Here's the situation that sparked my question: a longtime client and friend recently began dating a provider.  The interesting thing here is that he didn't actually meet her as a client; they simply happened to meet at a regular civvie social function.  
I don't know who asked who out... but on their first date she was very up-front and told him that she moonlights as a provider.  He assured her that he had no problem with that, had seen providers in the past, and didn't look down on her for it.  Great.  

He doesn't need a "hall pass" from a woman.

It's not fair because he's in a relationship with her and isn't being honest about what he's doing.  And the way he puts it makes it sound like he's trying to get back at her despite the fact he claims to be OK with what she does.

The provider is only having sex with other people because they pay her to do so.

What I want to know is do you think that any person dating a provider is entitled to have sex with other people?

It really depends on the two individuals... There is no one size fits all IMHO... I think the key is open communication... If I was too date someone from this world, I would be clear upfront what the ground rules were. I would have no problem with her continuing to work if she so desired. As for whether I continued to play, that would depend on her views. If she would be okay with it or not. Then I would have to decide if I could live within those boundaries. But I would make sure that it was discussed upfront and not assume.  

nobody's holding a gun to her head saying "have sex for money or i shoot."

It depends on what's acceptable to both parties.  There is no "right answer" beyond that.

No two relationships are the same.

You know what they say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".  

Speaking for myself, I couldn't stay faithful to a provider GF so that is just one of many reasons I wouldn't date one. The other biggee is that I can't have my woman fucking other men.

I dated a guy, a few years back, who felt it ok to fuck anything that walked.  When he got caught, he used this argument to justify it.  He knew from day 1, what I did for a living.  I, on the other hand, never knew of his escapades, until I caught him red handed.

does something, that justifies you to do the same.   Being "fair" has nothing to do with it; being honest and non-judgemental is most important here.  Then, if both agree, all should be good.  

So, she told him at the very beginning what she does. That was honest and probably a little nerve wracking. Seems like he's decided that since she is a P4P provider, it's only "fair" that he be allowed to continue as a P4P client. That's his perspective and he's not allowing her to offer hers because he's afraid of what it may be. The "it's only fair" argument only holds water if she's the one he's having the debate with. In other words--if she knows about it.

I married my wife because she gave great blow jobs.  When she stopped giving blow jobs, I started seeing providers.  The wife has figured out that I do.  I told her I would stop going out if she would take care of me at home, which is true.  10+ years of hobbying and no BJ's at home in sight

Do I agree that there SHOULD be a hall pass?

This is not a symmetrical situation, and the honesty that all are calling for is required.

He can see "strange"  once a week for all I gaf.  

Posted By: DebbieNoonerGirl

Here's the situation that sparked my question: a longtime client and friend recently began dating a provider.  The interesting thing here is that he didn't actually meet her as a client; they simply happened to meet at a regular civvie social function.    
 I don't know who asked who out... but on their first date she was very up-front and told him that she moonlights as a provider.  He assured her that he had no problem with that, had seen providers in the past, and didn't look down on her for it.  Great.  
   
 He told me about her very shortly after they began dating, and as I see him about every 2 weeks, he was filling me in on their relationship fairly frequently.  After maybe 2-3 months, he said something that made me think this woman did not know he was still seeing providers.  So I just flat out asked him, and he replied that they'd never talked about it.    
   
 This prompted me to ask, "Are you sure she's okay with it?"    
   
 His response, "Well she's still doing this, so it's fair, right?"  
   
 He was genuinely shocked when I told him,  "NO, I do not think it's fair."  
 In my opinion, the fact she is being honest with him, while he is keeping his activities secret,  is unfair right there.    
   
 His defense: "But she's fooling around, so that means I get to do it too, doesn't it?!"  
 I asked him if he honestly thought she would see it that way, to which he admitted he was afraid to bring it up because she'd already shown signs of having a jealous nature. :smh:  
   
   
   
 After talking about this issue with several men, it seems the majority feel that if any man dating an active provider, then it would be "only fair" that the man get to have sex with other women.  Almost all of them said that, hypothetically, if they were in a relationship with a provider, then they would expect to have sex outside of that relationship.  
   
 If you're looking at it in a very general sense, then yes I do see the logic... a provider is having sex with other people, so her S.O. having sex with other people too would be equal.  But since her activities are P4P, I think there is more to the equation than that.  
   
 My feeling is that this is NOT a fair trade-off because he would be getting to choose his partners; to pick the women with whom he wanted to have sex.  In general, providers really don't get that luxury.  Our clients choose US, not the other way around.  Yes, we can and do have fun during P4P dates.... but it is NOT the same to me.  
   
 What I'm saying is that I don't believe someone dating a provider is automatically entitled to have sex outside of their relationship.  Now, if they want to be swingers and she is going to be having her own civvie hookups too, then that's a different story.  
   
 But this notion that just because she's a provider, he should be allowed additional playmates while she gets no other sex outside of her P4P and him?  No, I don't think that is "fair".  
   
   
 These are my opinions; I am curious to hear YOURS.  
   
 *****(EDIT)  This is my real question: If someone is dating a provider, is that person then entitled to have sex with other people?  
   
 I'd genuinely like to know if the majority of men and women here share the mind-set of those I've already asked, that "It doesn't matter that it's P4P, If she's having sex with others, then he should get to do it too."    
   
 Or if there are more here who see it closer to the way I view it.    
   
 If my notions are just plain weird, well...... I'm used to that being the case. LOL.    
   
 xoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxooxxoxoxoxo  
   
   
   
   
   
 NOONER: (noun) A sexual encounter during lunch hour, especially one that is illicit.  

-- Modified on 3/13/2016 3:13:19 PM

you need to know what they are and then be given the respect to make the choice.  I was never given that.

Unless or until he's willing to supplement the income she's making as a provider he's in a deal breaker
Besides, personally, I don't believe in cheating. Never have
When I'm dating anyone, especially after we are intimate, I don't see anyone else for sex
There's a few reasons but no sense getting into it here
For this guy, he knows it's not right, otherwise he'd be upfront with her
He's never going to be monogamous.

You mention you asked several guys about their opinions about this and then stated that the majority think they would continue to see hookers "IF" they were dating a hooker and I can see how the "average" guy might feel that way.

its not a "hall pass" for him. He's already getting a pass if he's not paying. Absolutely positively END of discussion.  

Posted By: DebbieNoonerGirl

Here's the situation that sparked my question: a longtime client and friend recently began dating a provider.  The interesting thing here is that he didn't actually meet her as a client; they simply happened to meet at a regular civvie social function.    
 I don't know who asked who out... but on their first date she was very up-front and told him that she moonlights as a provider.  He assured her that he had no problem with that, had seen providers in the past, and didn't look down on her for it.  Great.  
   
 He told me about her very shortly after they began dating, and as I see him about every 2 weeks, he was filling me in on their relationship fairly frequently.  After maybe 2-3 months, he said something that made me think this woman did not know he was still seeing providers.  So I just flat out asked him, and he replied that they'd never talked about it.    
   
 This prompted me to ask, "Are you sure she's okay with it?"    
   
 His response, "Well she's still doing this, so it's fair, right?"  
   
 He was genuinely shocked when I told him,  "NO, I do not think it's fair."  
 In my opinion, the fact she is being honest with him, while he is keeping his activities secret,  is unfair right there.    
   
 His defense: "But she's fooling around, so that means I get to do it too, doesn't it?!"  
 I asked him if he honestly thought she would see it that way, to which he admitted he was afraid to bring it up because she'd already shown signs of having a jealous nature. :smh:  
   
   
   
 After talking about this issue with several men, it seems the majority feel that if any man dating an active provider, then it would be "only fair" that the man get to have sex with other women.  Almost all of them said that, hypothetically, if they were in a relationship with a provider, then they would expect to have sex outside of that relationship.  
   
 If you're looking at it in a very general sense, then yes I do see the logic... a provider is having sex with other people, so her S.O. having sex with other people too would be equal.  But since her activities are P4P, I think there is more to the equation than that.  
   
 My feeling is that this is NOT a fair trade-off because he would be getting to choose his partners; to pick the women with whom he wanted to have sex.  In general, providers really don't get that luxury.  Our clients choose US, not the other way around.  Yes, we can and do have fun during P4P dates.... but it is NOT the same to me.  
   
 What I'm saying is that I don't believe someone dating a provider is automatically entitled to have sex outside of their relationship.  Now, if they want to be swingers and she is going to be having her own civvie hookups too, then that's a different story.  
   
 But this notion that just because she's a provider, he should be allowed additional playmates while she gets no other sex outside of her P4P and him?  No, I don't think that is "fair".  
   
   
 These are my opinions; I am curious to hear YOURS.  
   
 *****(EDIT)  This is my real question: If someone is dating a provider, is that person then entitled to have sex with other people?  
   
 I'd genuinely like to know if the majority of men and women here share the mind-set of those I've already asked, that "It doesn't matter that it's P4P, If she's having sex with others, then he should get to do it too."    
   
 Or if there are more here who see it closer to the way I view it.    
   
 If my notions are just plain weird, well...... I'm used to that being the case. LOL.    
   
 xoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxooxxoxoxoxo  
   
   
   
   
   
 NOONER: (noun) A sexual encounter during lunch hour, especially one that is illicit.  

-- Modified on 3/13/2016 3:13:19 PM

What's "your" answer to her question. There is no right or wrong.

tell us how you really feel. lol

You're saying he's getting some sort of bonus by not having to PAY his GIRLFRIEND to fuck him????!!!!

I know two providers one met her husband in this world the other like Debbie was met outside of this world. Both of them have the strongest relationship of most of my friends.

Posted By: DebbieNoonerGirl

Here's the situation that sparked my question: a longtime client and friend recently began dating a provider.  The interesting thing here is that he didn't actually meet her as a client; they simply happened to meet at a regular civvie social function.    
 I don't know who asked who out... but on their first date she was very up-front and told him that she moonlights as a provider.  He assured her that he had no problem with that, had seen providers in the past, and didn't look down on her for it.  Great.  
   
 He told me about her very shortly after they began dating, and as I see him about every 2 weeks, he was filling me in on their relationship fairly frequently.  After maybe 2-3 months, he said something that made me think this woman did not know he was still seeing providers.  So I just flat out asked him, and he replied that they'd never talked about it.    
   
 This prompted me to ask, "Are you sure she's okay with it?"    
   
 His response, "Well she's still doing this, so it's fair, right?"  
   
 He was genuinely shocked when I told him,  "NO, I do not think it's fair."  
 In my opinion, the fact she is being honest with him, while he is keeping his activities secret,  is unfair right there.    
   
 His defense: "But she's fooling around, so that means I get to do it too, doesn't it?!"  
 I asked him if he honestly thought she would see it that way, to which he admitted he was afraid to bring it up because she'd already shown signs of having a jealous nature. :smh:  
   
   
   
 After talking about this issue with several men, it seems the majority feel that if any man dating an active provider, then it would be "only fair" that the man get to have sex with other women.  Almost all of them said that, hypothetically, if they were in a relationship with a provider, then they would expect to have sex outside of that relationship.  
   
 If you're looking at it in a very general sense, then yes I do see the logic... a provider is having sex with other people, so her S.O. having sex with other people too would be equal.  But since her activities are P4P, I think there is more to the equation than that.  
   
 My feeling is that this is NOT a fair trade-off because he would be getting to choose his partners; to pick the women with whom he wanted to have sex.  In general, providers really don't get that luxury.  Our clients choose US, not the other way around.  Yes, we can and do have fun during P4P dates.... but it is NOT the same to me.  
   
 What I'm saying is that I don't believe someone dating a provider is automatically entitled to have sex outside of their relationship.  Now, if they want to be swingers and she is going to be having her own civvie hookups too, then that's a different story.  
   
 But this notion that just because she's a provider, he should be allowed additional playmates while she gets no other sex outside of her P4P and him?  No, I don't think that is "fair".  
   
   
 These are my opinions; I am curious to hear YOURS.  
   
 *****(EDIT)  This is my real question: If someone is dating a provider, is that person then entitled to have sex with other people?  
   
 I'd genuinely like to know if the majority of men and women here share the mind-set of those I've already asked, that "It doesn't matter that it's P4P, If she's having sex with others, then he should get to do it too."    
   
 Or if there are more here who see it closer to the way I view it.    
   
 If my notions are just plain weird, well...... I'm used to that being the case. LOL.    
   
 xoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxooxxoxoxoxo  
   
   
   
   
   
 NOONER: (noun) A sexual encounter during lunch hour, especially one that is illicit.  

-- Modified on 3/13/2016 3:13:19 PM

I think that should be understood and not assumed.  So he should be open about it and let the girl make a choice if it's okay with her or not.

You said, "There is no right or wrong."
That is called a distinction without a difference.
As for your "What's 'your' answer to her question," I already gave it in both my responses above.  Looks like your reading comprehension is wanting.
But I'm glad "everyone knows already."
So relieved.

She was up front and honest with him before they began their relationship. He entered into the relationship knowing that was how she earns her living. For him to keep seeing providers without her knowing is not only unfair, it is the same as cheating ... dishonest.

No guy gets a Hall Pass for dating a Lady. Civvie or Provider. All us guys pay for Sex in one form or another.  

He is not being honest with her about his seeing ladies so its wrong.
  Once the two of them discuss and layout ground rules then live by he rules set forth.

Glancing over some of the provider's comments. Not know ing the ends ands outs of the situation, but here's 2 cents.  First, her honestly with him on the first night should be applauded, in return yes the right thing for him to do is disclose his hobbying habits to her. On the other hand, I don't see how a provider could feel like or demand that their man should not continue seeing other ladies.  

Is it serious? Are they dating (CIVIE) others??

sex is merely the source of the deception. An omission in this case is a deception, a lie.

I'm not really writing a book about queefing.

You know, I honestly didn't think of that.  But I should have.

Factor one is honesty in a relationship...in this scenario the provider is open about her activities while the client is not...regardless of anything els this is already an unhealthy relationship based on his dishonesty and infidelity...

Too many replies, to read them all. Hence to make it short: Debbie Nooner, you are right.

Prostitutes aren't interested in monogamy, let alone from some john.

but anything meaningful about queefing would have to be a musical piece. A chamber piece for wind ensemble, I think.

I was SO looking forward to the audio version...

If he agreed to this lifestyle, he agreed to it. To want to change his mind now is a form of resentment. My fiancé found out that I was doing this and his reaction wasn't "all well, I'll do it too" it's devastating for a real man to know that his woman is having sex with strange man for money......no reasonable person is going to say "No problem" unless they don't care. And as far as sex, No you accepted I did this that means you won't do the same. I don't know, i find these stories of people like this so weird.

It's how she pays her bills, her "job". This is a perfect example of how ladies in the biz are still not taken seriously when embarking on a personal relationship with a guy who knows all about P4P.

I know what I'd like for lunch tomorrow. Around Nooner. Take out or eat in (eat out is a possibility too ...)  

I agree with Steph's and Rox's position, as well as understand those who say they wouldn't be happy with their SO fucking guys p4p.  

Entitled? There is no such thing in any relationship. It is something to be discussed and agreed upon or not agreed.
There are no blanket answers to this question

I am still  searching for the perfect  hookah ensemble and video gent who can hold the camera steady without laughing 😊

It's something that should be talked about if they've decided to be 'exclusive'.  Her job would be excluded from the monogamous aspect of the relationship.  Then if she's OK with him doing outside P4P, understanding the nature of it as only a provider would, then they would hash that out.  

If I was dating her she would fulfill all me needs. If she is not doing that, I need to move on. Than the relationship is not helping either one of us.

In polyamory, there is no need for "hall passes" and all that crap.  Only honesty.