Nothing unusual abt hookers not just having SOs but being married, too. If I ever re-marry, it will be to a working hooker. Of course she will need to be drug-free and doing it bc she is basically a nympho and still needs to make a living and is too horny to have a typical job (the kind that gets fired for screwing everyone in the office all the time). I am totally down w/ women being as promiscuous as they want to be. I love fucking a woman right after she's been fucked a few times. Did this in fact just this past Fri. night at a sex party. Love it when they're all warmed up.
In ancient Rome, married women used to give head and/or fuck for extra money pretty regularly. It wasn't considered dishonorable behavior. Professional whores though were, despite being popular, ironically considered unfit for marriage. It wasn't bc they were hookers per se, it was due to "paternity certainty", which was a big issue back then. (Today it isn't.)
But in practice more than a few professional hookers got married after taking it up, usu. to a customer but not always. Interestingly, prostitutes were required to wear togas by law, which were considered masculine dress. This was so that they could be readily identified by customers, thereby keeping customers from accidentally soliciting "respectable" women who happened to be in the same place as hookers were known to hang out. Also, togas were practical. The main part was easily removed over the head, leaving the undergarment which was open at the bottom and had a slit in the front, to allow the wearer to more easily pee and poop w/ it on. On hookers, this was also useful for those reasons but she could also just take off the main part of the toga and leave on the undergarmant and men could still fuck her. After all, it got cold in winter.
Slave girls put to "work" in legionnary brothels in the Army would at times be bought by an officer or well-off NCO and marry the guy. Even Roman privates were pretty well-compensated and at times slave girls vied to get picked for brothel "work" bc it increased their chances of getting bought for marriage by a legionary. Roman troops were also paid in gold. You can be pretty sure they tipped even the slave-girls. Most Romans didn't see a gold piece too often. Legionaries were paid in it. The relative wealth of legionnaries, along w/ their extraordinary physical conditioning and social status, made them very attractive as husbands and bfs. Where Roman legions camped for a decent length of time, all manner of commercial interests followed, including bands of travelling hookers. A fair number of towns and cities in Europe today started out from more or less permanent legionary encampments. Professional hookers also sometimes followed legions but not as often. They were competing with cheaper Army slave girls and local women who frequently fairly threw themselves at legionaries when they showed up. After all, these men had lots of food, gold, and arguably the safest place a person could be in the ancient world was inside or next to a Roman legion camp -- provided of course you were on good terms with them. And fucking ppl is a great way to get on good terms with them.
Aside from having a bf built like a brick shithouse and possessing youthful sexual stamina, the wife/gf of a legionary was also very safe and provided for. On more than a few occassions, civilization-challenged and resource-poor would-be Roman territories fairly begged Rome to annex them and encamp a legion. This brought wealth, stability, healthy able-bodied men, indoor plumbing (a Roman invention), paved roads, etc. Some provinces, notably Britania and Germania, resisted but doing so was ultimately futile. Once most populations saw the huge standard of living improvements Roman occupation came with, it was pretty much over. Learn Latin and watch your women ride/suck Roman cock quite publicly in front of you. That's how it goes, baby.
Prostitution in Europe and later America was only outlawed and branded immoral when Christianity became the commonest religion. Most religions either frown upon or condemn quid pro quo sex between people, esp. men and women, because it undermines attempts by women collectively to control the sex market. By teaching women to suppress their sexual desires or at least refrain from acting on them and instead hold out (ie, extort men) for MARRIAGE, this creates a legal framework for presumed paternity (lacking DNA testing, they had nothing else). In so doing, in a patrilineal legal structure, inheritence from fathers to sons could be established. Thus sons entering the church had legal access to property, real and not, they inherited or would inherit from their fathers. This created a steady stream of property and non-real estate wealth going into the now-institutionalized Catholic Church. Thus the Church had many reasons to condemn sex b4 marriage, prostitution (which is actually standard behavior for primate females), divorce, etc. Money doesn't talk, it screams.
Anyone can see how women would embrace these ideas. This raised the value of pussy from the equivalent of what, $10, to a house, car, and claims on a man's income for years to come all w/o working. It was also a lot harder for women to find higher-paying jobs due to fewer educational opportunities and social value restrictions. So not surprisingly, it caught on.
Today, paternity certainty isn't a factor (we have DNA tests) and the Cath Church isn't the kind of social and political force it once was, thank goodness. Women are now in higher-paying jobs and professions, set in fact to outnumber men in more than a few. Men generally are now foregoing marriage altogether simply bc there is no reason left to do it. Women are still generally looking for marriage bc as deals go, it's great for them: his assets almost immediately become hers but not the other way around, but have much higher standards today than previously simply bc they no longer need a husband as a practical matter. Thus most women price themselves out of the marriage market. That they are not pestering men to propose to them is in fact welcome relief to many men and notice we're not complaining.
Add up all this and you get a thriving market for pussy. Prostitution has gotten a lot more common, incl Roman-style casual hooking, incl. married women (whose hubbies may or may not know about it), what's left of them, single women who just want to get laid some or need help paying for their liberal arts degrees, and of course, girls who've taken up "bad habits", and different kinds of hookers now dot the landscape, many turning tricks for cheap. As supply goes up, price goes down. With the exception of eccie girls w/ bad habits (and some eccie girls do indeed have bad habits, just well-hidden), the traditional professional escort's market position (no bad habits exc maybe smoking, does it for a living, etc.) these days has become quite precarious as other types of hookers bid the prices downward.
Anyway, I used to fuck a married casual. She wore her ring, too, during sex. She used her ring hand to touch my cock and jerk me off. Seeing it on her hand holding my cock was hot. I enjoyed touching her ring while I fucked her and made her come. "I bless your marriage by fucking you."
Hot af. She turned tricks behind her hubby's back for $40. She just plain liked being bad. It got her off. She didn't really need the money.
These days, I fuck a married lady, among others, in her and her hubby's bed while he sits in the living room listening to her screams. I don't pay her. I do it as a favor to them every week. It keeps her satisfied; she needs multiple cocks. A lot of women do. I get along fine w/ her husband. Nice guy.
Another spa essay conudes. Cliff's Notes version: Yes, some hookers are married women. Usually their husbands know and approve. It's more typical than you might think. And yes, it's ok.
Do escorts admitting to having a S. O. Fantasy killer or not.
