Sex for Silverbacks

[Will]

In my experience, most gay men of a certain age learned very early in life that satisfying their desires for sex, to say nothing of their needs for physical intimacy, was truly and literally dangerous. As young adolescents, when pressures to conform are usually stronger than the courage to be oneself, many of us decided that we would be wise to defer our entrance into the kind of social education that leads to wise and nuturing erotic attachments. In my case, as the years went by it became easier and easier to defer that entrance, because the social and professional rewards of self-repression, however unconscious they may have been, were very great. To be blunt, I never have learned even the most rudimentary steps that can lead to the kinds of sexual experiences that I both want and need.

 

Thanks to Elwood's thread, regular contributors such as Albinorat, Bilbo, NASAGuy, and Tampa Yankee have raised some interesting issues. One of them, as Regulation has been quick to point out, has to do with what mature gay men want from escorts. Other than simple sex, I mean. For contributors like Regulation, it seems, clients who look for anything more than straightforward service, as one expects from a waiter in a restaurant, are being unrealistic. Others, and I include myself in this latter group, expect more even from a waiter than getting the right food to the table, hot and on time. We also expect courtesy, charm, good manners and good grooming. If the waiter is also flirtatious and imaginative and witty in the bargain, his tip is likely to be bigger than it would be if he were surly and condescending and merely efficient. Both the cutesy-pie waiter and the gray-haired patron know that it is a game. But both have fun playing it; and the more fun the waiter has, the more fun the patron has.

 

Now that I am a "silverback" among other males of my species, I find that my sexual desires and needs are just as intense as they were when I was thirty. Just as intense, yes, but different, radically different. My needs and desires haven't diminished, mind you, just altered. Am I alone in that?

[Guest ChicagoCorey]

I can't speak as a "silverback" yet -- but I have to say that I've always felt exactly that way.

 

Like many (most?) gay guys, much of my initial gay sexual experience was anonymous and scary as hell. Some people never outgrow the excitement of that, and there's a lot to be said for the safely-played fantasy aspect. But I found, early on, that it was a lot more fun to suck the cock of a smiling guy than to get on one through a glory hole.

 

I need more from a partner than "service" -- even if it's just a quick encounter. Charm, sense of humor, and just a general sense of enjoying the situation are what I need.

 

(Sidenote to both escorts and clients: just lying there, unless it's part of some fantasy scene, doesn't cut it -- you need to let your partner know, somehow, what's working and what's not)

 

I don't think it's unrealistic for clients to expect escorts to offer more than straightforward service. But they have to make sure that they hire escorts who are of the same mindset. Many (again most?) of the guys out there are doing it because they've got the bodies to be worshipped and many clients out there will pay them just for the bodies and the standoffish fantasy. (And don't try to tell me that there aren't guys out there who get off on this shitty treatment and snotty attitude.) Many don't even consider themselves gay, and despite the sex, many (both gay and straight) only find the emotional attachment problematic.

 

It's a funny and awkward social situation though -- something Miss Manners certainly doesn't prepare you for. I, for one, have met more great gay guys in the past 3 months of escorting in Chicago than I have living here the past 3 years where acquaintances of mine in the business constantly talk about all the assholes they meet and warn me that it will happen to me soon too. I, for one, think it's more the escort's attitude going in (than the client's) that shapes the experience. To extend the waiter metaphor from above a little, of all my friends who waited tables, only the ones with bad attitudes ever complained about the customers' tips.

 

 

-------

chicagocorey@yahoo.com

new site and pictures

http://www.geocities.com/chicagocorey

[Guest regulation]

>Thanks to Elwood's thread, regular contributors

>such as Albinorat, Bilbo, NASAGuy,

>and Tampa Yankee have raised

>some interesting issues. One

>of them, as Regulation has

>been quick to point out,

>has to do with what

>mature gay men want from

>escorts. Other than simple

>sex, I mean. For

>contributors like Regulation, it seems,

>clients who look for anything

>more than straightforward service, as

>one expects from a waiter

>in a restaurant, are being

>unrealistic.

 

 

Will, if you're going to start taking swipes at other posters your reputation as the wise old Buddha of these boards will soon be a thing of the past. What did Elwood's original post say? Didn't he express unhappiness with the notion that he is being exploited by escorts who take his money but think of him as a "foolish old ATM"? My point is a simple one. No one can become disillusioned unless he first indulges in illusions. I think that just about everyone who hires an escort wants him to provide, to a greater or lesser degree, an illusion of intimacy and desire, me included. It's when you start to confuse that illusion with reality that you let yourself in for the sort of feelings Elwood and others have expressed. So don't do it.

 

Others, and I

>include myself in this latter

>group, expect more even from

>a waiter than getting the

>right food to the table,

>hot and on time.

>We also expect courtesy, charm,

>good manners and good grooming.

> If the waiter is

>also flirtatious and imaginative and

>witty in the bargain, his

>tip is likely to be

>bigger than it would be

>if he were surly and

>condescending and merely efficient.

>Both the cutesy-pie waiter and

>the gray-haired patron know that

>it is a game.

>But both have fun playing

>it; and the more fun

>the waiter has, the more

>fun the patron has.

>

 

And what if the waiter is very good at the game but actually finds it and his gray-haired patron tiresome and demeaning. Isn't that what we're really discussing? The question is, do you care what he really thinks? And if so, why?

[Guest 7Zach]

Not yet a silverback, but in my 40s. But hell, maybe I am, and just don't realize it yet.

Each one of us approaches it differently; I hired my first escort when I was 27, if only for the convenience; I was shy and hated bars, and there were a couple of agencies in NY. Funny, first time I started to call, I had the Advocate out and going thru the ads and was getting ready to call someone when the phone rang, and it was someone else calling for an incall, but he had reversed the last and the next to last number and got me. I got off the phone, but always wondered...

Even then, and continuing, it was never for an hour, but a couple, or four or overnight, if I knew them. Like someone else said, I prefer a fewer different ones, and see them in lieu of others. If there is no connection, meaning some chemistry or something, I let them go and pay them rather than making me feel like it is work. I know it's work for them.. I guess I am saying that straight sex without any of the extras is not something that does it for me now or back when. They don't have to flirt, but they do have to have a limited amount of intelligence, good grooming, good english, and meet whatever my baseline requirements of attractive. If not, then I take a pass, always paying the fee, however; funny, only a couple were kinda funny about it.

[Barry]

First and foremost Will it's good to see you here again.

 

I grew up in the burbs of Chicago at a time when "being out" was indeed very dangerous. In my 20's I did go to the bars on occasion. That is, after a significant amount of research to find out where they were. No gay friends to tell me. No internet. No BoysTown with rainbow pillars. Even when I finally found the bars, they were often just a door with an address and a single lightbulb in a very seedy part of the city.

 

The "scene" in the bars was very intimidating to a young man with a suburban culture not totally comfortable with his feelings. Needless to say I missed out on male intimacy and yes, sex during most of my youth.

 

A few years ago I discovered escorts on the internet. I never was willing to call one from the ads in the gay rags. The internet allowed me to have some insight into the guy I was considering and often the ability to get to know him a bit better through emails before we actually met. It was clear to me I was looking for more than just sweaty sex. Early on I hired for multiple hours or an overnight. I wanted an experience. I wanted to talk, go to dinner and get to know the person a bit before a romp in bed. I wanted to cuddle and sleep with the guyz I missed out on while in my 20's and 30's. Yes Regulation, I wanted a rational dose of illusion and fantasy. Just a tad beyond reality. Needless to say it was wonderful and still is.

 

I totally understand the point made by Regulation. Some want just the hour or so of sex with a known quantity. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. I have tried that several times and it just didn't work. I would start talking to the guy and we were still talking when the hour was up. Duh! I mentioned this once to Matt from Vancouver. He gently (yeah, right) said: "Barry, you're just too easy to talk with. You have to learn to fuck first, talk after". Thanx Matt. I have learned.

 

I also understand the risk of going beyond reality as warned by Reg. I actually ended up in a realtionship with an escort that I had seen. After a time the distinction between the reality and the illusion became clear in my myopic brain. It was an emotionally, mentally and financially painful lesson. Lesson learned I am now much more aware of the reality vs. the illusion.

 

I continue to see escorts and am enjoying it more now than ever. I have found a few that have been wonderful companions on vacation. It had been so long since I had taken a vacation with someone. My feet are more firmly set in reality while I enjoy the occasional illusion. I am continually on guard for the potential blurring of the border between the two.

 

All in all I am happy with myself and my personal life. I have been able to realize some of what I missed as a youth. I have become more involved in the community and have met some non-professional men as well.

 

Thanx again Will for bringing this topic to the board.

[Guest blankman]

Regulation,

your advice is sound, but I think your tough-love delivery may have obscured your point. I agree completely with you that confusing the illusion of intimacy with the real thing is hazardous.

 

But it's important to accept that for some people any degree of social and physical intimacy, however brief and contrived, may have a large impact on their feelings, especially when the need for intimacy is greatest. Otherwise this topic wouldn't have arisen.

 

This is why I think your analogy to smoking is a good one. Nicotine affects different people in different ways. I never had a lot of trouble quitting and never smoked much anyway. But then there are the people dying of emphysema that are still smoking.

 

There seems to be a confusion going on in this and other threads. The discussion has polarized so that we seem to be talking about two types of escort/client relations: sex-machine for money with no emotional component vs. pseudo-lover. In my view it would be unwise to think of the escort/client relationship as being at either of these extremes. (And no, I'm not saying that anybody has explicitly adopted these positions: it's just that they are extremes which require our consideration.)

 

To suppose that an escort is your (pseudo-)lover is very hazardous emotionally, and I for one find it hard to believe how many people seem to act like escorts are their friends. But to divorce sexual and social interaction from all of its power to affect one's feelings, to assuage hurt or loneliness in addition to horniness, is to overlook and minimize what can only be, for many people, an unavoidable part of being human.

 

The analogy of an escort to a car mechanic is, to my mind, quite specious. The car mechanic works on your CAR, not you. Unless the client has so completely compartmentalized his sexual life from his emotional life so that the sex-part is as separate from the rest of him as his car is, then it's just not sensible to make the comparison.

 

Sure you can say, "yeah, the escort performs a service on my DICK and my ASS and my (fill it in)", but for almost everyone this is going to have some impact on the inner self in ways that can't be dismissed entirely. You'd have to be pretty hung up on your car for the car mechanic's service to have the same impact on your life (although these Acura and BMW commercials seem to portray "regular guys" for whom a car is like an object of worship -- whatever!)

 

In my opinion it would be just as grave a danger to divorce sexual intimacy entirely from its emotional effects as it would be to confuse the escort and the lover.

 

Naturally I've been guilty of both extremes in my thinking at various times.

[Guest regulation]

>But it's important to accept that

>for some people any degree

>of social and physical intimacy,

>however brief and contrived, may

>have a large impact on

>their feelings, especially when the

>need for intimacy is greatest.

> Otherwise this topic wouldn't

>have arisen.

>

>This is why I think your

>analogy to smoking is a

>good one. Nicotine affects

>different people in different ways.

> I never had a

>lot of trouble quitting and

>never smoked much anyway.

>But then there are the

>people dying of emphysema that

>are still smoking.

>

>There seems to be a confusion

>going on in this and

>other threads. The discussion

>has polarized so that we

>seem to be talking about

>two types of escort/client relations:

>sex-machine for money with no

>emotional component vs. pseudo-lover.

> In my view it

>would be unwise to think

>of the escort/client relationship as

>being at either of these

>extremes. (And no, I'm

>not saying that anybody has

>explicitly adopted these positions: it's

>just that they are extremes

>which require our consideration.)

>

>To suppose that an escort is

>your (pseudo-)lover is very hazardous

>emotionally, and I for one

>find it hard to believe

>how many people seem to

>act like escorts are their

>friends. But to divorce

>sexual and social interaction from

>all of its power to

>affect one's feelings, to assuage

>hurt or loneliness in addition

>to horniness, is to overlook

>and minimize what can only

>be, for many people, an

>unavoidable part of being human.

>

>

 

I can't disagree with any of this, and I think you put it very well. I just think that becoming emotionally dependent on prostitutes is a foolish and dangerous thing to do. That relates to another part of Elwood's post that no one seems to be focussing on. As he suggested, there are more important things in life than sexual contact and there are lots of ways to deal with loneliness other than hiring hookers. If you like the analogy to smoking, then I could say that people who have the sort of compulsive personality that leads to addiction shouldn't smoke. And people who are emotionally needy and vulnerable shouldn't get too involved with hookers. Only people like me, who have a hide thicker than that of the average reptile, should do it.

[vers7]

In a previous thread, I have expressed the “Regulation” view that the sex is the most important thing and over-emotionalizing the encounter is not healthy for the client -- and, in extreme cases, can pose problems for the escort. And I still feel that sex is the raison d’etre. However, I am finding myself drawn a little in another direction. I certainly don’t view escorts as likely dating material and I realize that escorts (as clients) often are not entirely genuine in their statements and expressions. However, after getting to know an escort sexually, I often find myself interested in getting to know his personality better and in learning a little about what makes him tick – just as I do with any other person with whom I find common interest. Consequently, after the first appointment, I do like to take a repeater out to a nice dinner and to spend a little time with him if he wants. Am I naïve to think that some escorts might like the same thing?

[Guest LG320126]

No way, Vers. I have said it before and I will say it again. Escorts are human beings the same as you and I and most of them appreciate being treated as such. No matter if you are twice his age, if you like him and he likes you, I am sure he would be more than happy to take you up on a dinner invitation. Go for it and see for yourself. Will be waiting for your report.

[Losgatan]

Will,

 

I know that my sexual needs have dramatically altered. When I was younger, my own stimulation and release were paramount. I wanted it as often and intensely as possible.

 

However, as a "silverback," I'm more interested in the response of my partner. It's like I need to prove to myself that I can still work magic with the body of another, usually younger person.

 

Escorts who don't sense this need and concentrate wholly on getting the client off will never get much business from me. The escort must experience a convincing, electrifying "finish." And I want to feel and taste it all!

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Am I naïve to think that some escorts might like the same thing?<

 

Not at all. I'm usually touched and willing when a client wants to hang out a bit after the encounter. People don't usually think of having dinner with a fucktoy, but grabbing a bite with a friend sounds rather inviting. It also lets me know that I'm not just a piece of meat who's been dismissed. Not to disregard the emotional aspects possibly attached to it, but it's also good for business, even off the clock. I'd rather spend time building some kind of bond and comraderie with a client who I believe wants to see me again. Not just to insure repeat business, but to insure that as often as possible, when I'm intimate with someone, it's someone I know and like. I'm at my best with people I know and am comfortable with. That's good for business. Plus, it seems to me that the fewer sexual encounters I have with absolute strangers in the middle of the night, the less harrowing my life might be (although old habits die hard - grin). It's quite possible to be gruff or impatient with strangers. Less so with friends and acquaintances. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the 'whammers' as much as the 'charmers' (as someone so eloquently dubbed them). I just like to feel as if I know who's whammin' and who's charmin'. I will say that it's the guy who wants me to be his best and only friend that I'm leary of. So to answer your question vers7, I don't think you're naive in the least.

[Will]

Regulation, I may look like a Buddha, but I decline any other comparison with a Buddha. I'm sorry if anything I said sounded like a "swipe." Certainly, I never intended to criticize anyone. As regards Elwood's post, mine was a response, that is, further thoughts. I did not reread Elwood's post and had no intention of starting a new thread simply to continue his.

 

It seems obvious to me that it is never a good idea to invest oneself in someone who is not equally invested, whether the other person is an escort or a boyfriend or even an employer. I maintain, however, that some of the most exquisite emotional pleasures in life are by their nature strictly defined and short-lived. For example, my profession provides constant opportunity to develop avuncular, mentoring relationships with young people. Without exception, those relationships are entirely voluntary for each party. Neither I nor the young person feels the slightest necessity to enter into a particularly intimate means of developing our common professional interests. Within its boundaries, deep, genuine love develops. However, each of us acknowledges and I think even cherishes those boundaries. Each of us knows that what transpires between us will likely not last more than a few years at the most, that our intimacy is strictly and even exclusively concentrated on the professional exchange, that one of us is the buyer (the young person) and the other is the seller (me).

 

Do those boundaries get stretched some times? Does one or the other of us on occasion begin to imagine extending the intimacy into other areas? Might one of us wonder from time to time if the other is somehow exploiting him? Yes. Not only "Yes," but "Of course." We are human beings and we are engaged in what is, in the end, an exercise of love. The only way to avoid the risks of love is to avoid love altogether, and I am just not willing to do that. I don't want to shrivel into a dried-up, leather-skinned old fig, as secure as an ingot in Fort Knox, perhaps, but also as inert as a turd.

 

No amount of money would compensate me for never having had these relationships. They are temporary; they are strictly regulated by high standards of professional conduct; neither party expects the emotional content to bind the other in any way whatsoever; they are inherently unequal as regards age, experience, and the desired expertise; and they do not conflict with stronger or deeper loyalties.

 

I believe -- indeed, I know for certain -- that it is possible to develop this kind of relationship with an escort, just as it is in the kind of mentoring relationship I have described. Just as it is, come to that, in the mutually affectionate but strictly professional relationship that one may develop with a trusted therapist or a physician.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>>The only way to avoid the risks of love is to avoid love altogether, and I am just not willing to do that.<<

 

Not even if a life devoid of love means always wearing well tailored pants and an endless supply of hot soup? (just kidding reggi - I actually thought your line was very well said and funny as hell, if a bit cut and dry)

 

>>They are temporary; they are strictly regulated by high standards of professional conduct; neither party expects the emotional content to bind the other in any way whatsoever........and they do not conflict with stronger or deeper loyalties.

I believe -- indeed, I know for certain -- that it is possible to develop this kind of relationship with an escort<<

 

Well of course it is. It's possible with every single person on earth. Why would escorts be an exception? Because we drop our drawers on command? Is that act so alien and dehumanizing to the average client that we should be considered incapable of establishing, maintaining, and adhering to the tenets that apply to any relationship with any person in any career? Is engaging an escort so aberrant as to make every client lose control of his own otherwise normal emotional defense mechanisms, rendering him incapable of adhering to the same tenets? Is every escort so damn hot that he causes grown men to swoon and act like jealous schoolgirls? Is every working boy so devious that it should be assumed he'll take a client for everything they have? Should every client/escort encounter begin with suspicion?

Don't misunderstand me Will. I support your post profoundly. It just saddens me to hear of so many other clients expressing dissatisfaction and unhappiness when it comes to the procurement of two of the most basic of human needs: intimacy and friendship. I realize escorts can provide only temporary respite for the lack of these things in many clients lives (especially those moving up the ladder of age), and we're basically no more than bandaids for some. But better to be covered in gauze and salves than to bleed to death alone and unfilled. (Sorry for the Frankenstinian imagery, but wasn't even that story ultimately about easing the pain of loneliness?) Speaking for myself, I'm certain I posses all (and more) of the necessary prerequisites to enter the kind of sane relationship you speak of. All of my regular clients posses the same characteristics and in greater quantities. I consider myself fortunate. Our encounters are mutually safe, fun, rewarding, and fulfilling; emotionally, physically, and spiritually. For both parties. I suppose I could be fooling myself, and once the illusory facade of these happy relations is stripped away, I'm left with simple exploitation (of both). But until that bubble is burst by someone slapping me in the face repeatedly with their insistance that the emotional benefits are not real, I'm going to enjoy it. So what? I think Bostonguy put up a post wherein he likens the experience of seeing escorts to going to the movies. A very welcome comparison. Film can be a breathtaking and powerful artform, loved and understood by millions. It offers a chance to forget the more prosaic elements of our lives. I would gladly be thought of by someone, anyone, as a beautiful bit of escapism (and the films listed on my marquee are blockbusters, every one of 'em).

 

>I don't want to shrivel into a dried-up, leather-skinned old fig, as secure as an ingot in Fort Knox, perhaps, but also as inert as a turd.<

 

When I was a kid and my father would find me lazing on the couch doing nothing, he'd always say; "If you're going to act like turd, go lie in the backyard."

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

A Person I Call 'Friend'.

 

Thanks again Will,

 

Your words capture the essence of one very special experience of mine.

 

"It seems obvious to me that it is never a good idea to invest oneself in someone who is not equally invested, whether the other person is an escort or a boyfriend or even an employer. ... Without exception, those relationships are entirely voluntary for each party. ... However, each of us acknowledges and I think even cherishes those boundaries. Each of us knows that what transpires between us will likely not last more than... I believe -- indeed, I know for certain -- that it is possible to develop this kind of relationship with an escort, just as it is in the kind of mentoring relationship I have described."

 

Without a measure of mutuality to the relationship there is none, rather an unhealthy preoccupation. The relationship must be symbiotic and not parasitic in nature. In my case, I had a wealth of world experience and knowledge to offer, acquired on the road of life, and he had a vast knowledge of the gay world (of which I was pretty much ignorant) to offer and willing to share. And each of us provided for the other a person to confide in on subjects that we might not be comfortable taking to our everyday community of friends. (This requires a measure of trust on the part of each built over time as we got to know each other.) A person willing to listen and share their experiences and offer their views and advice.

 

And boundaries must never be lost sight of... one must respect the needs and desires of the other party, as in any healthy relationship. This is especially the case where the age difference is significant. And each of us knows that whatever this relationship is, it is for now and not forever. And there are no demands or requirements other than mutual respect; and no measure of exclusivity is sought by either party, no special status demanded on either part. I don't know about others, but for me this is a pretty fair operational definition of friendship. Have there been occasions when I wish it could have been more?? Yes, of course... but I'm a believer in the Natural Philosophy and its laws which cannot be overcome for long without disastrous consequence. So I navigate through the world as I find it, mindful of the rules of the road, and stopping to smell the flowers where I find them.

 

All of this ignores the broader question discussed regarding the Whammers and the Charmers. I certainly didn't set out to find the experience I described above -- a foolish quest at best, akin to trying to buy the winning number at your local lottery window. You cannot buy a strike of lightening.

 

As I understand the broader discussion, it distills to: Whammers are focused more on the carnal aspects engaging the escort as a purveyor of flesh (if I may be so indelicate), less on other aspects of the person; and the Charmers seek to engage the multidimensional person who is pleasant company for conversation, dinner, the theater, or concert, and a little physical interaction too -- the difference between a hooker (maybe a very good one) and a Geisha, who delivers the full package. (I'll admit this an oversimplification but I think it captures the essence, if not the nuances, of each category.) Is either superior -- it depends on the taste of the client which is where this all started -- clients have different tastes... and fantasies. Generally I prefer Geisha. And maybe there is a greater chance that a Charmer will fall in love with a Geisha than there is a Whammer falling in love with a side of very tasty beef, then again...

 

As for the gentleman of reference in my special experience, he is neither a Geisha nor just a very tasty side of beef, he is a warm, sincere, and caring person with personality; a person that could hold his own in any 'Where's the Beef' contest ; a person who happens to be an escort; a person who gives in kind what he receives -- in his personal life as well as his professional life: a person I call 'friend'.

 

Is he the only 'escort' I see? No, no exclusivity sought nor given. But I do focus on the few with appeal and demonstrated rapport, and then there is the rare New Hire.

[Will]

RE: A Person I Call 'Friend'.

 

Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I meant. It makes me happy to know of your friendship, TY. Lucky you, lucky escort. Thank you for telling us.

[Guest regulation]

>my profession provides constant opportunity

>to develop avuncular, mentoring relationships

>with young people. Without

>exception, those relationships are entirely

>voluntary for each party.

>Neither I nor the young

>person feels the slightest necessity

>to enter into a particularly

>intimate means of developing our

>common professional interests. Within

>its boundaries, deep, genuine love

>develops. However, each of

>us acknowledges and I think

>even cherishes those boundaries.

 

 

Right. But what does that have to do with paying waiters to flirt with you, which is what you were discussing above? It seemed to me that you were extrapolating from your experiences with prostitutes and advancing the idea that any young, attractive man would be willing to pretend sexual interest in you in return for some kind of consideration. Is that what you think?

 

> The only way to

>avoid the risks of love

>is to avoid love altogether,

>and I am just not

>willing to do that.

 

Sure. But is it a good idea to take those risks with someone who makes money by pretending to have feelings about you that he doesn't really have? It seems to me that if you are interested in developing relationships in which feelings are genuinely reciprocal, a prostitute is the most unlikely, not the most likely, candidate.

[Guest regulation]

>Not even if a life devoid

>of love means always wearing

>well tailored pants and an

>endless supply of hot soup?

>(just kidding reggi - I

>actually thought your line was

>very well said and funny

>as hell, if a bit

>cut and dry)

>

 

Yeah? Well, if you repeat that eight or nine hundred times I might start to feel a bit better about all the rotten things you said to me in that thread Stephan Lacoste started about the police arresting prostitutes in their homes. Remember that? I do.

 

>I believe -- indeed, I know

>for certain -- that it

>is possible to develop this

>kind of relationship with an

>escort<<

>

>Well of course it is. It's

>possible with every single person

>on earth. Why would escorts

>be an exception? Because we

>drop our drawers on command?

 

 

Nope. It's because prostitutes make money in part by communicating to their clients things that they don't really feel and by concealing what they do feel. One can never be sure what it is that they really feel. That's not a problem, unless one cares about what they feel.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Yeah?<

 

I don't much care for the tone of that "yeah?"

 

>if you repeat that eight or nine hundred times I might start to feel a bit better about all the rotten things you said to me in that thread Stephan Lacoste started about the police arresting prostitutes.....Remember that? I do.<

 

Hmmm.........."police arresting prostitutes". Yes, now that you mention it, I do seem to remember you being one of the lesser clowns of that circus (not a slur, I'm only an apprentice clown myself.) As I recall, you were the one with the funny red nose and the fright wig who wished dismemberment upon me. Oh, how we laffed it up over that one, what a scream! Say, I'm not trying to sap the warmth of this reminiscence, but evidently the incident has preyed upon your mind since it's occurrence. Does this mean you lie awake at night thinking of me? Why reggie, again you flatter me. But doesn't that equate to the kind of obsessive fanaticism you so vehemently protest (too much, methinks?)

 

>if you repeat that eight or nine hundred times I might start to feel a bit better...<

 

Such a disciplinarian. Is that how many times you've reread that ancient thread? Can't you just spank me instead? I DO so want you to feel better.

 

>because prostitutes make money in part by communicating to their clients things that they don't really feel and by concealing what they do feel<

 

Try living a day without holding back every emotion you feel. It's easy for you here on these boards because you're faceless. But do you vent spleen on every one in your daily life the way you do here? Do you spit your disgust, thinly veiled as 'advice' when speaking to friends and associates? Or do you temper you're words with diplomacy when there's a set of eyes looking back into yours? If not, you may not care what your barber or waiter thinks of you, but it's a safe bet on what they actually DO think (but you don't care.) As for communicating things we DON'T feel, I can only speak for myself, but when I'm with a client my erection and my loveable affability say everything they need to know about my sincerity. I've never told a client that I loved him, or might possibly do so some day, nor have I led any client to believe he was my 'best' friend. Any escort who does should be ashamed (unless these feelings are true-and it does happen.) My clients call me for fun and sex, and that's what I provide. Why you should maintain that any escort showing a client any degree of kindness is inherently a display of dishonesty is beyond me. Perhaps if you realized that those who escort might possibly be cut from a different cloth than you. Guys who get into escorting are usually guys predisposed to liking and accepting others at face value. Guys who don't find it difficult to be nice. At least they used to be, I'm a little older as you know. But many usually share their fondness for people and sex with very healthy egos. Some are emotionally troubled, others are downright scoundrels. Doesn't this describe human beings in general? So as you say, folks should be educated consumers and all that, but not automatically distrustful of every escort. It breeds animosity which smothers a good time. But if all you want out of life is even sideburns and skip the goddam barber jokes, then why hire an escort at all? Just stay home and jerk off. It's a lot cheaper, you know exactly what you like, you'll never rip yourself off, and you won't talk back (or will you?).

 

>One can never be sure what it is that (escorts) really feel.<

 

Go tell it to the surly waiter down at your 'club'.

 

And reg, if you respond to this, out of respect for the true gentlemen in this thread (that excludes the both of us), take it outside. There's no reason to degrade this otherwise pleasant thread any further. Start a new one if you must (who let you out of the Butch Harris loop anyway?) See ya.

 

- jc -

[Guest Merlin]

"Silverbacks" is a truly ugly name, implying someone with a lot of ugly back hair, now turned white. Older guys are unpopular enough in our youth oriented culture without making it worse with an ugly label.

[Guest regulation]

>>Yeah?<

>

>I don't much care for the

>tone of that "yeah?"

>

 

I didn't much care for the fact that in Lacoste's earlier thread you peppered me with childish insults simply because you disagreed with something that I said on the issue that he raised. If you thought I had forgotten it and would show you far more courtesy than you've ever showed me, you were wrong.

 

>Hmmm.........."police arresting prostitutes". Yes, now that

>you mention it, I do

>seem to remember you being

>one of the lesser clowns

>of that circus (not a

>slur, I'm only an apprentice

>clown myself.) As I recall,

>you were the one with

>the funny red nose and

>the fright wig who wished

>dismemberment upon me. Oh, how

>we laffed it up over

>that one, what a scream!

>Say, I'm not trying to

>sap the warmth of this

>reminiscence, but evidently the incident

>has preyed upon your mind

>since it's occurrence. Does this

>mean you lie awake at

>night thinking of me? Why

>reggie, again you flatter me.

>But doesn't that equate to

>the kind of obsessive fanaticism

>you so vehemently protest (too

>much, methinks?)

>

 

I think about you only when you make a point of addressing your remarks to me, as you did in your post above. Why would I spare a thought for you otherwise?

 

>>because prostitutes make money in part by communicating to their clients things that they don't really feel and by concealing what they do feel<

>

 

>Try living a day without holding

>back every emotion you feel.

 

Have you been reading Dr. Wayne Dyer again?

 

 

>It's easy for you here

>on these boards because you're

>faceless. But do you vent

>spleen on every one in

>your daily life the way

>you do here?

 

Given the insults you've hurled at me, you have quite a nerve making such a remark. In the other thread you said something about having lacked educational opportunities. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

 

 

Do you

>spit your disgust, thinly veiled

>as 'advice' when speaking to

>friends and associates?

 

 

Only when they're disgusting. Which isn't very often.

 

 

Or do

>you temper you're words with

>diplomacy when there's a set

>of eyes looking back into

>yours? If not, you may

>not care what your barber

>or waiter thinks of you,

>but it's a safe bet

>on what they actually DO

>think (but you don't care.)

 

 

Why would I? Do they care what I think?

 

 

>As for communicating things we

>DON'T feel, I can only

>speak for myself, but when

>I'm with a client my

>erection and my loveable affability

>say everything they need to

>know about my sincerity. I've

>never told a client that

>I loved him, or might

>possibly do so some day,

>nor have I led any

>client to believe he was

>my 'best' friend. Any escort

>who does should be ashamed

>(unless these feelings are true-and

>it does happen.) My clients

>call me for fun and

>sex, and that's what I

>provide. Why you should maintain

>that any escort showing a

>client any degree of kindness

>is inherently a display of

>dishonesty is beyond me.

 

The whole discussion seems to be beyond you. It's about displays of desire and affection, not kindness. I think the last thing any client wants is an escort who makes it clear that he's just being kind.

 

 

Perhaps

>if you realized that those

>who escort might possibly be

>cut from a different cloth

>than you.

 

 

I've always thought that prostitutes are "cut from a different cloth" than me. I think almost everyone feels that way.

 

 

Guys who get

>into escorting are usually guys

>predisposed to liking and accepting

>others at face value.

 

 

So Billyboy is just an aberration, right? Uh-huh.

 

>So as you say, folks

>should be educated consumers and

>all that, but not automatically

>distrustful of every escort. It

>breeds animosity which smothers a

>good time. But if all

>you want out of life

>is even sideburns and skip

>the goddam barber jokes, then

>why hire an escort at

>all? Just stay home and

>jerk off. It's a lot

>cheaper, you know exactly what

>you like, you'll never rip

>yourself off, and you won't

>talk back (or will you?).

>

>

 

If I ever feel in need of advice from you, I'll rush to the nearest hospital for a CAT scan. That would be a sure sign of a brain tumor.

 

 

 

>>One can never be sure what it is that (escorts) really feel.<

>

>Go tell it to the surly

>waiter down at your 'club'.

>

>

 

 

My waiter has never been surly. I think it's because I don't demean him by trying to get him to flirt with me in exchange for a bigger tip.

 

 

>And reg, if you respond to

>this, out of respect for

>the true gentlemen in this

>thread (that excludes the both

>of us), take it outside.

> There's no reason to

>degrade this otherwise pleasant thread

>any further. Start a new

>one if you must (who

>let you out of the

>Butch Harris loop anyway?) See

>ya.

>

 

So you get to post a long list of insults and slurs directed at me, but I, out of "respect" for the other participants in this thread, should not reply. Right.

[Will]

I take the word "silverbacks" from gorilla lore. I happen to be a great admirer of gorillas, of their beauty as well as of their characters. A "silverback" is a fully adult male, even an elder. They are called "silverbacks" because they get gray as they age. Some human beings do that, too. Unlike many human beings, however, gorillas honor their silverbacks.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>I think the last thing any client wants is an escort who makes it clear that he's just being kind<

 

Not just 'being kind', just plain kind. I pity your existance.

[Guest regulation]

>I pity your existance.

>

 

Do you? And how do you feel about my existence?

 

Really, Joey, what did you expect? Since the time some weeks ago when you directed a barrage of insults at me on the Lacoste thread, I have posted nothing that was addressed to you or was about you -- except to the extent that you feel any remarks I make about prostitutes in general apply to you. It was YOU who decided to start this again by addressing me directly. If you didn't want that to happen, why did you do it? Is there someone standing next to your computer holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do it? In one of your posts on the Lacoste thread I think you said something about taking pride in "childlike" behavior. That's fine, but be enough of a man to take responsibility for your own actions.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>If I ever feel in need of advice from you, I'll rush to the nearest hospital for a CAT scan. That would be a sure sign of a brain tumor.<

 

I didn't reply to the above piece of fluff the first time you used it a month or so ago. It was as unworthy of a response then as it is now. I only point it out at this point as a way of letting you know that you can put it to bed at long last.(But if that tumor becomes a real nuisance, I will happily lance it for you.)

 

>And how do you feel about my existence?

 

I'm sure it works for you and I suppose that's what counts in your life.

 

>Really, Joey, what did you expect?<

 

I didn't expect anything, honestly. I mentioned your words originally because they had struck me as funny and pertinent to the current topic. I paid you a very casual compliment, with no regard for the sillines of some old thread. A thread wherein you said some awful things to me, and even worse to others. So what? We're all victims of our own perceptions and subjectivity. You talked shit but don't see it that way. I talked shit back because I thought you deserved it. My mistake, your mistake, who cares? It's ancient history in my mind. And here's a thought you might not understand, but I take some small degree of stock in the things you say in your posts (when you're not belittling someone, that is.) That being the case, I didn't think you'd still be harboring a grudge over what some subordinate might have said to you months ago. You keep saying you don't care what we prostitutes think, why shouldn't I believe you? If you're lying, and you do care, I'm sure you have your reasons and I apologize for having been duped by you.

 

>It was YOU who decided to start this again by addressing me directly. If you didn't want that to happen, why did you do it?<

 

As I said above reg, I didn't think it was going to start something ugly. I'm sorry that it did, and I'm sorry for the way you still feel. I thought you might be bigger than that. Maybe you can be, just not with me. Who knows? But really, you shouldn't care so much. I'm just a dumb hooker who's obviously a loose cannon (haven't you read any of the other absurd posts of mine?) But since I'm seemingly not as easy to shrug off as I fancy myself, I'll try to refrain from extending either offense or praise in your direction. But there's no garauntee I'll succeed in either. I'm just not very good at pussyfooting around someone who finds my very presence insulting.

 

>In the other thread you said something about having lacked educational opportunities. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?<

 

Not sure I understand your point, but I do except your challenge to spell the word h-i-pp-e-rc=r-yt-e. Maybe I'll just get back to you on that one.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Hi reg...

 

Trying to pull me into to this one huh??

 

 

>Me? Hold a grudge?

>Why, I would no more

>do that than Tampa Yankee

>would interrupt his quest to

>become a better person by

>using a smarmy insult like

>"My mother told me to

>make allowances," in the "Pussgrapple"

>thread.

 

Well, she did and I do... Having said that let me take this opportunity to apologize to you for all of my transgressions, real or imagined, up to and including the slightly misquoted quote above, its close enough. Please do not take the 'imagined' as a put down, it is not intended -- just an overt recognition on my part (and others?) that sometimes you overreact to statements, finding offense where none is intended. If I could claim this in all of our exchanges an apology would not be necessary.

 

Still on my quest...

 

TY