A Different Kind of Service

[bluenix]

Some of the recent postings to this site raise an interesing (to my mind, anyhow) dichotomy: descriptions of encounters seem to be based either in the transactional (I want two hours of your time) or in the relational (I am hiring you to satisfy certain emotional needs).

 

Is it an over-simplification to notice that those whose interests are transactional tend to look down on those who hire escorts for relational/emotional reasons? And, to whatever degree this may be true, WHY is it true?

 

Just curious.

[Boston Guy]

>Some of the recent postings to

>this site raise an interesing

>(to my mind, anyhow) dichotomy:

>descriptions of encounters seem to

>be based either in the

>transactional (I want two hours

>of your time) or in

>the relational (I am hiring

>you to satisfy certain emotional

>needs).

>

 

I would suggest that you consider the possibiliity that both groups are hiring an escort to fulfill and/or satisfy certain emotional needs. Even relieving boredom is satisfying an emotional need.

 

>Is it an over-simplification to notice

>that those whose interests are

>transactional tend to look down

>on those who hire escorts

>for relational/emotional reasons? And, to

>whatever degree this may be

>true, WHY is it true?

>

>

>Just curious.

 

Yes, it is an over-simplification. Further, I don't believe it's accurate or that there is even any basis for that observation.

 

If anything, I would think the reverse might be true. But both are generalizations that likely to be wrong as often as not.

[Guest regulation]

>>Is it an over-simplification to notice

>>that those whose interests are

>>transactional tend to look down

>>on those who hire escorts

>>for relational/emotional reasons? And, to

>>whatever degree this may be

>>true, WHY is it true?

>>

>>

>>Just curious.

>

 

>If anything, I would think the

>reverse might be true.

 

If you check out a thread in the Deli section entitled "I Like Escorts" you will find several posts slamming people who think of the hooker/client relationship as commercial rather than emotional. Some of them are quite harsh.

[Bilbo]

As in many other things people disagree about and can't see being any other way for themselves, I think that the two groups occaisionally fall into thinking less of each other. I can't see that either group has a monopoly on the occaisional put-down.

[Guest CZ]

I'm mostly with BG & Reg on this one.

 

Throughout posts on both boards (and stretching far back into the archives) I think you'll find each camp looking down on the other with varying degrees of pity and/or contempt. As a strict 'transactionist' myself, I have to fight back the urge to patronize 'relationship' clients, and I'd like to think I've learned to be gentler about this over time.

 

But 'relationship' guys do seem to be harsher toward their opposites. Whatever the real reason, my own take on it is that they're unwittingly proving the case against them, since people

protecting a cherished fantasy tend to be a lot more intense (defensive?) than those who claim (cynically?) to see the world with eyes wide open. Another thing: the 'relationship'

guys, having natural allies among the escorts who post here, probably outnumber the 'transactionist' contingent.

 

How's that for a string of cunningly intertwined generalities?

 

One quibble, though. I think it's something of a sophistry to posit 'boredom' as the sole motivation for a transactionist to hire an escort, and then, by calling it an emotion, to lump transactionists with those trying to fill an 'emotional need.'

[Guest Meister]

I refrain from judgement about any reason for hiring an escort; we all have every right to hire for whatever reason. Separating the sexual from the physical is not likely to be a simple as some would like to think it is, simply because of the old saying that the brain is ultimately the largest sex organ in the body.

 

Personally, I do try to keep a distance. If I found myself being attracted to an escort on a personal level I would probably not hire them again, and I have been in this position. This is simply because my attraction is based on so little real information of the escort. This is a signal to me that I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment, as the client/escort relationship is not likely to fully sayisfy the emotional needs that have been triggered.

[Bilbo]

CZ - I might posit that incoming fire always seems harsher than outgoing fire. Perhaps you perceive the romancers as being more out for blood because its your blood they're out after? Conversely, it's a sure thing that any attack by someone who agrees with you is sure to be purely defensive and not an over-reaction? Remember, I'm thinking that this tendency would be in effect on both sides.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Yes, it is an over-simplification. Further, I don't believe it's accurate or that there is even any basis for that observation.

 

Total agreement here too. I think a few have have reacted to a few others and engaged in an unfortunate generalization. All painters need to remember to choose the right brush for the job.

 

:-)

[Guest bluboy]

I think the relationship guys are completely deluded and crazy. I am all for fantasy but relationship and emotional fulfillment is reality not fantasy. So I do look down on the other side. Yes escorts are people too but they are not being a "people" to you when you pay for their time. Yes, your therapist listens to everything you have to say but he is not your caring friend he is being paid $100 plus per hour to hear you wine- a thing which few friends will do which is why you pay to have someone to do it. The best escorts will fake it the best and it is ok for you to fake as well for the time but the moment you start saying to yourself: he is so sweet, lets be friends or let me buy him gifts or pay his rent etc...get out you are in too deep! An escort can pretend to satisfy your emotional needs but nothing more and if you all you have is the escort to satisfy the need, you need to get out more and meet some people who do not want your money but are happy with your time and witty conversation. blu

[Losgatan]

One final point:

 

Do I think my "companionship time" with Adam improves the sex we have together?

 

Yes, again. From my perspective, I get the pleasure of enjoying sex with a person who's a whole lot more to me than a collection of body parts. From his perspective, I'm not just another anonymous 60-year-old who needs to get his rocks off.

 

Again, why is this so hard to understand?

[Losgatan]

>I think the relationship guys are

>completely deluded and crazy. I

 

Let me take one more crack at this. There are people in this business who really fun to be with -- out of bed. They're well educated, well read, well travelled. In short, they make wonderful companions and that's part of the reason I like to hire them.

 

These people don't have to pretend to be nice. They just are. No games. No charades.

 

It's no accident that my favorite San Francisco escort works under his real name. He has nothing to hide from me or anyone else. He's simply one neat guy.

 

Does this mean that I have a "special" relationship with him? Of course not. Does it mean that I like to be with him and that we've developed some genuine affection for each other? Absolutely! And does that constitute a form of friendship? I don't know what else to call it.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

>but the moment you start

>saying to yourself: he is

>so sweet, lets be friends

>or let me buy him

>gifts or pay his rent

>etc...get out you are in

>too deep!

 

Only sickies fall into that trap and I'm definitely not one of them.

[Guest CZ]

>These people don't have to pretend

>to be nice. They

>just are. No games.

> No charades.

>

>It's no accident that my favorite

>San Francisco escort works under

>his real name. He

>has nothing to hide from

>me or anyone else.

>He's simply one neat guy.

>

>

>Does this mean that I have

>a "special" relationship with him?

> Of course not.

>Does it mean that I

>like to be with him

>and that we've developed some

>genuine affection for each other?

> Absolutely! And does

>that constitute a form of

>friendship? I don't know

>what else to call it.

>

>

>What's so hard to understand about

>that?

 

It's not hard to understand at all. But I, for one, don't understand it the same way you do. That you may have developed some genuine affection for an escort is not to be doubted: if you say so, of course I'll believe it. But you're really no more able to judge how genuine HIS 'affection' for YOU is than I am. There's only one objective way of doing that--by finding out how much 'companionship' time he'd give you if money were not involved. If the truthful answer is 'none,' we're right back in transactional mode.

 

Of course there are many escorts who are nice, decent guys. Since they're that way by nature, it's not surprising when it shows in the way they do business just as much as in their more personal & private interactions. But good manners & thoughtfulness don't add up to genuine affection; and unless you think that business savvy is 'a form of friendship' I don't see why the idea of friendship should be evoked at all.

 

Maybe the nudge & wink formula that an escort is being paid 'only for his time' isn't so factitious after all!