Sasha’s Salon: Logic, Lust, and the Art of the Eroticism.

[Sasha Nat]

Hello, Gentlemen.

They say the brain is the largest sex organ—I’m here to put that theory to the test. I’m starting a weekly debate series for those who prefer their sensuality with a side of sophisticated logic.

If you’re tired of the mundane and ready for the 'Symposium,' leave your argument on our first theme below. Let's see who among you can truly defend a position. 😉🍷

🏛 Is "transactional" actually the most honest form of intimacy?

Let’s talk about the Hetaira vs. the Meretrix. 🍷
In Ancient Greece, the elite didn’t go to the common markets for connection. They sought out the Hetaira—women who were as sharp with their tongues as they were with their touch. These encounters were "transactional," yes, but they were also the only place a powerful man could find a true intellectual match.

The Debate: Is a clearly defined "transaction" actually superior to modern dating?
Is it "colder" to pay for a woman’s time and brilliance upfront, or is it more honest than the "emotional taxes" and hidden costs of traditional relationships? Is the most "sensual" thing a man can do simply being clear about what he wants?
I’m researching the Modern Hetaira in Yaletown this week. Tell me: Do you prefer the clarity of the contract, or the chaos of the "free" world? 🫦🏛
— Sasha Nat xx

 

[Larry's Torch]

The Debate: Is a clearly defined "transaction" actually superior to modern dating?
Is it "colder" to pay for a woman’s time and brilliance upfront, or is it more honest than the "emotional taxes" and hidden costs of traditional relationships? Is the most "sensual" thing a man can do simply being clear about what he wants?
I’m researching the Modern Hetaira in Yaletown this week. Tell me: Do you prefer the clarity of the contract, or the chaos of the "free" world? 🫦🏛— Sasha Nat xx

Traditional dating can lead to a long term relationship.
Transactions are for temporary encounters.
I see these as two completely different topics so it's difficult to state that one is "superior" to the other. It all depends on what your goals are; a relationship or getting laid.

 

[VinVan]

As someone who had the good fortune to share time with you on a couple of occasions in the past I will say it’s nice to see you back in the Vancouver scene Sasha. 😀 Those two encounters were a blur of debauchery and I must admit I did not get to discover your intellectual breadth….

It’s an interesting question you pose and I must admit I did not know the meaning of either of these words - Hetaira (educated female) or Meretrix (prostitute) - but I’m glad you bring them to our attention and the proposition of one or the other.

In an ideal world, qualities of the paid muse, the sexual muse, and the civilian would all merge into one. That, is the holy grail. There are probably couples in polyamorous or swinger relationships who have reached this state of “bliss.” I had it once in my life for a short period, but chaos ensued at it was a fleeting as cherry blossoms in spring. But wow.

I suspect a lot of the guys that on Perb (based upon how many are looking for “connection” and not merely a release) are also still chasing what you describe as the intellectual company of a paid companion. But I would submit that finding that intellectual/soulful connection is no easier with an SP than it is in civilian life based upon my years of research.

I will admit, however, that there is something clearly intoxicating about finding the convergence of compatible sexual and intellectual energy in one person, whether paid or not. And if that person has a spiritual component too, then … you had me at “hello.”

 

[Pumped]

Traditional dating can lead to a long term relationship.
Transactions are for temporary encounters.
I see these as two completely different topics so it's difficult to state that one is "superior" to the other. It all depends on what your goals are; a relationship or getting laid.

Traditional dating requires transactions in the sense of monogamy, fidelity, the investment of your time maintaining the relationship, the sharing of resources, and the possibility that its not as exclusive as you might have hoped.

And I do believe that escorts provide the most honest of relationships: as a man, I know I am only there because of money. Maybe -- maybe -- one of them develops feelings for me and wants a traditional or some other kind of relationship. But the bottom line is that the only reason I am having access to this young, beautiful, sensual woman is because I am paying for it.

How many men enter into traditional relationships and eventually find out she's been fucking someone else all along. At least with an escort I know she's fucking someone else and it's none of my business.

A traditional relationship requires other forms of payment with no guarantees that anything I believe may be going on will last, are actually real, or even worth what I'm expected to 'pay' to be with her. Lots of loveless and sexless marriages out there. Lots of expensive divorces with huge implications for physical, emotional, psychological and financial health.

Give me a happy hooker over a miserable wife any day (or night!). And if she's only happy because I'm paying her to be happy, then what does that say about so many traditional relationships? As the saying goes, instead of getting married just buy a house for some woman who hates you.

 

[Banged_Up]

1. The “clearly defined transaction” argument
What you’re calling a modern hetaira model (intellectual + sensual companionship with explicit terms) has a few real advantages:

• Clarity of expectations
  Time, attention, intimacy, and boundaries are negotiated upfront. There’s less ambiguity, less guessing, and fewer mismatched assumptions.
• Reduced emotional manipulation
  In theory, it removes things like:
  • performative interest
  • strategic withholding
  • “emotional taxes” (unspoken obligations, guilt, mixed signals)
• Agency on both sides
  Both people opt in knowing the structure. That can feel more respectful than pretending something is “organic” when it’s actually conditional.

But that clarity comes with a tradeoff:

• The connection is explicitly conditional and finite
• You’re not building something that evolves unpredictably—it’s bounded

2. The case for modern dating (messy as it is)
Traditional dating appears less transactional, but it absolutely still involves exchange:

• Time ↔ attention
• Emotional support ↔ commitment
• Attraction ↔ exclusivity

The difference is:
👉 the terms are implicit, negotiated socially, and often unclear

That creates:

• Confusion
• Misaligned expectations
• Power dynamics that aren’t openly acknowledged

But it also allows:

• Emergent intimacy (feelings that weren’t pre-priced)
• Non-linear connection (people exceeding expectations rather than fulfilling a contract)
• The possibility of mutual transformation, not just mutual benefit

3. Is one “colder” than the other?
Not necessarily. They’re cold or warm in different ways:

• A transaction can be:
  • emotionally warm
  • intellectually stimulating
  • respectful and attentive
    …while still being structurally finite
• A traditional relationship can be:
  • emotionally intense
  • but manipulative, unclear, or draining

So “coldness” isn’t about money—it’s about:

• authenticity
• alignment
• mutual respect

4. The deeper tension: honesty vs. illusion
What you’re really circling is this:

Is it better to state the exchange explicitly, or to participate in a shared illusion of romance that still contains exchange underneath?

Some people feel:

• Explicit structure = honesty → therefore more ethical

Others feel:

• Removing ambiguity = removing magic → therefore less meaningful

Both are valid preferences.

5. “Is clarity the most sensual thing?”
For some people—yes.

Clarity can signal:

• Confidence
• Emotional maturity
• Respect for the other person’s autonomy

But taken too far, it can also feel:

• overly clinical
• pre-scripted
• lacking discovery

Sensuality often lives in a balance:

• enough clarity to feel safe
• enough mystery to feel alive

6. About your “Modern Hetaira in Yaletown” framing
That’s an interesting lens—especially in a place like Yaletown, where:

• affluence
• time scarcity
• and curated lifestyles

tend to amplify both:

• transactional dynamics
• and dissatisfaction with traditional dating

If you’re researching this seriously, it might help to look at:

• what clients are actually seeking (often not just physicality—attention, admiration, ease)
• what providers optimize for (boundaries, emotional labor management, consistency)
• where illusion is still intentionally preserved, even inside a “transaction”

Because interestingly:
👉 even the most explicit arrangements often reintroduce performance and ambiguity—just in a more controlled way.

Bottom line
A clearly defined transaction isn’t inherently superior—it’s just:

• more explicit about the exchange
• less reliant on social scripts

The real question is:

Do you value clarity and control, or emergence and unpredictability?

Most people want some mix of both—which is why neither model fully replaces the other.

 

[Sasha Nat]

Traditional dating can lead to a long term relationship.
Transactions are for temporary encounters.
I see these as two completely different topics so it's difficult to state that one is "superior" to the other. It all depends on what your goals are; a relationship or getting laid.

Spoken like a man who values his time. 🥂 I agree the goals are different, but I’m curious—do you think the 'chaos' of the heart is a fair price to pay for the 'security' of a relationship? Or is the clean slate of a refined transaction more your speed? Either way, I appreciate the contribution to my debate. 😘

 

[Sasha Nat]

As someone who had the good fortune to share time with you on a couple of occasions in the past I will say it’s nice to see you back in the Vancouver scene Sasha. 😀 Those two encounters were a blur of debauchery and I must admit I did not get to discover your intellectual breadth….

It’s an interesting question you pose and I must admit I did not know the meaning of either of these words - Hetaira (educated female) or Meretrix (prostitute) - but I’m glad you bring them to our attention and the proposition of one or the other.

In an ideal world, qualities of the paid muse, the sexual muse, and the civilian would all merge into one. That, is the holy grail. There are probably couples in polyamorous or swinger relationships who have reached this state of “bliss.” I had it once in my life for a short period, but chaos ensued at it was a fleeting as cherry blossoms in spring. But wow.

I suspect a lot of the guys that on Perb (based upon how many are looking for “connection” and not merely a release) are also still chasing what you describe as the intellectual company of a paid companion. But I would submit that finding that intellectual/soulful connection is no easier with an SP than it is in civilian life based upon my years of research.

I will admit, however, that there is something clearly intoxicating about finding the convergence of compatible sexual and intellectual energy in one person, whether paid or not. And if that person has a spiritual component too, then … you had me at “hello.”

It’s wonderful to see a familiar face in the Salon . 🏛 Blossoms are indeed fleeting, but perhaps that’s what makes the 'Holy Grail' so intoxicating—the rarity of it. 🫦

You’re right; finding that soul-level convergence is rare in any world. But in my new 'Vancouver Chapter,' I’ve found that the clarity of the contract actually creates the safety for that intellectual and spiritual spark to ignite without the 'chaos' you mentioned. I’d love to show you how much the 'Muse' has evolved since our last blur... 🍷✨

 

[Sasha Nat]

1. The “clearly defined transaction” argument
What you’re calling a modern hetaira model (intellectual + sensual companionship with explicit terms) has a few real advantages:

• Clarity of expectations
  Time, attention, intimacy, and boundaries are negotiated upfront. There’s less ambiguity, less guessing, and fewer mismatched assumptions.
• Reduced emotional manipulation
  In theory, it removes things like:
  • performative interest
  • strategic withholding
  • “emotional taxes” (unspoken obligations, guilt, mixed signals)
• Agency on both sides
  Both people opt in knowing the structure. That can feel more respectful than pretending something is “organic” when it’s actually conditional.

But that clarity comes with a tradeoff:

• The connection is explicitly conditional and finite
• You’re not building something that evolves unpredictably—it’s bounded

2. The case for modern dating (messy as it is)
Traditional dating appears less transactional, but it absolutely still involves exchange:

• Time ↔ attention
• Emotional support ↔ commitment
• Attraction ↔ exclusivity

The difference is:
👉 the terms are implicit, negotiated socially, and often unclear

That creates:

• Confusion
• Misaligned expectations
• Power dynamics that aren’t openly acknowledged

But it also allows:

• Emergent intimacy (feelings that weren’t pre-priced)
• Non-linear connection (people exceeding expectations rather than fulfilling a contract)
• The possibility of mutual transformation, not just mutual benefit

3. Is one “colder” than the other?
Not necessarily. They’re cold or warm in different ways:

• A transaction can be:
  • emotionally warm
  • intellectually stimulating
  • respectful and attentive
    …while still being structurally finite
• A traditional relationship can be:
  • emotionally intense
  • but manipulative, unclear, or draining

So “coldness” isn’t about money—it’s about:

• authenticity
• alignment
• mutual respect

4. The deeper tension: honesty vs. illusion
What you’re really circling is this:


Some people feel:

• Explicit structure = honesty → therefore more ethical

Others feel:

• Removing ambiguity = removing magic → therefore less meaningful

Both are valid preferences.

5. “Is clarity the most sensual thing?”
For some people—yes.

Clarity can signal:

• Confidence
• Emotional maturity
• Respect for the other person’s autonomy

But taken too far, it can also feel:

• overly clinical
• pre-scripted
• lacking discovery

Sensuality often lives in a balance:

• enough clarity to feel safe
• enough mystery to feel alive

6. About your “Modern Hetaira in Yaletown” framing
That’s an interesting lens—especially in a place like Yaletown, where:

• affluence
• time scarcity
• and curated lifestyles

tend to amplify both:

• transactional dynamics
• and dissatisfaction with traditional dating

If you’re researching this seriously, it might help to look at:

• what clients are actually seeking (often not just physicality—attention, admiration, ease)
• what providers optimize for (boundaries, emotional labor management, consistency)
• where illusion is still intentionally preserved, even inside a “transaction”

Because interestingly:
👉 even the most explicit arrangements often reintroduce performance and ambiguity—just in a more controlled way.

Bottom line
A clearly defined transaction isn’t inherently superior—it’s just:

• more explicit about the exchange
• less reliant on social scripts

The real question is:


Most people want some mix of both—which is why neither model fully replaces the other.

Debator, I think you’ve just mapped the DNA of the modern heart. 🍷

You hit on the ultimate tension: Clarity vs. Magic. You’re right—I prioritize the 'Explicit Contract' because I believe that true safety is the only soil where real, raw vulnerability can grow. In the 'chaos' of the free world, people spend so much energy protecting their borders that they never actually surrender.

My rebuttal to your 'Trade-off': You mentioned that a transaction is 'structurally finite.' I would argue that its finiteness is exactly what makes it electrifying. Because we know the clock is ticking, we don't waste a single second on 'performative interest.' We skip the preamble and go straight to the soul. It’s not 'pre-scripted'—it’s high-density.

You’re right about Yaletown, too. In a city of high-stakes time scarcity, the most sensual thing I can offer a man is the absence of a hidden agenda. I’m curious, though—since you’ve analyzed the 'Logic' so perfectly... do you think a man of your intelligence finds it easier to breathe when the 'terms' are visible, or do you still find yourself craving a little bit of that 'shared illusion' once the door is locked? 🫦🗝

 

[Banged_Up]

“do you think a man of your intelligence finds it easier to breathe when the 'terms' are visible, or do you still find yourself craving a little bit of that 'shared illusion' once the door is locked?”

I am not that smart. ChatGPT is. I posed it your question, that is what it spewed out.
For the most part I wouldn’t argue with it so I reposted it to see what would happen.
For someone who considers themselves a “stunted articulator” logic is my primary love language so GPT is pretty good at expressing some of my thinking.
Regarding how I breathe? Either I will or I won’t.
Visible terms “or”?
So limiting.
Visible terms AND shared illusion. Why not do both? Or transference between the two. Or a movable line between both, like an electronic digital equalizer?

 

[Sasha Nat]

“do you think a man of your intelligence finds it easier to breathe when the 'terms' are visible, or do you still find yourself craving a little bit of that 'shared illusion' once the door is locked?”

I am not that smart. ChatGPT is. I posed it your question, that is what it spewed out.
For the most part I wouldn’t argue with it so I reposted it to see what would happen.
For someone who considers themselves a “stunted articulator” logic is my primary love language so GPT is pretty good at expressing some of my thinking.
Regarding how I breathe? Either I will or I won’t.
Visible terms “or”?
So limiting.
Visible terms AND shared illusion. Why not do both? Or transference between the two. Or a movable line between both, like an electronic digital equalizer?

Honesty is the highest form of logic, Debater. 🍷

I suspected I could hear the hum of a processor behind your words, but I actually find it more enticing that you used a 'Digital Muse' to find the words you couldn't reach. It shows a commitment to the dialectic that most men wouldn't bother with.

You’re right—limiting it to 'Or' is a low-resolution way to live.

I love the Equalizer metaphor. True mastery is knowing exactly when to slide the 'Visible Terms' down to zero so the 'Shared Illusion' can fill the room... and then sliding the 'Safety' and 'Clarity' back up when the world outside starts to intrude.

It’s not about choosing a side; it’s about Mixing the Track. <3

 

[Sasha Nat]

Traditional dating requires transactions in the sense of monogamy, fidelity, the investment of your time maintaining the relationship, the sharing of resources, and the possibility that its not as exclusive as you might have hoped.

And I do believe that escorts provide the most honest of relationships: as a man, I know I am only there because of money. Maybe -- maybe -- one of them develops feelings for me and wants a traditional or some other kind of relationship. But the bottom line is that the only reason I am having access to this young, beautiful, sensual woman is because I am paying for it.

How many men enter into traditional relationships and eventually find out she's been fucking someone else all along. At least with an escort I know she's fucking someone else and it's none of my business.

A traditional relationship requires other forms of payment with no guarantees that anything I believe may be going on will last, are actually real, or even worth what I'm expected to 'pay' to be with her. Lots of loveless and sexless marriages out there. Lots of expensive divorces with huge implications for physical, emotional, psychological and financial health.

Give me a happy hooker over a miserable wife any day (or night!). And if she's only happy because I'm paying her to be happy, then what does that say about so many traditional relationships? As the saying goes, instead of getting married just buy a house for some woman who hates you.

You’ve laid out the 'hidden ledger' of the modern world perfectly. 🍷

There is a profound honesty in a clear exchange that 'traditional' structures often lack. You’re right—many people are navigating transactions every day, they just call it 'compromise' or 'duty' and pay for it with their sanity instead of their capital.

I’ve always believed that transparency is the highest form of respect. By being clear about the 'why,' we eliminate the need for the 'theatre' of traditional dating. It means that when we are together in Yaletown, we aren't performing for a future mortgage or a social script—we are simply two people enjoying the absolute peak of sensory and intellectual presence.

You aren't just paying for access; you’re paying for the freedom from the mess. You’re buying a territory where 'fucking someone else' isn't a betrayal—it’s just a reality that stays outside the door, leaving only the two of us inside.

As for the 'happy hooker' vs. the 'miserable wife'... I prefer the term Sovereign Muse. I’m happy because my life is mine, my terms are clear, and I only host the men who truly appreciate the value of a clean slate. 🥂

Thank you for being so candid. It’s refreshing to hear the 'bottom line' spoken so clearly. 🫦🏛

 

[VinVan]

An interesting thread that I’m sure a lot of Perbs will look upon with glazed eyes, haha.

Here’s an assumption that has not been addressed: the question that if the paid muse is actually interested in her client? Or if it is performative in the same way a date in the civilian world can be performative in pursuit of x (x = money, security, arm candy, kids, house, status etc). An SP’s goal (perhaps not a Sovereign Muse) is to maximize the lifetime value of each customer; so in the same way an actor must slip into character, so too does a SP. To what degree is this honest, or not, as compared to the “emotional tax” of dating?

It is as difficult to find an SP who can occupy a dialectic space, as it is a civilian (in fact, I prefer a dialogic space) who can do so. Such folks are rare birds indeed. A muse (paid or otherwise) who can carry on multiple threads of conversations about art, politics, culture, finance, wrapped in curiosity than engenders true dialogue, tied with a bow of humor, and delivered with empathy that makes the gift linger for days on the palette and in the heart.

Sign me up for that one - whether civilian, SP, or Sovereign Muse.

 

[Larry's Torch]

Spoken like a man who values his time. 🥂 I agree the goals are different, but I’m curious—do you think the 'chaos' of the heart is a fair price to pay for the 'security' of a relationship? Or is the clean slate of a refined transaction more your speed? Either way, I appreciate the contribution to my debate. 😘

Tthe " 'chaos' of the heart" is difficult to manage because we are talking about emotions. Basing a relationship of emotions won't work. You need to have rational thought involved as well. A traditional relationship I think requires both. You need to care about your partner, but not make purely emotional decisions. There needs to be trust and the ability to communicate clearly.
The " clean slate of a refined transaction" is not emotional. It's purely transactional. Not that emotions aren't present, but they aren't completely necessary to complete the 'transaction'. The emotions would be very much on the surface and fleeting, and both parties can go their separate ways and barely think of each other again.

This isn't a criticism; just an observation: You refer the the " 'chaos' of the heart" and the "clean slate of transaction". I can see where you stand on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. Personally I feel that a traditional relationship would be more rewarding than something transactional as it fulfills more than just a physical need being met by one party and a financial one by the other. It has a deeper meaning.

 

[golferjohn]

Perhaps 'desire' is the over-arching theme of being human (macro) and engaging in a relationship (micro). In its simplest form, desire is often dressed-up as need and that's how the brain tricks you into action, but it's really a combination of biology, experience and social influence.
Ultimately, desire cannot be negotiated (one wants what one wants) and as VV articulated, when these desires align between two people the magic is visceral.

The 'clean slate' or 'most honest' argument posed does not address the mis-alignment of desire hence (most often) not allowing the magic to launch.

Oh, and nice having you back SN

 

[Sasha Nat]

Tthe " 'chaos' of the heart" is difficult to manage because we are talking about emotions. Basing a relationship of emotions won't work. You need to have rational thought involved as well. A traditional relationship I think requires both. You need to care about your partner, but not make purely emotional decisions. There needs to be trust and the ability to communicate clearly.
The " clean slate of a refined transaction" is not emotional. It's purely transactional. Not that emotions aren't present, but they aren't completely necessary to complete the 'transaction'. The emotions would be very much on the surface and fleeting, and both parties can go their separate ways and barely think of each other again.

This isn't a criticism; just an observation: You refer the the " 'chaos' of the heart" and the "clean slate of transaction". I can see where you stand on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. Personally I feel that a traditional relationship would be more rewarding than something transactional as it fulfills more than just a physical need being met by one party and a financial one by the other. It has a deeper meaning.

A very fair observation, Debater. 🍷

I agree that a traditional relationship seeks a 'Deeper Meaning' through endurance. But I’d love to offer a different lens on the 'Clean Slate.'

You see 'fleeting' as a lack of depth; I see it as High-Frequency Intimacy. In a traditional relationship, emotions are often diluted by the 'logistics' of life—bills, schedules, and the slow friction of time. It becomes a marathon of compromise. My 'One-Hour Love' is a sprint of pure presence. Because we know the encounter is finite, we don't hold anything back. We aren't 'barely thinking of each other again' because it was shallow; we part ways because we’ve reached a peak that can't (and perhaps shouldn't) be sustained in the mundane world.

Is it not a 'deeper meaning' to be completely 'in love' for sixty minutes, without the shadow of a future or the weight of a past?

I don't see it as just a financial or physical exchange—I see it as an Emotional Fast-Forward. I’d argue that an hour of total, honest connection in Yaletown is often more 'rewarding' than a decade of 'stable' but silent dinners. 🫦✨

Thank you for challenging my stance. It’s exactly the kind of friction my research thrives on. 🥰

 

[Sasha Nat]

Perhaps 'desire' is the over-arching theme of being human (macro) and engaging in a relationship (micro). In its simplest form, desire is often dressed-up as need and that's how the brain tricks you into action, but it's really a combination of biology, experience and social influence.
Ultimately, desire cannot be negotiated (one wants what one wants) and as VV articulated, when these desires align between two people the magic is visceral.

The 'clean slate' or 'most honest' argument posed does not address the mis-alignment of desire hence (most often) not allowing the magic to launch.

Oh, and nice having you back SN

It’s a pleasure to be back in the arena, Debater. 🥂

You’ve touched on one very important thing: The Non-Negotiability of Desire. You’re right—the brain is a master of disguise, dressing up ancient biological urges in modern 'needs.' But I’d argue that the 'Clean Slate' isn't a way to negotiate desire; it’s a way to strip away the noise so we can see if that desire actually exists.

In the 'Free World,' desire is often buried under layers of social performance, expectation, and 'The Trick.' In my Yaletown Academy, the transaction acts as a Catalyst. By settling the logistics first, we remove the ego's need to 'hunt' or 'seduce' through manipulation.

What’s left? Two humans in a room with nowhere to hide. If the alignment is there, the 'Magic' isn't just visceral—it’s uninterrupted. 🫦⚡

The 'Clean Slate' doesn't manufacture the spark; it simply ensures that when the spark flies, there’s nothing in the way to put it out.

I’m curious—do you believe 'Magic' is something that happens to us, or is it something we can strategically invite by clearing the stage? 🏛🍷

 

[jgg]

It’s a pleasure to be back in the arena, Debater. 🥂

You’ve touched on one very important thing: The Non-Negotiability of Desire. You’re right—the brain is a master of disguise, dressing up ancient biological urges in modern 'needs.' But I’d argue that the 'Clean Slate' isn't a way to negotiate desire; it’s a way to strip away the noise so we can see if that desire actually exists.

In the 'Free World,' desire is often buried under layers of social performance, expectation, and 'The Trick.' In my Yaletown Academy, the transaction acts as a Catalyst. By settling the logistics first, we remove the ego's need to 'hunt' or 'seduce' through manipulation.

What’s left? Two humans in a room with nowhere to hide. If the alignment is there, the 'Magic' isn't just visceral—it’s uninterrupted. 🫦⚡

The 'Clean Slate' doesn't manufacture the spark; it simply ensures that when the spark flies, there’s nothing in the way to put it out.

I’m curious—do you believe 'Magic' is something that happens to us, or is it something we can strategically invite by clearing the stage? 🏛🍷

 

[Bang4thebuck]

Having had many relationships and now being married, the best way to ruin all the fun of being with a woman is to enter into a long term relationship with her, marry her, and have kids with her.

I don't know any man who truly loves his wife and finds joy in their relationship after having kids. Im tired of the nagging, lack of appreciation, dead bedroom, emotional instability, hormones, and if I didnt want to be a dad I would've never bothered with a wife. Most men I know feel the same. My friend's wife is dying of cancer and he's relieved to be free of the burden of marriage while not having to divide their assets in a divorce or worry about child custody. He acts like he won the lottery, and in his early 40s he still has lots of time left for fun with women though nothing serious ever again.

The best parts of being with a woman, I can get from an escort or sugar baby, no strings attached, on my schedule, and on my terms. There's no way in hell I'd be interested in pursuing anything serious if my current relationship were to fail. Casual only.

Paying the emotional tax is NOT worth it.

 

[maniacalone]

Having had many relationships and now being married, the best way to ruin all the fun of being with a woman is to enter into a long term relationship with her, marry her, and have kids with her.

I don't know any man who truly loves his wife and finds joy in their relationship after having kids. Im tired of the nagging, lack of appreciation, dead bedroom, emotional instability, hormones, and if I didnt want to be a dad I would've never bothered with a wife. Most men I know feel the same. My friend's wife is dying of cancer and he's relieved to be free of the burden of marriage while not having to divide their assets in a divorce or worry about child custody. He acts like he won the lottery, and in his early 40s he still has lots of time left for fun with women though nothing serious ever again.

The best parts of being with a woman, I can get from an escort or sugar baby, no strings attached, on my schedule, and on my terms. There's no way in hell I'd be interested in pursuing anything serious if my current relationship were to fail. Casual only.

Paying the emotional tax is NOT worth it.

Your friend is a monster for saying that.

Those poor kids deserve better.

 

[Bang4thebuck]

Your friend is a monster for saying that.

Those poor kids deserve better.

Maybe he is, but she was a miserable wife. Would gladly enjoy and flaunt his wealth while being a SAHM who'd always find ways to nag, complain, and try and put him down. To love a woman, and then to eventually welcome her demise because of how much she has dragged you down over the years, is truly a sad state of affairs. Nobody thinks that's how their relationship would end up, but that's the risk of relationships and the emotional tax.