Falling for a Provider

[justme]

OK, now how about my Korean hostess bar 'acquaintence' (I think I've brought her up enough for you to recognize the reference)? Given her work schedule and (perhaps more importantly) our different social backgrounds, the only time I can really see her is when she's working. But the manager gets huffy if I sit there without buying $10 teas. So, I buy one, and my friend and I talk for an hour or so (and the manager comes and hits me up for more drinks, and my friend shoos her away) and then I leave.

So I'm still paying for social time in a sense, but more out of obligation to my friend's boss than out of obligation to my friend.

Is it reasonable for me to call this woman a 'friend'?

[justlooking]

You can probably call that "friendship". Anyway, don't I remember that you have spent some uncompensated non-work time with her?

[Wwanderer]

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

OK, I'll stop trying to apply your definitions/assumptions, since they are not crystal clear to me even though I think I get their general drift.

More concretely, what I am claiming is that I could have told you in advance
which 3 of my "paid companions" were true friends and would be interested in continuing to spend time with me after their retirements. I also think I can tell which of my current paid companions (just one) will maintain a relationship with me after she retires. Moreover, I don't think it is that hard to tell. It is not like you have to be mindreader or a subtle psychologist with deep insights into human nature; you just have to pay attention to the obvious give aways. It is, for example, easier by far than effectively "reading" a total stranger at the poker table, and most people can learn to do that with just a few hints and a little practise.

-Ww

[justlooking]

I don't disagree with that in the least bit. I'd just be wary of calling them "friends" until the payments stop.

[Mon. Henri Ibid]

Originally posted by pjorourke
Thanks for sharing that with us.

PJ:

This would appear to be the actual secret reason Kimmie works as a prostitute. It gives her an excuse to engage in such obsessive compulsive personal hygiene behaviors.

Kimmie:

I order you to stop being so maniacally clean. Take up mud wrestling and learn to fart on line at the 7-11. Take a chill pill and let the inner dirty unscrubbed child in you come out to play.

[justme]

Originally posted by justlooking
You can probably call that "friendship". Anyway, don't I remember that you have spent some uncompensated non-work time with her?

(This is almost embarassing)

No, I think you're thinking of the Korean brothel worker who's quite a bit younger and has quite a bit more in common with me socially than the Korean hostess bar worker.

(This is embarassing)

Unless of course you're thinking of the Chinese rub & tugger that was way too fond of me for my own comfort.

[justlooking]

Oh yeah. Of course. Those are who I was thinking of.

[justme]

(Everytime WWanderer starts making distinctions between upmarket indies and downmarket Asian incall workers, it occurs to me that any prostitute that I might have thought had some real affection for me was working in a downmarket Asian incall)

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking
I'd just be wary of calling them "friends" until the payments stop.

You introduce a different dimension with the word "wary". My confidence in a friendship, whether with a provider or anyone else, grows with time and experience, just as my confidence that I have spotted the "tells" of a bluff grows as I have more experience with a given poker opponent. Continuation of contact after a provider retires does, I agree, seem to be pretty convincing that it is a real friendship, but if you think she is that good at fooling you and are cynical enough, you could remain still a little wary of the possibility that she is just maintaining the relationship in case she needs or decides to come out of retirement. In practise, at some point I stop worrying about it and accept that she is my friend; I trust my judgement of people enough that this can be before the commercial aspect of the relationship ends...or even if it never ends.

-Ww

[justme]

WW - I think you completely underestimate how easy it is to fool someone into thinking you like them. Isn't it some huge cliche that guys convince women that they have real feelings for them, simply to get in their pants?

(But I think this is foolee specific, not really fooler specific. That is, I completely content with my own abilities to recognize someone that's sucking up to me, but I know several people that I am less confident could tell when someone was being incinsere to them)

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justme
(Everytime WWanderer starts making distinctions between upmarket indies and downmarket Asian incall workers, it occurs to me that any prostitute that I might have thought had some real affection for me was working in a downmarket Asian incall)

Exceptions are as common for my generalizations about people as for anyone else's; I'll bet it was exactly what it seemed to be. (Please don't put whole posts in parentheses...too spooky, makes me wonder if everyone here but me is JC playing a host of different characters in his void.)

-Ww

[justlooking]

You see, we're talking past each other now.

What I'm saying is, you can't have a friendship where the companionship is dependent on payment. It may be that a friendship can arise in a paid context, but it doesn't ripen into a friendship until the payment stops -- although, once that happens, you can retroactively tell that you were "friends" before that, because that's the basis of the payment's stopping.

Accordingly, when I say you should be "wary", it's not because I'm afraid you're getting played, that the person isn't sincere, etc. It's more that the other person might like genuinely like you, but not well enough (or the circumstances may just not allow it) to let you become a real (unpaid) friend.

In other words, I'm not saying you can't predict who'll turn out to be a real friend. Or that there's necessarily any great downside if you're wrong. Only that it isn't really a friendship until your prediction that the payment will eventually stop becomes true.

[justme]

The parentheses are an attempt to designate somewhat unimportant thoughts... asides, I suppose

It's really obvious why every prostitute that might have fealt some real affection for me was a downmarket Amp worker.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justme

1 - Isn't it some huge cliche that guys convince women that they have real feelings for them, simply to get in their pants?

2 - (But I think this is foolee specific, not really fooler specific. That is, I completely content with my own abilities to recognize someone that's sucking up to me, but I know several people that I am less confident could tell when someone was being incinsere to them)

1 - I think this cliched approach very rarely works except with naive young women involved in one of their first serious encounters with men; most women very soon learn to tell the difference, imo. Of course, more experienced women sometimes pretend to be fooled as a part of the seduction dance...because they want the guy to get into their pants.

2 - Well, yes...some people are easier to fool than others, and some do not even understand that they need to watch out for sucking up, and some enjoy the sucking up even if they recognize it (the most common reason it is effective I think). But there is a poker aphorism to the effect that there is a sucker in every game, and if you don't know who it is, then it is you! For some reason, this thread reminds me of that one.

-Ww

[justme]

most women very soon learn to tell the difference, imo

Yeah, but surely you've known these women that seem to be fooled all the time, for whom every single relationship is a train wreck. The type of woman whopse friends just assume that any new guy she brings around is a creep.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justlooking

1 - You see, we're talking past each other now.

2 - It's more that the other person might like genuinely like you, but not well enough (or the circumstances may just not allow it) to let you become a real (unpaid) friend. In other words, I'm not saying you can't predict who'll turn out to be a real friend. Or that there's necessarily any great downside if you're wrong. Only that it isn't really a friendship until your prediction that the payment will eventually stop becomes true.

1 - One of the major functions of the internet is to let complete strangers do exactly that! ;-)

2 - In that formulation, it is just a definition, a slightly odd one to my way of thinking, but there is little point in debating definitions. In your lexicon, I would say that I don't see much need to distinguish between my friends and my paid companions who I feel confident would/will be friends in different circumstances.

-Ww

[justme]

Wwanderer, it's not simply definition.

JL is making the (to me, quite obvious) statement that if person A feels that person B is a friend, then person A will be happy to spend time with person B without having to be compensated.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justme
Yeah, but surely you've known these women that seem to be fooled all the time, for whom every single relationship is a train wreck. The type of woman whopse friends just assume that any new guy she brings around is a creep.

Yes, I know some of them. They are surely a minority, but more to the point, they are typically a great puzzle to all their friends and family. Everyone wonders why they are the only ones who can't see it and so forth. A common assumption (I don't know if it is true) is that they do see it on some level but have some self-destructive urge that causes them to be attracted to men who they know will mistreat them eventually.

-Ww

[justme]

Or to put it another way, is there anyone who you have considered a friend for whom you'd require compensation to have a beer with?

Can you imagine calling someone a friend if you couldn't hang out with them unless they paid you?

[justme]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
Yes, I know some of them. They are surely a minority, but more to the point, they are typically a great puzzle to all their friends and family. Everyone wonders why they are the only ones who can't see it and so forth. A common assumption (I don't know if it is true) is that they do see it on some level but have some self-destructive urge that causese them to be attracted to men who they know will mistreat them eventually.

To me it seems pefrectly obvious that the male versions of these poor women would be overepresented in the ranks of whorehounds.

[justme]

JL - subtle distinction time, but I think I'd agree with the statement,

Anyone who makes you pay them to spend social time with them is not a friend.

But I do not agree with the statement

Anyone who you pay to spend social time with you is not a friend.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by justme
Wwanderer, it's not simply definition. JL is making the (to me, quite obvious) statement that ...

jl explicitly agreed that it was a definition a ways back in the thread...right after I asked him in which of two possible ways he meant his claim about friends and payment for social time together. One possiblity was a definition, the other was not. I think you may subscribe to my second interpretation of what he said even though he subscribes to the first (the definition).

-Ww

[Phantom]

Is the purpose of this discussion just to confuse everyone?

[justlooking]

No. If you look back, your other choice (beside the definition) was something like "there's something about payment that makes friendship impossible." That's further from what I believe than calling my view a definition. I don't think your other alternative is true, because I think a real friendship can arise in the context of a paid relationship (so payment doesn't make friendship impossible). I just think that once a real friendship arises, payment for social time can no longer be required. In other words, that one of the indicia of friendship is that you don't require the other person to pay you to be with them. I'm with justme in being surprised that that's controversial.

I think that our differing formulations of this show that our views of this (our starting points, our underlying assumptions) are so different that it's almost impossible for us to discuss it intelligibly. Which our discussion so far certainly seems to bear out.

[justlooking]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
1. The first possibility is that you are essentially stating an element of your definition of friendship, namely that it is an essential (as opposed to merely conventional) feature of friendship that both people are devoting time to the relationship purely for the value of the relationship itself.

2. The second possibility is that you believe that the exchange of money between the two people makes sincere feelings of companionship or general affection (or whatever feelings one normally associates with friendship) impossible or very difficult...essentially that the commercial aspect prevents a real friendship from forming.

See what I mean?

[Casper]

Originally posted by Sexywhore
Oh what a shame. This board is becoming so sad and pathetic.

Honey we don't love you, we love to make $, get fucked real good at the same time and being freaks. Yeah baby we might enjoy our time with you, if your respectful and a good fuck but otherwise your not in our thoughts. Our job is fantasy not reality.

Believe it, when the session is over we are not thinking about you, how good your cock tastes or how hard you fucked us. Most of us have a life outside of being a professional whore and like to keep the two separate.

Some of you really need to get a fucking mental health check geez. How can you say your in love with a whore when I'm assuming the only time you see each other is naked in the bedroom. That's not love baby, it's all about sex and $.
Real love is about give and take, staying through thick and thin. Once your $ disappears so are we.

Enjoy your life

I agree with all that's stated above. Having said that let's meet so I can get my freak on for an hour then leave you. See it works both ways, I won't be thinking of you nor the money I spent after I've left. Life is good.

Peace Out
C

[justlooking]

Originally posted by justme
JL - subtle distinction time, but I think I'd agree with the statement,

Anyone who makes you pay them to spend social time with them is not a friend.

But I do not agree with the statement

Anyone who you pay to spend social time with you is not a friend.

Yeah. That's an accurate statement of what I think, too.

[Casper]

Originally posted by Phantom
Is the purpose of this discussion just to confuse everyone?

Are you confused?

It's deja vue all over again - Yogi Berra

[Slinky Bender]

I think one of the problems arises out of whther you think you are paying for "sexual activities" or "companionship". If you had a friend who was an *, you wouldn't ask them to provide prefessional services for you for free (well, maybe), but you wouldn't think if you asked them to a ballgame, and they took time off of work to go, that you needed to compensate them for the time they took off. However, if you had a friend who was a personal shopper, what would you think about asking them to go shopping with you to help you pick out some gifts for your family ( especially if they had to take time off of their "other" work to do so)? As a result, if you think the answer to the first issue is "companionship", it makes thing much tougher than if you think the answer is "sex".


* attorney, mechanic, accountant.......

[SkellyChamp]

Originally posted by justme
Wwanderer, it's not simply definition.

JL is making the (to me, quite obvious) statement that if person A feels that person B is a friend, then person A will be happy to spend time with person B without having to be compensated.

sorry for intervening- just read the last couple of posts but that seems only one half of what jl is saying. And B won't know that A is really B's friend until such time as the payment is no longer part of the equation. In which case, it could also be determined after the fact that they were friends before the payment stopped (or at least getting to that point).


What ever happened to just fucking and getting blown by whores? If a friendship develops naturally over time fine - certainly is possible - but what does it seem that so many people here are obsessed about seeing them to find a friend. Not where I'd go looking (not just).