Category: Q & A

No.

Marriage does not confer immediate and total rights to knowing everything about one's spouse. This is, in fact, a great criteria for knowing whether or not to get married – if you have no idea whether your beloved has a personal stash of sex toys, and you're too afraid to ask, you're not ready to get married.

This issue cuts both ways – if you're a man with a dildo or vibrator collection, your wife certainly has no "right" to know about it… Though, again, best practice says that if finding out about it on her own would upset either of you, or if additional distancing/walls need to be set up to prevent them finding out about it, then it's a bad sign for the future of your relationship.

Another key element is to look within, and think about the "what if" scenario. Would finding out that your wife used a vibrator when you're not around threaten you? Would it turn you on? Would you be disinterested, or curious? Knowing the answer, and then being able to share it as a hypothetical, can start to open up some of these deeper conversations – a lot of the time, it's a relief to everyone involved once it's out in the open, and it expands the potential options for cooperative play, while reducing any anxiety/shame of solo enjoyment.

Long story short – don't ask us on Quora – ask your wife, and be open to the answer, and to sharing your feelings about it openly and honestly, regardless of the outcome.

Should a husband have a right to know if his wife owns and uses a dildo or vibrator?

Colin Dowling's answer is promising as far as it goes, though it's certainly not a universal truth… Often, the $500 escort is the most dangerous in terms of discretion – paid enough to know the client must have the money to burn, but not necessarily enough to forget said client's address/name/etc. Speaking with off-duty escorts, it is not uncommon to hear the occasional namedrop/hint of a celeb encounter.

But it's definitely true that looks would not be a primary differentiator. Rather, based on the numbers listed, I would venture the following differentiation:

• At $50, an escort is likely walking the street, and the session will take place in a car, should a suitably private parking spot be located. Such an encounter is relatively high risk in terms of health, hygiene, and law enforcement implications. On the "pro" side, prostitution hobbyists who enjoy "cruising the strolls" enjoy the thrill of the chase, of identifying a working girl, successfully negotiating terms, and completing the encounter without a robbery, injury, or arrest taking place. Attractiveness, mode of dress, age, etc will vary widely with each encounter, and unless numbers are exchanged at the first meeting, it is unlikely a john will see the same girl twice. Both client and escort are typically on "high alert", just plain "high", or both.
• At $500, an escort is more likely visiting a client's hotel room or home, or hosting from similar. Escorts vary widely in appearance, though they tend to be of very good hygiene, and above-average fitness and general health for their body type. Sessions will be much longer than a car date, typically 1-2 hours at this price point, with a "generous, non-clock-watching" hour being fairly common – at $500, escorts are less likely to be stacking appointments back to back unless they are on tour outside their home city. Skill in conversation, massage, and other pre-play activities will still be inconsistent here – some escorts will be very intimate and deeply engage/roleplay with clients, while others are basically working off the visual and "endgame acrobatics". Law enforcement risks are much lower, since the activities happen "behind closed doors", and typically do not affect the surrounding community in a visceral/meaningful way. At $500, escorts also are typically well known and reviewed/vouched for by the hobbyist community across sites like http://myredbook.com, http://www.theeroticreview.com/, or http://eros.com.
• At $5000, an escort is likely to be in peak physical condition, and represent the epitome of conventional beauty standards. Sessions can be anywhere, but are likely multi-hour or overnight/weekend getaway affairs (travel and accomodation costs are, of course, not included). Escorts tend to be older (without looking it), wiser, and able to hold up a solid conversation with just about any type of client, from the most awkward nervous silicon valley java developer at a newly-acquired startup, to the Type-A amateur sommelier CEO of the acquiring Fortune 50 megacorp. Law enforcement involvement is extremely rare without severe cases of abuse/drug or human trafficking, etc – these workers are pulling in enough to pay lots of taxes, and even be valued members of their community. Such escorts will both have impressive rolodexes of regulars, and behave with the utmost discretion, as they themselves will have a great deal to lose. The big exception here are "managed" escorts – agency fees can be just as high, but with so many additional people involved (management, security, drivers, etc), fewer assumptions should be made about the quality of the experience or the level of secrecy provided (as numerous congressional and celebrity "outings" have shown – these incidents are almost always agency-based unless the client is caught "red handed" somehow).

With some apologies for the late (early) hour for my wording (I tried to keep it fairly neutral), I will also say that the above "vaguely" maps across escort and client genders and orientations – though the non-heteronormative prostitution market is much less established/economically stable/researched to date.

What's the difference between a $50, $500 and $5000 a session escort?

The question could use more details, especially a definition of "best" in the querent's context.

That said, when we were getting ready to receive our now-3-year-old, we attended a parent prep class at a hospital in Berkeley, CA. Bear with me, or scroll-to-the-bold:

For those who aren't aware, Berkeley has a reputation for being both: 

(a) a very granola'd-out hippie eco-topia filled with rainbow-farting unicorns and biodegradable elitism and self-satisfaction, and

(b) filled with extremely wealthy white people who live in expensive houses, and drive the greenest SUVs on the market as they shuttle their children to and from vegan soccer practice.

The nurses and volunteers on hand at the training certainly "fit the vibe", and I cannot recall how many times we were hypno-proselytized into using Doulas, though we did succumb in the end.

Long story short, even these paragons of propriety, and champions of cloth diapering said that Pampers are, and have always been, the best diapers, hands-down.

There were numerous arguments for this:

1. Leak factor. For newborns, apparently the "other brands" just do not do as good a job with catching everything, not coming undone, being reasonably form-fitting, etc. Pampers also led the way on differentiated male/female diapers, and still maintain that lead.
2. Stress factor. You're a new parent. You want to save the earth, but you want to get 5 minutes of sleep a day. Use disposable Swaddlers, at least until you get in the rhythm of things. I swear those initial diaper changes took two minutes. Laughably slow!
3. Sleep factor. When baby wakes up screaming to be changed at 4am, you are unhappy. They are unhappy. With disposables, a lot of the waste gets absorbed by the crazy space age carcinogens inside the diaper, and Pampers has the best, most sponge-like carcinogens on the market. When the waste is absorbed, it doesn't irritate baby, who then sleeps through (eventually, some day, I promise) and saves you at least one trip in the middle of the night. Even if you switch to cloth for days, it can be a good idea to use disposables at night. Especially once solid foods are on the menu. Yikes!
4. Smell. Pampers tend to smell the least-bad out of all the disposables. Ideally, you'll buy UNSCENTED Pampers, which also tend to be the easiest unscented non-eco-diaper to find in stores (but don't do that, get Amazon to "subscribe and save" ship you diapers – much cheaper, and saves you another trip).

Over the course of 3 years, we went from Swaddlers, briefly into Cruisers, then on to Pull-ups (Dora, of course). We also used cloth during the days once she could crawl (all that diaper landfill guilt gets to you eventually). But, whenever we ran out, and had to use a Huggies sample, or try out those Seventh Generation recycle-diapers, we learned the painful lesson: 

Pampers may be EVIL, but they're also the BEST.

Note: this is only for "land diapers"… I seem to remember it was a much closer call for swim diapers, various brands all had good offerings for at least trying to keep the 'P' out of various 'ools' we visited.

Whatever you choose, good luck, and good health to you and your baby!

What are the best diapers?

I'd concur with Ben Rosenberg's answer from the perspective of the individual's day to day… As a parent, there is less absolute time in the day for "self care".

Philosophically, the question becomes much more difficult – is the childless person concerned about population growth worldwide, more than having time to play Batman: Arkham City uninterrupted? Is the parent concerned with continuing their genetic pattern, or other form of legacy?

I have known childless people who were demonstrably unselfish people. And I've known parents who had kids as a way to avoid being alone, or to help prove some point about their own self worth.

Overall, I'd say the question cannot be "fully answered" in the general case… Though perhaps the question "is it more harmful to be selfishly childless or a selfish parent?" could be more definitively argued.

Is it more selfish to have children or to remain childless?

You say weird like it's a bad thing.
(Planetary Vol. 1: All Over the World and Other Stories http://amzn.to/mb5Fl5)

Does it make me weird if I have no desire to get married or have kids?