"It is very very common for mongers to mix up friendliness and sex with love. Most mongers do this at least once; get emotionally envolved when it's inappropriate (and generally one-sided). It is the girls JOB to get you to like her, so you will be a well paying regular. Some will take huge advantage of you (getting loans etc) and some won't. But the outcome is seldom a good one, and can be tragic..."

What I'm getting at here, is the question:

If men are hard-wired to separate sex and love, then why do they allow themselves to become emotionally attached to sexual partners, such as (especially?) providers, when they know going into the arrangement that it's clearly not in their best interests to do so?

It seems to me that it is probably EASIER for men to separate the two than it is for women, but they are not as immune to developing attachments to sexual partners as they'd like women to believe.

xoxox
MB

Be the change
you wish to see

So I respectfully disagree on men being hardwired to separate love and sex theory.

There are many men who become unreasonably protective, emotionally attached to women after sex. I think it is largely hormonal and instinctive as many of those nesting nurturing hormones do kick in inside men's brain. As for women, at least in my experience, some tend to push boundaries in private NSA sex situations more than men.. even when men were honest about his LTR with another woman or wife and were to explain the situation that makes LTR with NSA woman impossible before having sex with her.

But then again I witnessed the opposite also.

IMHO in case of sex work, it is the sex work itself that make men to attempt to cross the boundaries. If a man experienced what it is really like to offer sex to another person with 100% focus on his/her pleasure then it should be easy for him to understand why having commercial sex will not make women fall in love with the clients.

It is ironical and revealing that after establishing more private type of sexual/emotional relationship with a provider, some client/lover would inexplicably lose his passion and interest toward the provider.

I am not sure I agree. Men are promiscuous, but that does not mean they are hard wired to separate sex and love.

>then why do
>they allow themselves to become emotionally attached to
>sexual partners, such as (especially?) providers, when they
>know going into the arrangement that it's clearly not in
>their best interests to do so?

No one ever said we are smart.

The issue is that men often conflate physical intimacy with emotional intimacy. We are conditioned for most, if not all, of our lives to believe that physical intimacy flows from emotional intimacy. We know that physical intimacy is your job, but it is hard to undo a lifetime of conditioning. And we sometimes forget and get it back-wards, believing that emotional intimacy flows from physical intimacy.

Once a man goes down that road, he often can not step back and re-assess the situation rationally. And then he will find it difficult to reel in his emotions.

I do not mean to imply that women do not face the same conditioning - they do. But providers see many more clients than the monger sees providers. The providers need to develop the appropriate 'chinese walls' in their minds, early and quickly in their careers. But even providers occasionally get involved with mongers. So even they 'loose it' if you will. Men do not get the same amount of 'practice' as the providers, and the mongers 'chinese walls' are not as well established.

>
>It seems to me that it is probably EASIER for men to
>separate the two than it is for women, but they are not as
>immune to developing attachments to sexual partners as
>they'd like women to believe.

Again, I am not sure it is easier for men to maintain separation. This coupled with the flipping of the emotional/physical connection can lead mean down the path to attachment. And maybe to an unwanted situation for the provider.

Again, I am arguing that the difference is not so much male/female as it is experience. Providers are faced with a large number of situations, and per force, must develop appropriate defenses. Mongers (with a few exceptions) are much less experienced in this arena, and more likely to make mistakes.

culo is a culo

Some of this may be overlap of other's comments, but my .02 is that I have very little faith the "hard wiring" personality models. I'm sure there is some aspect to hard wiring, but I'm a firm believer that environmental behavior trumps almost any genetic pre-disposition (short of severe genetic mental illness).

As it applies to your question IMO . . .
...a guy who hasn't had a lot of rejection AND raised in a healthy home with traditional gender roles will be much more accepting of love and the drive to build/retain a relationship. Think of the story of a guy who finds and marries his "HS Sweetheart" and they never stray and the relationship stays healthy and they stay married for 80 years (and no "pressure" on her part to push the relationship faster than normal growth). I don't think there is a drive for promiscuity in this case. However, the probability of this is strongly against you. However, once he experiences a series of rejections he becomes more of a cynic and therefore more accepting of separating lust and love.
...a guy who finds himself susceptible to romance as fantasy fulfillment (vs being romantic) can cut to the chase rather quickly. It's not rejection, but it can feel that way.
...a guy who gets rejected quite a bit before he finds "love" can separate.
...a guy who lived in environment with very strong (s)mother, maybe not quite as easy.
...on the contrary, a guy who raised in an environment where mom has low self-esteem, yet domineering can separate.
...a guy who is somewhat of an ego-maniac can separate (actually, he loves himself more than capable of sharing)
...a guy who isn't genuine in his confidence and "playing confidence" (perhaps using a line or two) can separate.

So not all men can separate. As for *always* separate -- Absolutely NOT!
(Each man is a different individual and therefore exhibit different behaviors. IOWs we don't *ALL* think the same way.)

---

>>[...] (especially?) providers, when they know going into the arrangement that it's clearly not in their best interests to do so?<<

In this case, the provider behaves like the frat guy with the pick-up lines. It's feigned confidence/romance/lust that triggers an emotional connection in the target. Susceptibility is respective to the individual and some guys can fall for it.

That said . . .
...it is much easier to separate love/lust after being seriously burned (or rejected).
...men may not always feel romance first.
...the cynic in me believes there is a strong difference between romantic behavior vs. *fantasy indulgence* disguised as romance (and I do believe this is environmental, but sold as hard wired from the feminine side).

Doesn't everyone know this?

Maybe this is the answer you are seeking. Men want emotional attachment, too, and we are constantly looking for it and it can very likely come when we have sexual relations. Surely, you've heard the old saying "A woman needs love to have sex and a man needs sex to have love". There's actually a lot of truth to this.

For women intimacy leads to sex.
For men sex leads to intimacy.

This is the way nature made us.

And we have to be clear about what constitutes "attachement" or "involvement". Within the context of the sex business, customers and the women they patronize form relationships all the time. It doesn't mean they are in love in the general sense, but that they've formed a bond within the context of the strip club or massage parlor or whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnsxMBJVw40

Live. Love. Play. Relax.