Jump to content

WHY DO I ESCORT???


Guest Zack Evans
This topic is 8313 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest jeffOH

Bilbo#49

 

I use the words prostitute, hooker and escort interchangebly

because I don't make a distinction between them. At times when

someone has asked me what I do for a living, I have told them

that I work as an escort and was met with a blank look and had to explain exactly what I meant. When I say prostitute or hooker

the meaning is crystal clear. There are adjectives a person

can use to make further distinctions..."street prostitute" or

"disease-ridden hooker".

 

All too often people use words to make what they're really saying

somehow more palatable. Yes, some peoples have numerous words for

the same thing, just look at how many different ways the Chinese

have to say "sorry" and how much time and effort it took the U.S.

to put together what should have been a simple message.

 

The point of communication is to "communicate" not alienate others from the conversation. It would be different if we were

all on here writing nice flowery poetry, then using words to

express slightly different nuances would be more appropriate.

 

I've read some long-winded, dressed-up posts here that would have

been more easily understood had they edited out all the filler.

I just think it's best to consider your target audience. Sure

there are times when it is appropriate to use the "big words",

but if you look them up in the dictionary, there's always a

simpler word that means the same thing.

 

As far as the words Zack chose in reference to Regulation, I

believe they say more about the person using them than the person

to whom they're being directed. In the short time that I've been

posting on this site I've been called the Pope, Hall Monitor,

petty, insecure, creepy, self-righteous...but as I just said, I

believe that when someone chooses such words it is more of a

commentary on that individual and gives me some insight as to

what sort of person they are.

 

http://Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not sure I agree.

 

I tend to think of prostitutes and hookers as women. Yes, men can prostitute themselves, but I think of prostitutes as women.

 

On the other hand, if someone referred to a hustler, that would always bring to mind a man, not a woman. And while escorts and hustlers both sell sex and/or companionship for money, I see them as being at opposite ends of a scale that goes from fast/cheap/untrustworthy to considerate/expensive/confidant/trustworthy. In other words, Kirk in NYC would be a hustler while Matt in Vancouver would be an escort.

 

They both fit a legal definition, but Kirk doesn't fit my definition of an escort and Matt certainly isn't a hustler.

 

One of the great things about the English language is the richness of its vocabulary -- several times larger than other European languages. To say that all words mean the same thing is to lose that richness unnecessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

>I'm not sure I agree.

>

>I tend to think of prostitutes

>and hookers as women.

>Yes, men can prostitute themselves,

>but I think of prostitutes

>as women.

>

>On the other hand, if someone

>referred to a hustler, that

>would always bring to mind

>a man, not a woman.

> And while escorts and

>hustlers both sell sex and/or

>companionship for money, I see

>them as being at opposite

>ends of a scale that

>goes from fast/cheap/untrustworthy to considerate/expensive/confidant/trustworthy.

> In other words, Kirk

>in NYC would be a

>hustler while Matt in Vancouver

>would be an escort.

>

>They both fit a legal definition,

>but Kirk doesn't fit my

>definition of an escort and

>Matt certainly isn't a hustler.

>

>

>One of the great things about

>the English language is the

>richness of its vocabulary --

>several times larger than other

>European languages. To say

>that all words mean the

>same thing is to lose

>that richness unnecessarily.

 

I didn't say all words mean the same thing. People often use words to "pretty up" what they're saying to make them sound

more acceptable when they could have used a simpler word to

express exactly the same thing. If I am telling someone I work

as a prostitute, they are well aware that I am a man not a woman.

If I say "escort", that's not as clear. Escorting someone to

dinner or a show makes up a tiny percentage of what I do, unless

you count escorting them from the couch to the bed.

 

I've read some "puffed-up" posts here that by end I couldn't tell

you exactly what they were trying to say. I seriously doubt that

these posters speak to people face to face in the manner they do

in these forums. When Bette Davis would get a script for a movie

she was about to film, she would go through and eliminate much of

her dialogue. She knew she could express what her character was

saying with fewer words that got right to the point. Not everyone

on these message boards is a college graduate...some may not have

graduated from high school. I just think it's important to take

into consideration your audience when formulating your message.

 

http://Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChicagoCorey

RE: Escort Mud Wrestling

 

You know, nycman, I was really hoping for a lot more fun from a post with the subject "Escort Mud Wrestling" -- I thought it was going to be a Corey fantasy come true. Alas...

 

(Seriously though, a great post -- we should all step away from the ring and hopefully shows like this will then become a little bit less common.)

 

-------

chicagocorey@yahoo.com

new site and pictures

http://www.geocities.com/chicagocorey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I agree with you that there is eupemism going on sometimes. However, I also see the richness of the language going on sometimes. Both things happen! Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many of the people I admire on this board, especially Will, have said that one thing that they love about this site is its literateness. Deep thoughts are sometimes spoken about deeply, right alongside frivolous things spoken about frivolously.

 

Did you know, Jeff, that there was once a man named Bowldler who tried to fix Shakespeare's language? He replaced all the rougher, courser parts with nicer, prettier language. The kind of censorship which does that now often is referred to by his name, Bowldlerization. So, you have been called many things have you? Have you ever been called a Reverse Bowldlerizer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Konga

>I use the words prostitute, hooker

>and escort interchangebly

>because I don't make a distinction

>between them.

 

But many of the people you communicate with WILL make distinctions. It's human nature to categorize and label things. It's the reason there ARE so many words. They aid in understanding.

 

>There

>are adjectives a person

>can use to make further distinctions..."street

>prostitute" or

>"disease-ridden hooker".

 

And these would be fine when describing an unsavory individual that you hold in disdain, or someone you wanted to alienate. But you just said that you eschew distinctions, so does that mean that escort and disease-ridden hooker equate in your mind? Surely not, and I'm sorry for my failure to understand your point.

 

>All too often people use words

>to make what they're really

>saying somehow more palatable.

 

Yes, it's an act of compassion and a common courtesy to apply a euphemism in place of words that you know will be painful or unsympathetic to hear. "Dearly departed" as opposed to "Dead guy."

 

>The point of communication is to

>"communicate" not alienate others from

>the conversation. It would be

>different if we were

>all on here writing nice flowery

>poetry, then using words to

>express slightly different nuances would be

>more appropriate.

 

Poetry certainly has a singular purpose which would be out of place here, and I agree that some let their command of the language carry them away at times, but any amount of nuance applied to communication in any capacity merely demonstrates a desire (need) to be understood, along with being a show of respect for the sensibilities of whoever you're communicating with. Bluntness of language has a time and place as well, no doubt, but very often will not impart the finer points of your message, and at times may even offend. Especially when the nuances of body language are absent. And emoticons don't always cut the mustard.

 

>I've read some long-winded, dressed-up posts

>here that would have

>been more easily understood had they

>edited out all the filler.

 

Agreed, but long-winded posts and ten dollar words are two different things. Some folks here have more exotic vocabularies than others. The words they choose are the words that spring to mind. Should they dilute their own economy of thought so as to provide a more monosyllabic message?

 

>I just think it's best to

>consider your target audience. Sure

>there are times when it is

>appropriate to use the "big

>words",

>but if you look them up

>in the dictionary, there's always

>a simpler word that means the same

>thing.

 

It's true, but for some, opening a dictionary would only slow down the communication process. If the right word is at your fingertips, why look for another one? So what if it's not the simplest word possible? I respect the fact that many who post here with obvious levels of intellect don't assume the rest of us are cavemen. When I open a dictionary, it's usually to define a word I've come across whose meaning I don't know, not to dumb down my existing vocabulary. I'm not saying simple words make anyone sound dumb, I'm just always grateful for a chance to learn and use something new, especially a word, because words are the greatest tool that people have as a species.

 

>In the short time that I've

>been posting on this site I've been

>called the Pope, Hall Monitor,

>petty, insecure, creepy, self-righteous...but as I

>just said, I believe that when someone chooses such

>words it is more of a

>commentary on that individual and gives

>me some insight as to

>what sort of person they are.

 

That's a fine defense mechanism, but you should consider the fact many initially impartial observers will look toward the target of those slurs before they look to the author. And if enough of those digs and negative labels accumulate from enough varied sources, some may come to view them as truth. I'm not saying I do, but the list you've presented above does say something about reactions to your posts that others may find unsettling. Perhaps it's the lack of nuance in those posts. That was a joke (ha), and personally, I only see you as outspoken. A quality I like in people in general (until they start yelling, at least.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Regulation:

>

>Name calling? Wooo...I'm soooooo hurt by

>that. Can you do better

>than that because I don't

>how name calling can help

>the already weak state that

>you're in now.

>

 

Sorry, Zack, but no matter how many times you try to change the subject, I'm going to keep bringing you back to it. You were busted for "no-showing" a client and then denying it. Why keep trying to weasel out? It's right here on the message board for everyone to see.

 

 

>As for philosphy, I bet you

>know nothing about it.

 

 

Do you know anything about it? Give us the short course on the concept of karma and where it originated. If you can.

 

 

You

>poor thing. Did your

>mother not give you enough

>love as a child that

>you feel like you have

>to go on antagonizing a

>"hooker?"

>

>Zack Evans

 

 

My mother knows what I do for a living, Zack. Does yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Konga

Put a little English on it

 

>I tend to think of prostitutes

>and hookers as women.

 

Me too. I can't escape the cliche'd image of the tattered and teased tart, the crumbling painted lady, strung out in hotpants and ripped fishnets, leaning into a car window to give a handjob to some ad exec cruising Hell's Kitchen on his lunchbreak. An unsightly stereotype taught to me by countless visits to Hell's Kitchen (that's a joke.)

 

>On the other hand, if someone

>referred to a hustler, that

>would always bring to mind

>a man, not a woman.

 

I always think of Jackie Gleason when I hear the word hustler. Odd, I know. I think it's because he played Minnesota Fats in the film "The Hustler", starring Paul Newman. I wish Paul Newman would pop into my head instead. Even at 106 (or however old he is), he still looks pretty good.

When I hear the word escort, I can't help thinking of a tall dark guy in a Tuxedo, who doesn't say much but has a killer smile, looks fantastic, and is whispered about covetously by the other women of means at the Ball. And I can honestly say that whether I like it or not, I do seek a degree of that image in the men I hire. With the exceptions of a Tuxedo, and they must be able to carry a conversation.

 

>One of the great things about

>the English language is the

>richness of its vocabulary --

>several times larger than other

>European languages. To say

>that all words mean the

>same thing is to lose

>that richness unnecessarily.

 

No kidding. Imagine if everyone had a vision of a leering Jackie Gleason chalking up a cue stick when they heard the word hustler. We'd put escorts out of business.

But cue sticks remind me of billiards, and when one attempts to strike the cue ball with the subtlest of finesse to get a specific response from it's trajectory and target ball, this delicate style of cueing is called "putting a little English on it". I guess sport also imitates life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Not everyone on these message boards is a

>college graduate...some may not have

>graduated from high school. I just

>think it's important to take

>into consideration your audience when

>formulating your message.

>

 

Agreed. However, that's different than talking down to people or assuming your audience doesn't have a command of the language.

 

I tend to think I have a pretty good command of English vocabulary, equivalent to most college grads. But Will's is much stronger and much deeper than mine. One of the things I've enjoyed about reading his posts over the last year or two has been the discovery of new words; often he will use a word that I will have to look up in order to understand his meaning.

 

I don't find this annoying and I welcome the chance to expand my own vocabulary. And it's extremely fast and easy to do if you keep a bookmark to an online dictionary.

 

The one I use is the online Merriam-Webster, just because it's fast. The URL is http://www.m-w.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Put a little English on it

 

>>I tend to think of prostitutes

>>and hookers as women.

>

>Me too. I can't escape the

>cliche'd image of the tattered

>and teased tart, the crumbling

>painted lady, strung out in

>hotpants and ripped fishnets, leaning

>into a car window to

>give a handjob to some

>ad exec cruising Hell's Kitchen

>on his lunchbreak. An unsightly

>stereotype taught to me by

>countless visits to Hell's Kitchen

>(that's a joke.)

>

>>On the other hand, if someone

>>referred to a hustler, that

>>would always bring to mind

>>a man, not a woman.

>

>I always think of Jackie Gleason

>when I hear the word

>hustler. Odd, I know. I

>think it's because he played

>Minnesota Fats in the film

>"The Hustler", starring Paul Newman.

>I wish Paul Newman would

>pop into my head instead.

>Even at 106 (or however

>old he is), he still

>looks pretty good.

>When I hear the word escort,

>I can't help thinking of

>a tall dark guy in

>a Tuxedo, who doesn't say

>much but has a killer

>smile, looks fantastic, and is

>whispered about covetously by the

>other women of means at

>the Ball. And I can

>honestly say that whether I

>like it or not, I

>do seek a degree of

>that image in the men

>I hire. With the exceptions

>of a Tuxedo, and they

>must be able to carry

>a conversation.

>

>>One of the great things about

>>the English language is the

>>richness of its vocabulary --

>>several times larger than other

>>European languages. To say

>>that all words mean the

>>same thing is to lose

>>that richness unnecessarily.

>

>No kidding. Imagine if everyone had

>a vision of a leering

>Jackie Gleason chalking up a

>cue stick when they heard

>the word hustler. We'd put

>escorts out of business.

>But cue sticks remind me of

>billiards, and when one attempts

>to strike the cue ball

>with the subtlest of finesse

>to get a specific response

>from it's trajectory and target

>ball, this delicate style of

>cueing is called "putting a

>little English on it". I

>guess sport also imitates life.

>

 

 

This is wierd ... every time I reply to this post, it goes up a level.

 

Anyway, the post I've copied above is the one I simply wanted to reply to:

 

Nice post. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

Konga and Bilbo posts #55/#56

 

There are situations where it is more appropriate to use the ten-

dollar words. Some people tend to use them in an effort to conceal rather than to reveal. Please don't take what I've said

to the extreme. I have always been an avid reader and I have an

extensive vocabulary myself. I also like to learn the meaning of

a new word now and then. But as I've already stated, I think

some people tend to use their command of the English language

to somehow bolster their argument which may be lacking in

substance.

 

I never said I "eschew", or as I would say "avoid" distinctions.

I use the words prostitute, hooker and escort interchangebly

in describing my profession because to me they are all words for

the same thing. It really depends upon the context in which they

are used. Plus, I don't apply a negative connotation to a word

simply because someone else may find it offensive or vulgar.

The dictionary definition of "prostitute" makes no distinction

as to male or female and "hooker" is merely a slang word for

prostitute. Whereas the definition of "escort" makes no sexual

references.

 

"Balderdash" is the more commonly used word from the 17th

century used to describe euphemisms. And instead of "literateness", I think "literate nature of" would be best to

describe what Will likes about these message boards. We can

engage in this endless dissection of each other's posts until

the cows come home, "'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and

fury, signifying nothing'" There are as many ways to express

ourselves as there are people in this world. I simply believe the

message you are trying to convey is more important than the words

you choose to do so. Thanks guys for giving me something to do

this HOT(93 degrees)afternoon. The pool here at my apartment

has been broken and won't be open until this weekend.

 

http://Jeff4hire@aol.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot and muggy here, too, after the flood. I had been about to suggest that you might get a tall glass of something cool (Would it be an egg-flip where you are? I had a very nice Orchata at lunch.) and find a place near the fan. Does wonders. I speak as one who knows, love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jizzdepapi

the word thing

 

>Agreed, but long-winded posts and ten dollar words are two different things...

 

well i know a little bit about existential phenomenology, and even hermeneutics, but i'd rather talk about how papi fucks me.

 

:O

 

jizzdeheidigger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>Yes, it's an act of compassion

>and a common courtesy to

>apply a euphemism in place

>of words that you know

>will be painful or unsympathetic

>to hear. "Dearly departed" as

>opposed to "Dead guy."

>

 

It's not an act of compassion to try to prevent others from using words that express what they mean because you don't like what they mean, and that is what is going on here when people are yelled at for using words like "hooker" and "prostitute."

 

In my student days, after a class discussion of illegal immigration a classmate came up to me and asked that in future I stop using the term "illegal immigrant," which he and others found "offensive," and instead use the term "undocumented worker." I can remember staring at him with the same amazement that I would have shown had he asked that I speak only in Urdu. The whole point of the discussion, of course, was that the persons in question had entered the country illegally. And the whole point of this website is that we are discussing people who perform sex acts for money. I can't for the life of me understand why some people here want to pretend that this is about something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Konga

>It's not an act of compassion

>to try to prevent others

>from using words that express

>what they mean because you

>don't like what they mean,

 

True, and I never said it was. But it's an act of maliciousness to deliberately use terms that are sure to inflict injury; an act of thoughtlessness to use terms that you know might possibly inflict injury; and an act of vindictiveness to deliberately misconstrue and twist the words of others towards your own ends. These are just general observations that I hope many would agree with.

 

I must say that I believe you're the first to mention "like" or "dislike" in regards to specific word definitions in this microthread. And other than yourself, I don't think anyone is trying to prevent anyone else from doing anything. Merely offering observations. I'm sorry you find mine disagreeable.

 

>and that is what is

>going on here when people

>are yelled at for using

>words like "hooker" and "prostitute."

 

I also believe that you are the first to "yell". But let me guess, you're not going to let anyone else who does get away with it! Seriously, thanks for filling us in on what is going on here, but raising the pitch and tone of this discussion makes you, dare I say it, guilty of doing what you've accused me of. What's a euphemism for hypocrisy?

 

>And the whole

>point of this website is

>that we are discussing people

>who perform sex acts for

>money.

 

You sound as if you're browbeating a confession out of a suspect.

 

>I can't for

>the life of me understand

>why some people here want

>to pretend that this is

>about something else.

 

I think this website is about alot more than chatting up the escorts/prostitutes/whores. In recent weeks here, among many other things, I've learned about: herpes symptoms and treatment, song lyrics, the Independant Film Channel, the story of Abraham, why we pray, spontaneous combustion, political correctness, how to give head, censorship, what a papi is, email etiquette, befriending an escort, great travel advice, tips on tipping, recommended gay literature, AIDS awareness, where to stay in NY, why a penis tastes funny, a nice cheesecake recipe, and the compassionate use of euphemisms, which is what I was talking about in my earlier post, and not specifically whore v. hooker. If everyone who contributed to the many threads listed was only "pretending" to be interesting, informative, and passionate, then I'm shocked and will fire off an angry letter to HooBoy immediately.

Perhaps you're irritated that this site is not exactly what you would like it's point to be. But if the point was nothing more than the sole discussion of prostitutes, then we'd be here every night as "fans", "consumers", and nothing more.

If you're not irritated, I apologize, but that's what I picked up from your bluntly scribed post, and in response to it's terse subtleties, I reiterate:

 

>>any amount of nuance applied to communication in any capacity merely demonstrates a desire (need) to be understood, along with being a show of respect for the sensibilities of whoever you're communicating with.<<

 

Well, I certainly understand you, and you've shown the level of respect you're willing to put forth in this instance. So I stand by my statement.

 

>>Bluntness of language has a time and place as well, no doubt, but very often will not impart the finer points of your message, and at times may even offend.<<

 

This still holds true in your case if a finer point exists. If not, blunt point taken, and thanks for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

>Yes, it's an act of compassion

>and a common courtesy to

>apply a euphemism in place

>of words that you know

>will be painful or unsympathetic

>to hear. "Dearly departed" as

>opposed to "Dead guy."

 

Let me reiterate that I'm not saying we should at all times be

so blunt. I just believe in using euphemisms sparingly. I often

use the words "hooker" or "prostitute" not only to be clearly

understood, but maybe I enjoy fucking with people's sensibilties.

When I apply these words to myself... there is no negativity

attached. How long will it be before "escort" becomes offensive

and the PC police want us to use yet another word or term. I

think it has more to do with the context in which a word is used

and who your intended audience is.

 

I call black people...black people,not African-Americans, because

unless they were born there they're not African anything. Should

I call myself Irish-Scottish-Welsh-American Indian? I believe

if you are born here you are an American. White people born in

South Africa are South Africans. If they move here should they

be called African-Americans also?

 

>That's a fine defense mechanism, but

>you should consider the fact

>many initially impartial observers will

>look toward the target of

>those slurs before they look

>to the author. And if

>enough of those digs and

>negative labels accumulate from enough

>varied sources, some may come

>to view them as truth.

>I'm not saying I do,

>but the list you've presented

>above does say something about

>reactions to your posts that

>others may find unsettling. Perhaps

>it's the lack of nuance

>in those posts. That was

>a joke (ha), and personally,

>I only see you as

>outspoken. A quality I like

>in people in general (until

>they start yelling, at least.)

 

I'm not here to curry favor with posters on the board nor am I

here to win some sort of popularity contest. I try to state my

truth, my experiences, my opinions in a manner that effectively

communicates my message. I'm not responsible what others think

about what I've said. If they CHOOSE to focus more on the words

and applying their prejudiced definitions...so be it. But when

they start with the name-calling because they disagree with what I've said...I just assume they have exhausted their abilities to

further discuss the issue/topic in a mature fashion. And, unless

I go off my anti-depressant and mood-stabilizer, I'm not likely

to start "yelling" at anyone anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>True, and I never said it

>was. But it's an act

>of maliciousness to deliberately use

>terms that are sure to

>inflict injury; an act of

>thoughtlessness to use terms that

>you know might possibly inflict

>injury; and an act of

>vindictiveness to deliberately misconstrue and

>twist the words of others

>towards your own ends. These

>are just general observations that

>I hope many would agree

>with.

>

 

Sorry, but I've seen too many on the Left try to shut down discussion of issues on which they feel vulnerable by claiming that the use of certain words "inflicts injury" on them or others. If the discussion is too painful, don't participate, but don't try to stop others from saying what they think.

 

 

>I also believe that you are

>the first to "yell". But

>let me guess, you're not

>going to let anyone else

>who does get away with

>it! Seriously, thanks for filling

>us in on what is

>going on here, but raising

>the pitch and tone of

>this discussion makes you, dare

>I say it, guilty of

>doing what you've accused me

>of. What's a euphemism for

>hypocrisy?

>

 

If you are looking for more euphemisms, you are asking the wrong person.

 

And if you are looking for hypocrites, try looking in the mirror. It was I who started the discussion of euphemisms in this thread, and I've been quite consistent in my statements on the subject and in my tone. I've said from the beginning that I think they are being used, particularly when it comes to the subject of this message center, to distract and conceal and silence, rather than to communicate. I've seen this sort of thing often enough that I find it quite easy to recognize when it appears.

 

>You sound as if you're browbeating

>a confession out of a

>suspect.

 

And you sound as though you are angry that you can't force the rest of us to confine ourselves to the terms that YOU think we should all use. But the fact is that you can't. You'll just have to live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hustler, prostitute and escort (as used here) may all mean exactly the same thing, i.e., someone who has sex for money, but the CONNOTATIONS are entirely different and to ignor this fact leads to the offending situations referenced by previous posters.

 

I just watched the movie, Rentboy 101, on Cinemax last night. It was about hustlers who frequent Santa Monica blvd. In general, I found the subjects to be sad, somewhat pathetic individuals, as different from most of the "escorts" reviewed here as Pavarotti is from Eminem, though both could be categorized as "singers".

Surely we are preceptive enough to understand the distinctions and to use words which express the connotation we wish to convey. Those that are incapable of seeing the difference, I must assume, make no distinction and are rather contemptuous of those who I would, respectfully, call "escorts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>I also believe that you are

>the first to "yell". But

>let me guess, you're not

>going to let anyone else

>who does get away with

>it!

 

What I am not going to let anyone get away with is creating his own personal definitions of words in my native language and then telling me that I am no longer allowed to use those words because, according to his definitions, they are offensive.

 

>I think this website is about

>alot more than chatting up

>the escorts/prostitutes/whores. In recent weeks

>here, among many other things,

>I've learned about: herpes symptoms

>and treatment, song lyrics, the

>Independant Film Channel, the story

>of Abraham, why we pray,

>spontaneous combustion, political correctness, how

>to give head, censorship, what

>a papi is, email etiquette,

>befriending an escort, great travel

>advice, tips on tipping, recommended

>gay literature, AIDS awareness, where

>to stay in NY, why

>a penis tastes funny, a

>nice cheesecake recipe, and the

>compassionate use of euphemisms, which

>is what I was talking

>about in my earlier post,

>and not specifically whore v.

>hooker. If everyone who contributed

>to the many threads listed

>was only "pretending" to be

>interesting, informative, and passionate, then

>I'm shocked and will fire

>off an angry letter to

>HooBoy immediately.

>Perhaps you're irritated that this site

>is not exactly what you

>would like it's point to

>be. But if the point

>was nothing more than the

>sole discussion of prostitutes, then

>we'd be here every night

>as "fans", "consumers", and nothing

>more.

 

As one who has often been chided by other visitors to this message center for bringing up subjects that go beyond a simple discussion of hookers and hooking, I find it more than a little ironic that I am now being slammed for the opposite reason. Nevertheless, I consider it beyond dispute that that is the subject around which this site is organized and which draws people here. I am not ashamed to admit that I visit a website that is primarily about people who perform sex acts for money. If you feel so uncomfortable about it that you want to pretend it is really about something else, go ahead. You have every right to do that. But you don't have the right to demand that others join in the pretense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theron

>Zack, let's try to maintain some

>connection with reality, shall we?

> You're a prostitute, not

>a psychiatrist. You're not

>qualified to diagnose emotional problems

>in others. Given what

>you do, most psychiatrists would

>probably say that you need

>some serious therapy yourself.

>That's not my field and

>I can't help you with

>that. I can only

>tell you that when you

>make didactic statements about

>an area of which you

>know nothing, you can only

>make yourself look silly.

 

What a double standard you present, Regulation. You are not qualified, either, to decide what most psychiatrists would think about escorts, and your implication that most psychiatrists would probably say escorts need srious therapy, given what they do, is way out of line. Do you even like escorts Regulation?

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 7Zach

Interesting post, Ohio, but I pretty much disagree that words must be distilled to the most basic and carry the strongest (read most harsh) meaning. Sure, escort is an euphemism, but hey, a lot of the people i have hired did not fit into my mental image of the word prostitute. Perhaps we need to add gradations to the word itself to better convey the meaning it has to me? teasing. But I see ur point.

However, I have never heard the word "balderdash" used to mean anything other than nonsense; Merriam Webster even said possible derviative of middle ages lating. U sure about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest regulation

>>I can only

>>tell you that when you

>>make didactic statements about

>>an area of which you

>>know nothing, you can only

>>make yourself look silly.

>

>What a double standard you present,

>Regulation. You are not

>qualified, either, to decide what

>most psychiatrists would think about

>escorts, and your implication that

>most psychiatrists would probably say

>escorts need srious therapy, given

>what they do, is way

>out of line.

 

Oh no, it isn't. As a matter of fact, there was a discussion on the subject at the APA annual meeting in your hometown last year. I have a friend who was present and very kindly filled me in on what was said.

 

See what I mean about making statements in an area of which you know nothing? :-)

 

>Do

>you even like escorts Regulation?

 

I don't like escorts who "no-show" a client and then deny it, as Zack did with N.N. Do you like escorts who do that? Like Zack, you seem to want to distract people from the issue that started this. Why? Does it embarrass you to admit that there are escorts who behave that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for you. This issue between Zack and N.N. occured between Zack and N.N. And both Zack and N.N. have stated (about a thousand posts ago) that they both consider the issue resolved.

 

So why is it that you and Regulation consider it not resolved and refuse to let it go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...