Falling for a Provider

[billyS]

Originally posted by Phantom


Been there, done that.

Yeah, we know how that turned out.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking

1 - For the record,

2 - the first.

1 - There's a record?!

2 - OK, then it is just a definition, different from my own but which there seems little point in debating. However, this implies that you can imagine (at least) a relationship that involves all of the emotions/feelings of ordinary friendships but in which one person is paying the other for their time. It is not what you would call friendship as per above, so what would you call it?

-Ww

[Phantom]

Originally posted by billyS

Yeah, we know how that turned out.

And how do you know that I haven't done a multiple day thing with other escorts?

Which I have done.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by billyS
Well Kimmie, thats part of your problem. Don't lump him in with your clients. Seperate business from pleasure. FIND time or MAKE time for him. People in alot of professions work too much sometimes to have relationships. Take a weekend off and do something with him. See where it goes. Your clients will be there.

I agree 100%. This problem has little if anything to do with being a provider; the hectic modern world is full of careers which leave people with too little time and energy for their personal lives. It is so common it is an extreme cliche to therapists and such.

-Ww

[justlooking]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
1 - There's a record?!

Um, am I the only one who notices that all these posts remain available as long as this site does?

Originally posted by Wwanderer
2 - OK, then it is just a definition, different from my own but which there seems little point in debating. However, this implies that you can imagine (at least) a relationship that involves all of the emotions/feelings of ordinary friendships but in which one person is paying the other for their time. It is not what you would call friendship as per above, so what would you call it?

Paid companionship.

I guess my point is, I could imagine it's involving "all of the emotions/feelings of ordinary friendships" on the payor's side. But if the payee felt that way, too, then I can't imagine she would require payment for non-physical social interaction. I could imagine that the payor might nevertheless volunteer payment. But, if her "emotions/feelings" were genuine, I can't imagine that the payee would require it.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by Phantom
Been there, done that.

And? You liked it, you didn't? You'd suggest it to others, you wouldn't? Your take on it is the same as mine or different?

Not everyone here has memorized (or even read about) your previous exploits, so it is not obvious what you mean (to me, at least).

-Ww

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
Phantom's got a live one here.

Maybe I'd better use the search function and check those archives you mention in another post...or is it too late already?

-Ww

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Wwanderer


Maybe I'd better use the search function and check those archives you mention in another post...or is it too late already?

-Ww

You won't find that story here on UG.

[justlooking]

Anyway, you can't search for "*".

[salomon]

Originally posted by Kimmie
When the appointment was over, and he left,( he was my last appointment for the nite) I took a shower, ordered some food and watched tv.

Do providers usually only shower after the last appointment of the night? I've often wondered about this.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
I guess my point is, I could imagine it's involving "all of the emotions/feelings of ordinary friendships" on the payor's side. But if the payee felt that way, too, then I can't imagine she would require payment for non-physical social interaction. I could imagine that the payor might nevertheless volunteer payment. But, if her "emotions/feelings" were genuine, I can't imagine that the payee would require it.

Fwiiw, in my personal experience the connection between social (and even physical, to some extent) time together and compensation plus the boundary between payment which is volunteered and which is required can become extremely vague and ill defined...so it is not so easy to apply your definition (of course, many definitions are like that in all sorts of contexts). I have had 3 "paid companions" (in your terminology) who continued to spend time with me (but significantly less of it) after they retired from providing and both the sexual and commercial aspects of our relationships were ended. I guess you would say that we were friends only after they retired; I would say that we were friends before and after, and that their retirement ended the commercial sex relationship but did not affect the friendship. (In one of these cases, she only continued to spend time with me for a year or so; the other two are continuing after several years.)

-Ww

[justlooking]

No, I would say that they were always friends (or at least were for a long time) -- but that you couldn't know that until after they retired. It's like, if a prostitute eventually refuses to take money from you for having sex with her, you might be in a position to conclude that she's been "in love" with you for a while (including time before you stopped paying her). But, I'd argue, until and unless the payment stops, you're not in a position to reach that conclusion.

[Kimmie]

Originally posted by salomon

Do providers usually only shower after the last appointment of the night? I've often wondered about this.

I can not speak for other girls, but I shower after every appointment.

I also use listerine after every bj, douche, give myself an enema and shave my pussy many times throughout the day.. Anything else you want to know?



I made reference to him being my last appointment because I ordered dinner and watched TV, not because I showered.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
No, I would say that they were always friends (or at least were for a long time) -- but that you couldn't know that until after they retired. ... until and unless the payment stops, you're not in a position to reach that conclusion.

I am suddenly thinking of Schrodinger's cat! Maybe they were a superposition of friend and paid-companion quantum states until their retirement collapsed the wave function.

In any case, I guess the implicit assumption is that I could not possibly directly distinguish real friendship from paid companionship based on the quallity of our interactions. This is closely realted to jm's comments about most people being able to tell the difference between being played and being really loved.

-Ww

[Kimmie]

nevermind.

[Slinky Bender]

jl,

What would you say about a relationship where a guy hung out with a prostitute and never paid her any money (except for a few minor things like buying her a few drinks), and never had sex with her (and didn't intend to)?

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Kimmie
Anything else you want to know?

Now that you asked, yes. Can you stand on your head in the corner if I asked?

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by Kimmie
I stopped taking money from my "ex john" that I mentioned in the Falling for a client thread and I did not love him.

But it certainly seemed like you were conflicted at the time (hell, with a thread title of "Falling for a client" ...)

[Kimmie]

ah slinky I deleted that

[justlooking]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
I am suddenly thinking of Schrodinger's cat! Maybe they were a superposition of friend and paid-companion quantum states until their retirement collapsed the wave function.

That actually sounds right to me.

Originally posted by Wwanderer
In any case, I guess the implicit assumption is that I could not possibly directly distinguish real friendship from paid companionship based on the quallity of our interactions. This is closely realted to jm's comments about most people being able to tell the difference between being played and being really loved.

It's more like the implicit assumption is that if there's a payment requirement, it can't really be friendship. But that once the payment requirement is removed, it necessarily operates retroactively (or, to put it more accurately, casts a different light on what went before). Because obviously, the impulse to remove the payment requirement had to have been rooted in your prior interactions.

It somehow makes sense to me.

[justlooking]

Originally posted by slinkybender
jl,

What would you say about a relationship where a guy hung out with a prostitute and never paid her any money (except for a few minor things like buying her a few drinks), and never had sex with her (and didn't intend to)?

I'd say that's friendship.

I don't even see the issue.

[salomon]

Originally posted by Kimmie
Anything else you want to know?

If I pay a little extra will you tell me that you love me? And really mean it?

[justme]

Originally posted by justlooking
But, I'd argue, until and unless the payment stops, you're not in a position to reach that conclusion.

I think I disagree. What would you say if you had a prostitute 'friend' who slept with you for money, but hung out with you for free?

Could you conclude that she was your friend?

[justlooking]

I could conclude that.

Of course, I might be wrong.

[justlooking]

(What you're saying is a little bit unclear to me, but maybe it can be answered by stating that I'm drawing distinctions between, and compartmentalizing, different things that are being paid for: sex and social time. I'd say that paying for sex : love like paying for social time : friendship. So you can be friends with someone and still pay them for sex, as long as you don't pay them for social time.)

[justme]

Well, yeah. But uncertainty is inherent to perception.

[justlooking]

(I should add that I don't mean "free" social time in connection with a session. That's really a multiple-hours discount. I mean uncompensated social excursions unconnected with sessions.)

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
It somehow makes sense to me.

While not exactly crisp and crystal clear to me, I think I get your general drift and can make some sense of it, even if I don't agree.

Fwiiw, my own view is that a reasonably perceptive person, who is capable of at least moderate obectivity, can distinguish real frienship from purchased faux friendship by the quality of the interaction. It is not so different from distinguishing real friendship from the phony kind sometimes put forward by, say, junior colleagues seeking to advance their careers, or neighbors hoping to be invited for a swim in your pool or salespeople seeking your business, etc. People are just not that good at acting in general; it is not so hard to tell if they are sincere the large majority of the time. (In other words, although one could get fooled sometimes, I think you make more errors by assuming a priori that no one with a plausible ulterior motive could be a real friend, which seems to me to be your approach.)

-Ww

[justlooking]

No, I'm assuming that if they're your friend they won't demand money for their company, by definition.

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by Kimmie
I also use listerine after every bj, douche, give myself an enema and shave my pussy many times throughout the day.. Anything else you want to know?

Thanks for sharing that with us.