The girl with the “problem” is highly distressed; and the response is basically to be highly distressed, get no further information, assume all prostitutes have STD’s and don’t use safe sex, and in addition to whatever emotional pain she can inflict upon the guy, also solicit financial and actual physical pain upon him.
Nothing about calm down, talk to the guy, find out his side of the story, make a rational decision.
Something worth taking into account: he could as easily have headed to a singles bar, got a girl drunk, and had a one night stand. Is this better or worse morally? Is this more likely to cause the acquisition of some sexually transmitted disease (hint, it is, big time)?
Also, she’s taking the word of the escort as if it were the absolute, definitive truth. This is probably more credence than it deserves.
Overall, just find out why he does this? Is he a sex addict? Does he want some form of intimacy he doesn’t get from the relationship? Can the problem enquirer engage in and enjoy such activity, or accept that once a month or so he goes to see a friendly girl who gives him the Cleveland Steamer release he so yearns for?
How about just mentioning that it’s possible to use counseling (or try to, at least) in these circumstances.
I think an opening line should have been “Calm the fuck down.” before heading straight into “See men? Men’s pigs.” (which isn’t helpful).
And her stance on porn is just odd: it’s OK to go out into the garage, dig up your favorite “Farmyard Frolix, and have a wank; it’s not OK to turn on a computer, surf a porn site, and have a wank? So it’s not the wanking that matters, it’s the setting? Weird.
NTM: kids can dig up things buried in the garage, a properly configured computer and browser has no such weakness.
|