I never experience a feeling of emptiness after visiting with a provider. But, then again, in most cases the visit is just one aspect of an overarching discussion that takes place before, during and between visits. I don't bother booking a lady once unless I think there's a good chance I'll want to see her repeatedly. What happens over time in most cases is a type of friendship.
So I don't end up with a hollow feeling. I think that by booking a whole woman instead of a pretty picture; and treating her as a whole woman -- to some extent anyway, I get a whole woman.
On Lauren's points, I think we have to be careful in looking at historical human behavior and using that to advocate or justify that behavior in the present.
Let's look at the basic idea that polygamy is -- quite provably -- an aspect of our evolutionary state to which we are well-suited. And, genetic evidence suggests that MOST of that polygamy (though not all) took the form of one man having many mates. In most of human history, money did not exist -- nor wealth as we think of it. That man got all the babes because he was the biggest and baddest. Using his bigness and badness, he was able to control more resources than other men.
Now -- let me ask a question.
What do you do with all the "excess males" for whom a female is unavailable? Make them eunuchs to guard the harem? Use them as cannon fodder in unnecessary wars? Send them forth to kill all the men in a neighboring community and seize their women?
All of these methods of dealing with the "excess males" problems of polygamy have existed in various historical cultures.
One thing that most men imagine, in imagining polygamy, is that THEY will be among those men with multiple mates. But most men imagining that would be wrong because 10% of the people in the U.S. control 70% of the wealth and the other 90% of people make due with spreading around the remaining 30%. And in the modern era, the proxy for bigness and badness -- because it guarantees resources for offspring -- is wealth.
Likely, most guys in this forum are part of the 10%. But how many are in the 1% who control 42.7% of wealth? (1) It is that 1% who would have the most choice of women, leaving the rest of the top 10% the rest. And the other 90% of men? Ah ... well ... chemical castration these days is reliable and permanent.
And as much as we sit here and say we would never accept that; there is some reasonably argued research that the crime of RAPE is actually an aspect of evolved psychology present in a certain percentage of men for gaining the capacity to reproduce in spite of being iced out of the gene pool. Support for this notion is gained through statistics indicating that a woman is most likely to be raped while most fertile.(2) Given the intense levels of PTSD and other psychological damage that women can experience as a result of rape; it wouldn't take long for those in the 10% to start favoring using excess males as cannon fodder, eunuchs and the like. In every age we believe we are so much more enlightened than we were; only to have future generations look back and see as as barbarians.
So I think we should carefully consider that social monogamy, overall, is good for MEN because it gives most men access to a mate far better than they would otherwise have. (That is, 90% of men are better off. The other 10% of men are worse off.)
Women, of course, are better off under polygamous structures overall. With the rare exception of women with such overwhelming charms that even the most psychopathic of men wouldn't be subject to dalliance; a woman who is one of 10 wives to Bill Gates would still have far more resources available to her and her offspring than a woman who is the only wife of a computer programmer.
As women have gained more political power; certain forms of economic polygamy have been created. For example, I fully support two women economically. Plus, of course, hobbyists are part of a shared pool of male-provided resources which providers divide. So maybe I am supporting, albeit through a roundabout mechanism, a certain percentage of another woman's economic requirements.
And -- speaking of psychopathy -- in the modern era there is a very strong correlation between wealth acquisition -- especially of ladder-climbers in corporate structures -- and traits we identify as psychopathic. (3)
Enforcing social monogamy has the beneficial effect of reducing the percentage of offspring that would otherwise be sired by psychopaths. As one Harvard researcher indicated, if we keep heading down this path of rewarding psychopathy: "... evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't end well."
So we need to be VERY careful, IMO, in realizing the ultimate consequences of our advocacies because there will likely be unintended -- and very unwelcome -- consequences in spades.
Behavior that may be evolutionarily based was entrenched during a very different phase of our development with very different technology and mores. The fact that, at one time, a behavior might have been adaptive does not mean it is in our enlightened self-interest in the present.
For example, for all practical purposes, all providers should be considered unimpregnable by hobbyists. It is likely extremely maladaptive for them to expend resources that can never assist their own offspring. In fact, it could almost be seen as a form of cuckoldry as the hobbyist's resources are often expended on a woman raising an unrelated male's children.
Certainly, if the children are seen to be part of the hobbyist's genetic group (however he defines that); his expenditure may in fact be adaptive in terms of group evolutionary theory. But group evolutionary theory is extremely controversial to say the least; though it has some strong points in explaining the existence of traits such as altruism that would be maladaptive from the standpoint of an atomized individual.
This is just a long way of saying that just because I WANT to do something doesn't mean that I SHOULD.
My own reasons for hobbying are such that, ironically, I use it in such a fashion as to further the wellbeing of future offspring with non-providers by extending my patience during a time that, due to trauma, my wife is not sexual.
(1)
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
(2) A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer
(3)
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C4
I do not think of you as a case study.
