From The Times Online
I’m sure I’m not the only person who hides such a guilty secret, and I’m equally sure that anyone in my position would guard it as ferociously as I do.
Once, sometimes twice, a month I meet up with Justin, a 36-year-old divorcé. We go out for a meal and maybe to a club before spending the night in a hotel. I am a divorced mum and work part time to spend as much time as I can with my four children. Justin also has four children. But what differentiates our dates from the norm is that I pay for Justin’s company, including having sex with him.
Non-reproductive studding is pretty good work, if you can find it. The rationale behind this extended commercial relationship is that she (the anonymous one) does not want to get herself involved in anything too complicated that could confuse her kids or whatever. Nothing says not confusing to kids like male hookers. We digress, it seems that the relationship works for everyone. She gets some good, disease-free sex once or twice a month with no strings attached. The kids don’t have to worry about having a revolving door of new dad candidates and this ‘Justin’ brings in an additional $1,200 per month. Clean and simple. We wonder if one of these two is going to start getting attached to the other. Is one (or two) sex meetings per month (for three years) enough to light a fire? And if this does end in them dating (American Gigolo meets Pretty Woman but without Richard Gere), does he have to return the money? We still have three outstanding questions:
1) Is she holding off on a regular relationship because of some alimony concern?
2) Are her friends going to figure out who she is based on the descriptions (ex-husband, garage attached to kitchen, creative writing, Fridays with the ladies, creative writing, et al)?
3) Is this sufficient justification for legalizing prostitution? ‘Justin’ is probably not buying drugs and probably doesn’t have to give 50% of his trick money to Terrance Howard.