MightyPen

Huh! 47 here. The summary is about consistent with my experience, particularly at work. Okay, now I've gotta go research the methodology... :) EDIT: yeah, okay, so it's about as accurate as a horoscope. :) Not really a Dr. Phil associated thing either, but who cares about that? Ah, well, still fun. See: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/trivia/philtest.asp

Congratulations! And thanks for being my first ever CERB "Friend". :) Looking forward to the next five years of your posts!

A spade drill bit: I did not know these things existed until today. And it's ex-ACT-ly what I needed. Learn something new every day, etc. etc.

Congratulations OldGuy! Thanks for all your contributions.

Well done, and thanks!

Realnicehat is bang on: it's a considerable difference owning cats vs. dogs. I've had both (though the cat belonged to my girlfriend at the time). Cats are solitary creatures, and dogs are pack animals: so if you have a dog, prepare to provide the PE, or Pack Experience. A LOT. Your dog wants to be with you, and to DO things with you. A LOT. Cats are mostly okay if you feed them and they'll let you know if they want to cuddle for a bit now and then. Your dog will become depressed if you don't walk him/her, play with him/her, and make him/her feel loved and part of something. On the other hand... that's just true of any worthwhile relationship, so love your dog and make him/her an active, ongoing, frequent part of your life and you'll get all of that back in spades. It's the only really unconditional love. Incidentally I have two dogs -- siblings from the same litter so they've known each other from the womb onward. Much as I love my dogs and doing things with them, they provide each other with a kind of peer companionship I can't give them. They love to sniff things together, bark at things together, and lick each other's ears, and at least one of those things I'm not much inclined to do. I'm definitely NOT suggesting getting two dogs now -- it's a double handful. I already had one rescue dog from midlife to heartbreaking finish, and only took on two in this second round of dog ownership after a pause of many years. That said, for those who feel up to it, I can report that I think it does wonders for both of my dogs to have each other in addition to me.

Ha ha! Good catch! :) And thanks. Firefly. *sigh* All the years we never got to see, and yet that awesome half-season we did.

Oh! Yikes! Hey! Look at this! Oh! Wow. Geez. *blush* Thank you so much Cristy, and everyone who has posted here. I just saw this thread now and you've rendered me sort of speechless. :) I think my internal monologue went pretty much like that first sentence up there. You guys have no idea how much I value this place as an outlet for my own thoughts, and a treasure trove of other people's insights and ideas. I mentioned to another member recently that the main reasons I'm moved to write my own thoughts in such detail here is because I respect the honest contributions of everyone else here. These are the kinds of conversations, on the kind of subjects, that you just don't get to have very often... especially with more than one or two people at a time. Also, if you'd like a hand knocking MightyPen down a peg or two after all these kind words, I'll let you know a secret: the reason I missed this thread all evening, at least 'til now, is that I've been sitting here at my computer playing "XCOM: Enemy Within" for, like five hours straight. :) My dogs are MOST displeased they got only their walk and no playtime! But really, thanks for the compliments, and most especially thank you for making the community so worth contributing to.

This tells you that she values institutions over individuals. She doesn't care what "mere" individuals get up to, but once you mess with a marriage or a family -- NOW she's offended. That's an old-fashioned view of things, in which (for example) a marriage is more important than the two people in it. Similar thinking makes people find a church more important than its parishioners, and loyalty to your country more important than questioning your government. Everyone needs something to believe in and value I guess -- she's picked some handed-down institutions. The structures over the people in them. *shrug* I can never get my head around that, but at least now you've learned something about your friend.

I agree that these forms of relationships have been around forever (Ben Franklin in Paris!); it's just that they're discussed more openly now that the once-immovable conservative lid is lifting off the culture in general,* and sexuality is a large part of that. My impression is that young people on average really are more open about sex, and having sex earlier and without nearly as much guilt or fear as 30 years ago. But that said, even if young people's sexual bell curve has shifted sharply in the "permissive" direction, that still leaves plenty of young people on one trailing end of that curve who still avoid it out of fear, or simply choose to abstain, and those who do have sex earlier but weren't especially keen or ready for it. Also, stuff I read suggests that while casual sex is much more common, it's a kind of porn-ified, detached, indifferent kind of sex; and young people are as confused as ever about integrating sex into their emotional lives, and vice versa. * this was almost: "the once-immovable conservative lid is lifting off the cultural pot, and letting loose the thick, steaming, bubbling and complicated stew of our formerly suppressed or hidden sexuality! And onions." ... But I realized the metaphor was getting away from me.

That, and not having children. Many people cannot conceive of a life lived without marriage and especially without having kids. Many have never imagined that these things are choices, and treat them instead as unquestionable edicts. And many who will inquire about their absence with an initial air of kindness soon turn to condescension ("Oh, you'll change your mind!" "It's different when its yours!"). Then if you continue to explain your position, they take offense, as though by being secure in your own choices you are denigrating theirs. The world's full of all kinds of people. The most adult thing you can do in life is know yourself, and construct a life in accordance with your own nature. It's often harder than taking the better-traveled road, but I think it's much more rewarding to carve our your own.

Uh... not all. :) I'd guess that's true of the majority, but there are plenty of single guys who see SPs too. These are two separate issues. I think that for all the reasons cited so far, a public audience presented with a talkative client will be heavily inclined to just dismiss the messenger rather than challenge their own preconceptions. If someone thinks that johns are by definition pathetic and degenerate, then they won't want to listen no matter how well the argument is presented. I think a first few dents in the armour of preconception will have to come from someone who's already admired -- the wealthy, the powerful, the accomplished -- who aren't just caught with prostitutes and then scurry away from the spotlight, but actually choose to talk about their motives, their experiences, and their plans to continue seeing them. Their obvious personal merits will mitigate against outright dismissal. With that small question mark planted in the public's mind, there will be an opening for others to say "I'd like to reinforce that message if I may..." without being simply ignored and condemned. Ultimately the stigma will be worn away only when people realize that clients aren't caricatures, but people they actually know -- and I'm reminded here precisely about the way gays are perceived today compared to ten years ago. It'll be the cumulative effect of many large and small acts of courage, combined with the continued emergence of a younger and less uptight generation who aren't still working on Victorian views of social and sexual mores.

It's a different group, though I suspect they'd be perfectly happy if the Legion sold both. I don't think this will make any kind of dent in the Legion's fundraising; it's a tiny initiative and a lot of people will wear both anyway (that's what I plan to do).

I think it's great to nail senators for abuse of their office and the public purse. I don't much doubt that all three deserved to be booted from their positions. But I'm also deeply suspicious of the politicized process by which these investigations are being carried out. Can you just imagine all the backroom meetings throughout the city, and the late-night phone calls jockeying to plot out each coming day's script? All the arm-twisting from the PM's office and all of those with equally dirty hands to channel the investigation HERE and HERE but not THERE? So I sense that it's as much of a grotesque political show as it is a serious investigation of real ethical breaches. Sigh.

I think it makes perfect sense to wear both, though I also think that the white poppy alone still does everything the red one does, and then more. The white poppy points out that veterans' sacrifice is both something to be honoured, yes, but also for that very reason a thing to be avoided in the future if we can. I don't think this sentiment diminishes respect for veterans, any more than I think the red poppy alone glorifies war. I find the claims in the news that this "politicizes" remembrance day dubious, since saying "we should take this moment to commit ourselves to working for peace" is no more political than "we should take this moment to respect the heavy costs war imposes on our fellow citizens, present and past." They're both excellent ideas.

Cool poll! I think there's an option that slips through the cracks though, and has one foot in each of your two options: the guy who would like to retire in principle, but whose circumstances make it unlikely he ever will. Best example is a married guy in an unhappy and sexless marriage who feels he will never leave (for whatever reason) and so will continue finding some joy and comfort with paid companions forever... but would in principle prefer to be working toward another goal and finding what he seeks in conventional relationships and then stick with that. Which option does he choose? He won't be retiring, so a); but he'd like to in principle, so b). So I guess "I love it and see no reason to retire" is overloaded with concepts. Not retiring may not have to do with unreservedly loving the "hobby", nor an inability to conceive of a reason to do so. Lest you think this is autobiographical, I'm not married by the way. Just thinking out loud. :)

Dude, "against" is entirely your own insertion there. Huh. It's almost as if we just did our own little Rorschach test, but with my words instead of pictures! I don't see the division as remotely adversarial, it just reflects two different conceptual spaces.

Worrying about numbers, high or low, is just one aspect of the complicated psychology behind sex and its association with personal worth. It's a dangerous and spiky pit to fall into, because that number is really only a reflection of one set of social skills and hardly defines our overall worth. But it's so emotionally loaded that yeah, people get kind of weird about it. That said, there are a few reasons people might be concerned about a high number of partners, and they're all bad. - if you're just sexually insecure, you'll be worried about your lover comparing you to former partners and you fear you'll come up short. Antidote: sex isn't a single uniform experience subject to objective competition; it has many facets and is a different experience with every partner with different psychological and emotional context. You vs. another is apples vs. oranges. Just focus on making the apple the best apple you can; that's what he/she will value most. - people might really believe, if only subconsciously, that everyone only has so much affection/passion to give, and if they've had lots of former partners then their supply is diluted among all of them -- and most importantly, by implication, he/she is less invested in this relationship than you are. (For an extreme example where this is easier to understand, assume someone's partner's number is 100 and theirs is 1.) Antidote: understand that affection really doesn't work like that. Once again, every relationship is unique and people are able to invest and bring their full faculties to bear each time. Focus on being a good partner, and you're you're more likely to receive their full commitment. - people might really believe that ever partner beyond 1 saps your virtue. Antidote: grow up. Fundamentally, if you're worried about your partner's history instead of your present moment together and maybe your future, YOU have a problem. As a general principle, and on issues ranging far beyond just sex, you shouldn't be trying to make a prison for your partner out of the events and decisions in their past; instead you should be helping them to open the doors to any prison they may have built for themselves, and be whoever they want to be today and tomorrow.

Wow! It so depends on my mood and the kind of relationship I'm looking for with the person. First to mind as friends: Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird Malcolm Reynolds from the Firefly tv series/Serenity movie And romantically: Inara Serra, the "companion" from Firefly -- wait, I already know some very close approximations to her! :) Beatrice (from Joss Whedon's Much Ado about Nothing movie, as played by Amy Acker)

Uh... no. Not like that. (Ew.) It's really just shorthand for "those who do not participate in the industry, and therefore usually lack direct experience and understanding of its nature and dynamics." Or... "civilians". Though I really don't see it used here very much at all. Yes it does. And usually, they don't. Heck, there's a whole, very long thread active right now on that very subject. The concept of a community makes sense, 'cause it distinguishes those of us who have direct experience seeing escorts from those who don't, and the gulf in perception and understanding of the sex industry's providers and clients that just about everybody reports from dealing with, uh, non-participants. It's not community in the sense of "we're special and others keep out!", but rather "knows and gets it" vs. "doesn't know and doesn't get it". Cool! Thanks. On the subject of retirement: Really the answer to "why and what does it mean?" will be as varied as the answer to "why do people see escorts in the first place?". It varies from person to person, and from time to time.

Congratulations, and thanks for the posts! :)

This, according to a combination of observed data and mathematical simulation, is the structure of matter in our universe -- the way mass is distributed throughout space on the very, very large scale. It's not uniform and boring; instead it's made up of unthinkably enormous filaments and clumps: This isn't a picture of the whole universe, just the small fraction that the project was able to work on and simulate. And each of those individual pixels of light? they're not stars. Each one is a GALAXY.

Holy crap! Those VHS tapes must be worn completely through! ;)

I approve of porn entirely! For personal use. But during a session... nah, no thanks. I really like to focus on me and my SP partner, right there, in the moment -- sensing and acting upon however we uniquely appeal to each other and sexually inspire each other. Having porn acting intrude into that space -- "uh! ...uh! ...uh! ...OH!...OH! ...OOOOHHHH!!" would mostly just have me thinking "will those people please shut up? We're busy here."

I agree with that statement. See: "irony". Also, call the above "Quote A". I think people have been saying that the women on CERB are a better-known quantity, that's all. In particular, the ladies here are active amongst a persistent public community and you have a chance to get to know them over time from their posting history and forum interactions. It's a rather long stretch to get from there to "GOOD vs. BAD" which, though I'm not going to read through the whole thread again, I don't think anybody has actually said (except you, there, just now). I don't have a problem with people seeking specific services. I do that sometimes myself. There's absolutely nothing wrong with expressing a specific desire in advance. The dispute centers around how one responds when the provider expresses, for any of a thousand possible reasons that may be important to her at the time, a disinclination to perform some intimate act with you once the session is underway. And THERE's the problem. The SP always has final discretion in the intimate service she chooses to provide. And you cannot know the SPs mind, or what might be compelling for her at a given moment or in a given situation. And yet look at your sweeping statements I've bolded above. Now, go back and read "Quote A". Yeah.