Discussion in 'Hall of Fame' started by occasionalhobbyist, Dec 11, 2002.
Same question for OH as for justme.
No point in taking chances
I e-know PJ pretty well and am not sure whether he is really O'Rourke or not, but there is very little question about the other, so I vote for the second option.
PS - PJ, that is not what I meant by a meta-character, but in any case, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyaaaah...I have a subtitle and you don't!
ssshhh!! don't tell. you spoil the effect.
How 'bout Sgt. O'Rourke (sp!)
I don't think anyone's point of view is going to lead any newbie, lurker or anyone else "astray" or otherwise. That's like my telling you what your motivation for hobbying is going to be.
There are myriad reasons why men hobby.
Men hobby for their own individual reason(s).
Some get sucked in.
Some get sucked out.
Some put up walls.
Some reasons are more destructive than others.
To themselves and sometimes to the prostitute.
Only Ozzy knows what a 10 is.
Ozzy is the sheriff.
Re: To the putative newbies and lurkers reading this thread
I agree with JL that your point of view has potential for leading the newbie astray, sort of like Evel Knieval's motorcycle jumps lead a lot of wannabees to smash up their bikes.
When I was newer and more susceptible, wiser and more expereinced thinkers (on a whoreboard) helped me to turn away from looking for love in all the wrong places. But I still seek regulars and try to limit myself to having good business relationships with all the trimmings I can get (sense of friendship, simulation of intimacy and the usual initials). But I would like more of a real relationship if I could have it and your philiosphy has appeal. But it will only work with people who have significant self control and emotional flexibility. I would guess that there aren't a great number of those types here. I know I'm not one of them, so I go for actresses and initmates who know it's just a job.
I'd vote for either "Not Really P.J. O'Rourke" or "Libertarian Scum".
Re: Re: Re: Re: HNS and OH
Damn, now I'm jealous. Wwanderer got meta-characters and I didn't. Wait a minute, there is no telling what slinky will come up with. Maybe I should just sit down & shut-up. Nevermind!
i believe the probablilty and frequency of such diasters incredibly higher in the sex work world than in the straight world. just like dating women you meet in rehab or from aa meetings--your odds are by definition stacked against you.
i subscribe to the school of thought that a)by definition, sex workers are abnormal, and by that i mean psychologically damaged in a particular manner; and b)performing sex work continues to make you more abnormal/continues to damage one psychologically in a cumulative fashion.*
raw numbers aside for a moment, (sure i have had my heart broken by more straight girls than by working girls), the percentage of straight girls i have had serious emotional involvement and had my heard broken by, maybe around 10%; the percentage of working girls who i have gotten emotionally involved with and been crushed--100%
*with this generalization i do not mean 100%, but i believe pretty close to it. i personally know a couple of exceptions i would make. women of the board, please i mean no offense; this is just my dumb opinion. most of us are psychologically damaged, just not in a manner that predisposes us to choose sex work.
Sorry I missed this one. So your that confident huh, what's the longest you've gone? Can you beat 8 hours nonstop only to drink water and breathe?
Re: Re: slinkybender
(TIRESOMELY CARRYING ON THIS CONVERSATION WAY PAST THE POINT WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED)
Yeah, sure, you're right. Which is why I used a cocktail waitress and not a real estate broker.
But the real point is that the subjects of this thread (sex workers) are waaaaaaaay over at one of the extreme ends of the spectrum. So it doesn't matter how tough it is to point to others and say "A" or "B". Because it isn't hard with sex workers.
Re: Re: Re: HNS and OH
I like it (if that is allowed)! And, I am going to stop now for a while.
Re: Re: slinkybender
Tough and counterproductive.
Re: Re: HNS and OH
I think I solved the problem.
Maybe I am just odd?
No provider with whom I have ever been involved has "broken my heart" in any serious way; two "straight" women have...big time, and a third to a significant but lesser degree as well. No serious relationship I have ever had with either a provider or a "straight" woman has not involved at least some stress, disappointments, "agonizing" and other such limited downsides. Think of it as data. Others have obviously had other experiences.
PS - Damn meta-characters!
Of course she is, that's why I used the alternate analogy. My point is that it's not like you only have "prostitutes" on one end and "cocktail waitresses" on the other. My point was that you have this spectrum of relationships and while some are "more to one end" than the other, there are lots and lots of them that have some portion of each. And thus it's tough to point at many of them and call them "A" or "B".
To the putative newbies and lurkers reading this thread
I rather doubt that there are many of you out there, but I certainly don't claim to know for sure. If you are, it would be really great if you would pipe up, even just briefly, to let us know that there is an audience in the house, so to speak. It would be even better if you gave us even a quick hint of your own views.
Please consider doing so!
You see, THAT is where we disagree BIG TIME.
If you don't think that a customer's getting involved with sex workers is exponentially more likely to lead to hurt than his getting involved with "straight" women, then our experiences are so different that it's no wonder we have so much trouble understanding each other.
Is he, or any experienced man, under the impression that "dealing with women from the straight world" will not also frequently lead to extreme emotional fallout and feelings of impending cranial detonation?
Separate names with a comma.