is questionable.

Now, who give a rats whether someone has scored 100 women or not - does that make any difference to anything?

I perceive that you two , feel your own manhoods' threatened by someone saying that a prostitute and one-night stand are the same.

It takes a few notches of your own personal 'bedposts' and compels you to defend your egos.

I wasn't actually speaking of one nights stands but rather sexual relationships in general. You seem to be making a large number of general statements that have no connection to reality, at least, not a reality that I have experienced. Nor do you accept any information counter to your own viewpoint even when those comments come from someone with more experience and knowledge.

 

[Falvlun]

Ethically they're different, but psychologically, they're pretty similar.

I found it strange that this seemed to be a relatively common sentiment (at least in the first couple of pages that I read): that both acts have the same psychological ramifications.

From the perspective of a female, I would have to think that the psychology of the two situations would be pretty divergent. As a prostitute, you are purely using your body as a business. As a one-night-stand, you are using your body to gain pleasure, either physically or emotionally (even if you might regret the experience later). That's a pretty big difference in frame of mind, purpose, and product, all which would change the psychological impact.

 

[nnmartin]

I wasn't actually speaking of one nights stands but rather sexual relationships in general. You seem to be making a large number of general statements that have no connection to reality, at least, not a reality that I have experienced. Nor do you accept any information counter to your own viewpoint even when those comments come from someone with more experience and knowledge.

how could you possibly know who had more experience and knowledge of these things?

are you an internet forum psychology expert or something?

 

[nnmartin]

From the perspective of a female, I would have to think that the psychology of the two situations would be pretty divergent. As a prostitute, you are purely using your body as a business. As a one-night-stand, you are using your body to gain pleasure, either physically or emotionally (even if you might regret the experience later). That's a pretty big difference in frame of mind, purpose, and product, all which would change the psychological impact.

I am talking from the male perspective here.

but you have made an interesting point and maybe we can expand on this a little - I'll try to get back to you later on this one.

 

[Falvlun]

I am talking from the male perspective here.

but you have made an interesting point and maybe we can expand on this a little - I'll try to get back to you later on this one.

The debate in general appeared to have a male perspective bias. :yes:

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

how could you possibly know who had more experience and knowledge of these things?

are you an internet forum psychology expert or something?

Sorry dude, didn't mean to hit a sensitive spot.

 

[PaulTheMaul]

I think they cannot be regarded as the same both from male and female(this is a little tricky, because usually women are the prostitutes) perspective.

When you pay for sex then you degrade the whole love-making act just to some physiological need - for instance massage, getting your hair trimmed etc. (you get the point).

But the "true" one-night stand is usually preceded by some "primal hunting game" which can eventually boost your ego and give you more satisfaction than a simple sex with a prostitute.

 

[nnmartin]

but the same could easily be said with a prostitute.

In this case, the hunting game is still active. The customer has to 'find' a girl whether it be on a street corner, by cruising around in his car or by going to certain types of bar. It is still a ritual and , is exactly the same in a psycho-social sense.

The thrill of the chase still exists here.

and also, in most instances, sex is just a physiological need.

all the claptrap about love, tantric joy and communing with the divine is nothing more than fantasy.

why do you think that Witches make up this nonsense anyway - it's pure Freudian hogwash in order to sanitise our base carnal lustings.

 

[Pegg]

its still an act of fornication, so from both male or female perspectives, it is the same thing.

They are just as bad as each other and lead to the same consequences as each other.

 

[Speedwolf]

I found it strange that this seemed to be a relatively common sentiment (at least in the first couple of pages that I read): that both acts have the same psychological ramifications.

From the perspective of a female, I would have to think that the psychology of the two situations would be pretty divergent. As a prostitute, you are purely using your body as a business. As a one-night-stand, you are using your body to gain pleasure, either physically or emotionally (even if you might regret the experience later). That's a pretty big difference in frame of mind, purpose, and product, all which would change the psychological impact.

Hello to all - after reading the previous pages I arrived at this post and thought 'finally!'. A number of the posters seem to be assuming that one night stands are only for physical pleasure, and while that is probably true for some it's not the whole story for others. Emotional intimacy can be the goal as well, and whether there's any wisdom in trying to achieve that thru a one night stand is not the point. The fact is that people do hope for it, crave it - just as much as the physical side. So to answer the OP, no the two situations are not the same. I don't accept the presumption that they are always psychologically the same although I do accept that for some they might. Someone has already said that many one night stands are the start and abrupt end of a hope for something more, that fails to materialise. This is nothing at all like the commercial transaction with a pro.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

its still an act of fornication, so from both male or female perspectives, it is the same thing.

They are just as bad as each other and lead to the same consequences as each other.

I totally agree, although I think we probably disagree as to what those consequences may be. There are no consequences to having safe consensual sex, paid for or otherwise.

 

[nnmartin]

its still an act of fornication, so from both male or female perspectives, it is the same thing.

They are just as bad as each other and lead to the same consequences as each other.

what are these consequences?

 

[nnmartin]

So to answer the OP, no the two situations are not the same. I don't accept the presumption that they are always psychologically the same although I do accept that for some they might.

hello and greetings

now, would you say though that if it was a one nighter that you knew would never be more than this, then this would be the same as paying for it? (in a psychological sense).

 

[Pegg]

what are these consequences?

well, alienation from our creator for a start. Fornication stands as a wall between man and his maker.

some people wonder why their life is so full of strife and problems...our sins become to us like a slave master.

 

[nnmartin]

now this is a tricky area to deal with.

I agree to an extent that we are slaves to our sins - ie: we often feel we need to sin in order to feel happy and this sinning in turn makes us unhappy and frustrated; a vicious circle.

but this is where the definition of sin has to be looked at.

If we read the Bible and study theology and philosophy it becomes clearer but how about people that live out in remote areas who have no access to such material.

Would they still be sinning if having loveless encounters based on natural urges?

 

[Pegg]

now this is a tricky area to deal with.

I agree to an extent that we are slaves to our sins - ie: we often feel we need to sin in order to feel happy and this sinning in turn makes us unhappy and frustrated; a vicious circle.

but this is where the definition of sin has to be looked at.

If we read the Bible and study theology and philosophy it becomes clearer but how about people that live out in remote areas who have no access to such material.

Would they still be sinning if having loveless encounters based on natural urges?

You would likely find that even in remote communities there is a moral code that they will live by. The bible does actually speak about the moral laws that even people who dont know God, have inbuilt into them.

If they live by those inbuilt laws, they will be judged as righteous ones...but if they ignore their own consciences, they will be adversely judged as Paul explains:

Romans 2:13 For the hearers of law (Gods mosaic laws) are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. 14 For whenever people of the nations that do not have law (Mosaic law) do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law (or,although they dont know Gods mosaic laws) , are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

So do you notice that both groups of people will be judged by God...the ones who know him and the ones who dont know him. The standards of judgement are different. For the person who knows Gods laws, he will be judged according to those laws. But for the people who have never come to learn Gods laws, they will be judged by their own consciences according to what they know to be right and wrong.

So no matter who we are, God knows our heart and conscience and if he sees that we are doing things we know to be morally or ethically wrong, we will be judged for that.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, well how about those people that are 'born bad'?

ie: the ones who do bad but think they are in the right.

ie: sociopaths etc., or just those people who feel that whatever they do is fine within reason?

 

[Pegg]

ok, well how about those people that are 'born bad'?

ie: the ones who do bad but think they are in the right.

ie: sociopaths etc., or just those people who feel that whatever they do is fine within reason?

we all have the ability to discern between right and wrong... even sociopaths and psycho murders who very carefully cover their tracts when they commit crimes. Why do they cover their tracks? Because they know they are doing the wrong thing and do not want to be caught. So no matter what reasoning they use to justify their actions, their conscience has already condemned them in the thing they are doing.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, I can agree with this in such cases - ie: something seriously wrong, for sure.

but how about cases which are less clear?

There are many examples of Biblical morality with which many people these days simply do not agree with.

And in these cases I don't see an inner conscience telling them that it is wrong.