Discussion in 'Hall of Fame' started by BigMadM, Mar 6, 2005.
Geezus dude. Deep. I just don't like it because I come too quickly.
That one always cracks me up.
#1247. HA, HA,HA!!!
Welcome back Wwanderer.
Maybe like a ceremonial call-to-order and approval of the minutes of the last meeting before the committee gets down to its real business.
And good to cross your path again, too. Whether or not I am "really back", I don't know; drama in the Far East and other matters are keeping me too busy lately to allow much time for PMBs and other such net diversions.
Au Contrere. The evolution of mammals (which includes Homo sapiens) included the copulatory act of male mounting the female and insertion from behind. This position afforded the best survivability from predators during the act as both partners could observe their surroundings. Human females turned around only very recently in our evolutionary history but not due to any evolutionary pressure. Humans would still populate and dominate the earth if we were still exclusively doing it doggy style, though our population level and advancement might not be what it is today.
One indicator of this evolution is the woman's G-Spot. The G-Spot is on the ventral (front) side of the vaginal wall. It evolved there because a rear entry produces the greatest stimulation on that portion of the vaginal wall. That stimulation produces pleasure for the female and makes her more receptive for sex, both the current one and future acts.
Having said the above, I always prefer the mish position with her legs spread wide so I can get max penetration and with her legs crossing over my back or wrapped around my legs.
(Now I'm getting horny, let me see if I can call one of my PS girls to come over)
I like MISH because our bodies were designed to fit together that way. It just feels good.
Yeah, right? It's almost an obligation at this point.
Anyways, it's good to see you back.
I will forego estimating the number of posts in these exchanges, but right, it is basically a quantitative issue. I have (many many times) acknowledged that reasonably happy and well adjusted/healthy providers (by "reasonably", I mean that they should not be held to higher standards than apply to the population at large...lots of people are unhappy and/or poorly adjusted for a wide variety of reasons) probably are a minority but have claimed that they are far from a tiny or insignificant minority, especially among upscale indies.
We have also told each other countless times that our individual experiences may differ considerably, especially among those who typically patronize different socio-economic segments of the provider community, and that this may account for a large part of our differring perceptions.
This is like telling jokes by the numbers.
And I'm sure as many posters have pointed out in at least 50,000 posts (or at least it sure felt like that) what bothered them wasn't the idea that such a provider could exist, but rather a lack of acknowledgment that such a provider would be the exception.
I mean I've met far more sex workers that were unhappy about their jobs than weren't. And of the ones that I have known that were happy, a majority of those were fairly emotionally disturbed.
It is very old news to any who have read a significant number of my nearly 5000 UG posts, but let me say again that I have met loads of providers in my 30+ years of hobbying who enjoy their work for reasons identical and/or similar (in the sense of being entirely sane and healthy) to those listed by Saraphina. I have, however, gradually come to the conclusion that this simple reality bothers many hobbyists (for reasons I don't completely understand) so much that they deny or simply don't see it.
I am coming into this late in the thread, but I think it rather funny that this paralells the banter I had with BigMadM when I was kicking around about 6 months ago.
There are so many analogies that I thought to demonstrate how a girl could enjoy her work as a provider that goes deeper than the lining of her pockets. But there have been a whole heaping lot full here already.
I know there was discussion about the distinguishing of contractual making love vs. making love. But to use the making love, as in with an SO, as the benchmark for comparison in civilian sex is quite the extreme. Casual sex (ex: picking up a guy at the bar) or a genuine mistress are to examples of non-contractual sex that more closely resemble the nature of contractual sex. Also there has been comments to the effect that if a girl enjoys being a provider that somehow she is broken and has embraced contractual sex to be "THE ONLY" type of sex to be had. I don't think I have ever met a a single provider who can be a the example for that case. Although, I have met tons of women who sincerely enjoy being a provider. What are their reasons? We all have our own reasons why we enjoy our work. Similarly to how each of you boys has your reason motivations to see us.
For me, the rewards outside of the $$$, I get fulfillment out taking pride in my talents (not as a skilled actress), the raport I build with many of my clients, that every night is a perfect occasion to dress up to the hilt, the many non-sexual business skills I have aquired, the great opportunities to travel, and not to mention the constant reinforcement that I am remarkably beautiful ( Not that I need that, but I will never have a day I look in the mirror and feel I am not beautiful)
True, but its our odd and unusual PMB
I was once talking to a guy who had worked as the controller of a very large Oil & Gas company. After he left the company, he 'retired' by agreeing to be the CFO of a much smaller company. His CEO used to have his job and retained 50% of the responsibilities. His controller had worked for his CEO and grabbed the other 50%. So he had absolutely nothing to do all day, but was paid handsomely. I think many people daydream about such a situation.
He told me that it only took him a few months of this before resigning. He said, "For the first time in my life, I wasn't looking forward to going into work." I think that might have been one of the more powerful sentences I'd ever heard.
I realized then that if you could have a job that you looked forward to going to every single day and you were reasonably competant you were just about guaranteed to be sucessful and were certainly guaranteed to be happy at work.
It was when I discovered that these views are considered radical and implausible by most UG regulars that I first realized what an odd and unusual PMB it is.
I basically agree with jm's point here. For example, despite my comments above, I would not consider taking a job that paid so little that my family and I could not live comfortably (by our standards) on the income it provided (assuming that I had more adequately paid alternatives). So, if you identify a necessary condition as a primary motivation, you could say that my primary motivation for working is the money even though salary has not been an important critereon in any of the job choices I have actually made. I just don't think that identification is a very sensible or intuitive one.
My motivation for working was never money either.
But I hated seeing my kids so underweight when there was no food in the house.
Just to be clear, I don't think Ww's primary motivation for doing his job is money. I certainly don't think that of myself and my jobs. Probably I don't really believe in the notion of primary motivation at all.
I think that each of us has sets of necessary conditions under which we'll do a particular task. But I'm not sure what it means to say that any of those conditions is primary once we establish it's necessary.
I guess that's what I'm saying... if two conditions are necessary, how to we establish primacy?
If I have to be
1. 7' tall
3. and an educator
to join the tall Tuvan teacher's union what does it mean to say it's more important to be tall than Tuvan for the purposes of joing the union? 6' tall Tuvans are going to be denied membership as much as 7'2" Mongolians?
Likewise if I have think that I'll enjoy having sex with my clients and get paid for it in order for me to be a prostitute, what does it mean to say that getting paid is more important than my thinking I'll enjoy it if I'll turn down someone who I don't think I'll enjopy having sex with but who has my fee as I will someone who I do think I'll enjoy having sex with but doesn't have the money?
(That sentence is unforgiveably long)
2. Which really doesn't mean much, right? I mean you can define primary motivation that way and you get consistancy but you don't really say anything. I think the people who are arguing that a prostitute's primary motivation is money have defined primary motivation in a way that money has to be everyone's primary motication for doing any job. But then they're turning around, using this defintion, and then claiming there's some significance in the conclusion especially as it relates to prostitutes
1. I agree, but I don't think the test is sufficient to differentiate.
I have also declined a position doing something significantly different from my current occupation, though related in some ways, which would have paid me three to five times as much as I now make.
I would claim that my motivation for working is not primarily money, though I do not know if this evidence and that of the previous points would "prove" it in the sense jm asks about above.
Separate names with a comma.