MightyPen

Like others, I hardly discuss my sex life with anyone but my partners themselves. And most of the people I might be inclined to talk to about the sex industry's role in my personal life would react badly. I would get a lot of silly, misguided "but how can someone like YOU do THAT!?" One of the problems is that to do that conversation right, you have to both describe what DOES happen, and work hard to dispel what they THINK you mean when you say "I visit prostitutes". For that you need time, focus, and someone who can be thoughtful and challenge their own media-driven (often emotionally charged) preconceptions. To do all that, there needs to be some benefit that's worth all that work and risk. I've talked about it with one friend I knew when those circumstances lined up right, and she was great. We covered a lot of ground, she had natural concerns that I addressed one by one, and she understood by the end the positive role sex work could play with free, willing participants. I've also found myself stepping up in conversations to defend sex work and sex workers, without saying I'm a client. I can see this continuing to evolve.

Heh. Yeah, I've seen tall people in offices collect a few to stick under the legs of their desk to raise the whole thing a few inches, and quit banging their knees all the time. Or pile up a couple of phone books and sit their computer monitor on top so they don't crane their necks. For this kind of stuff they're GREAT! But other than that... mm... nah, if you've got a computer, no purpose at all. (Side note: don't forget, some people still don't have computers. Those folks should always have access to a phone book, so there's a good case for delivering a phone book to anyone who asks for one. Also, I suppose a phone book is handy so you can look up computer repair places when your computer dies. And, uh, that's assuming your phone can't do that all by itself. :) )

I think marriage can be a great institution for two grown-up people who enter into it thoughtfully and aware. At the same time it's not a precondition for happiness, it's not the only "right" way to live, and for a lot of perfectly good and healthy people it's just a really bad fit and better foregone. The seed for marriage is romantic love and passion, but it's intended to grow into something more in which two people support each other's lifelong hopes and ambitions, and promise to be there to care for each other even through sickness and setbacks. There's got to be something kept exclusive to the relationship, reserved only for your marriage partner and which makes that relationship unique (otherwise why be married at all?). But what that exclusive thing is depends on the couple. It doesn't have to be sex... but whatever it is, the partners need to agree about it and set the boundaries beforehand. Problems arise though when people expect their marriage to be the *everything* of their lives, all the time. Or when one or both people grows into a new and different self, but they take no measures (or try and fail) to adjust their relationship to match. So yeah, there's lots that can go wrong with each marriage, but that doesn't mean it's doomed as an institution. Like anything else between two people, the participants need to communicate and adapt over time for things to keep working. Problem is, since marriage is so often entered into when young and idealistic, and marriage itself perceived with highly-charged awe, it can be very hard to stop and look at it objectively as a thing the couple themselves own and can alter to the shape they need. A really short version of all that would be: marriage can work really well when the couple themselves own the marriage, but seldom works well when they feel the marriage owns them.

Yup, the delight and fulfillment I get from a good session with a wonderful lady usually affects the way I see myself and the world around me for days, and in its wake follow a bouquet of daydreams and a whole series of quiet little smiles to myself. That subsides after a while, but most of the time I carry one or two particular moments and images from each session with me forever. That's just one of the ongoing rewards.

Now that's dedication! Nicely done; thanks and many congratulations.

Dude. You've got a remarkable talent for delivering an apology in a way that says "what a shame it is that everyone but me sucks".

She's very pretty and all, but what really catches my attention and makes me smile is those last few seconds when she bursts out laughing. She's happy and having FUN, and can laugh at the whole thing. And that makes her intriguing and truly attractive. 'Cause that attitude will spill over into everything she does, and will make her a joy to be with even when it's nothing at all to do with sex.

Close, and good on ya for apologizing. I'd only point out that your final conclusion is off the mark. It's not that you won't find those answer "here", it's that you won't find them "this way". "Here" is actually a pretty awesome, thoughtful and informative place. So here's to tomorrow being a better Thumper day! ;)

Well done, and thanks! Keep up the good work. :)

I'm an atheist, but not an angry or scornful one. I've got room in my heart for anyone who's honest and generous in their own attempts to find peace with the universe and the other people in it. And you know who, provisionally, seems kind of cool to me? Pope Francis. I've got no patience with the church as an institution; like all institutions it's ultimately about power, about preserving itself and its own prestige, and about attracting people who think that if they just join up, some of that sense of entitlement and superiority will rub onto them. But Francis has lately been saying some things that evoke the best of what religion has to offer as a philosophy: to love and aid others. To forebear judgement while helping less fortunate human beings. And to remember that we're all part of one interwoven community of fellow human beings, rather than just little economic entities in perpetual competition with each other. Some pretty neat discussions on this subject from someone who really knows his stuff: Andrew Sullivan on 'This Extraordinary Pope" Francis isn't going to be perfect, and he is still ultimately saddled with all of the church's backward attitudes toward reproduction and, well, lots and lots of other stuff. But some of what he's saying is a step in the right direction for redeeming the useful role religion could still play in a (thankfully) legally secular world. And that's something we sorely need when almost the only messages we see any more are purely political (vote purple!) or economic (buy more purple!). Though to harken for a moment waaay back to the original post in this thread... no, Francis isn't likely to encourage even freely-entered sex work, and that's too bad because there is something healing and spiritual to be found there. But to his credit, it seems like he wouldn't launch in to a lecture either, but instead would start a conversation on the subject. At last we see someone who advocates religion for its ability to hug, instead of to slap.

Mmm... not so much. "Entrapment" means the police have somehow actively enticed you to commit a crime that you probably wouldn't have committed without their prodding. For example, if they posted a highway sign that says "NO COPS NEXT 100kms!" and then stopped all the opportunistic speeders. It's their active role in contributing to the crime that creates the problem. A cop sitting passively by and observing a crime -- even if he's completely hidden -- poses no legal problem at all. Complaining "but I wouldn't have done it if I'd known you were there!" won't get you far as a legal defense.

Well, the show certainly went out with a bang. Last night's series finale averaged 10 million viewers -- more than triple the number for the previous season's finale. That's approaching the much-envied Walking Dead numbers (about 12 million). Word of mouth and availability on Netflix seem to have played big roles, allowing newcomers to catch up in advance of the finale. The suits must be pulling their hair out that the series won't be continuing and pulling in ad money with those numbers. Three cheers for artistic integrity, and knowing how to leave the room when your story is told and you're on top.

I've got this recorded and will be checking it out tonight. Somehow I had Masters and Johnson confused with Alfred Kinsey in my mind... very different people and appraoches! I'm looking forward to this. And I'm glad to see it got a good review from my go-to writer about all things television, Alan Sepinwall: Sepinwall reviews Masters of Sex

I remember the first time I stumbled across this concept, though not the term -- in the movie "Reversal of Fortune" (1990). It's about a wealthy upper-class couple in New York, and at one point Jeremy Irons' character reluctantly informs his wife that his latest relationship "may fall outside the boundaries of our agreement." It's been a while since I saw the movie, but younger-me's interpretation at the time was that they allowed each other to have little affairs, but their love and devotion were reserved for one another. (That's maybe too romantic a spin on it for such a detached and ultimately doomed couple; looking back now, it may have been more about appearances.) I imagine this can certainly work, like any arrangement can for the right couple. At the same time, I imagine lots more people think this can work, than actually find that it can in practice. Personally I might find the rule "love nobody but me" a more onerous burden than "fuck nobody but me"; we love lots of people in lots of ways in our lives, and I'd hate to give that up. You'd need to be very clear what was and wasn't allowed within this type of "monogamy" ("monoamory"? should we invent a word here?), and that would be hard.

Yeah, this seems like a pretty dodgy offer to me. "If you give me a little off the price now, I really really promise to come back a lot more later!" Uh-huh. First off I agree with all the SPs' comments so far based on their experience, and their reasons why this isn't really a very good idea from the SP's point of view. But if you're determined to try, I'd say you need to be the first one to make an investment and take a risk. See your favourite MA as a steady regular for two years first at her full rate. Prove you're a genuine regular. Then maybe you can broach the option to pay her for, say, the next full year in advance with some kind of terms. But if you don't like the sound of that, then maybe it shouldn't be surprising if the MAs aren't lining up to take you up on your long-term promises, either. Just a thought.

Sigh... now I'm all sad. *snif* :( Really liked the finale; it did a great job of tying up lots of loose ends and giving us final glimpses of a few minor characters (way to go Badger and Skinny Pete!). I give this last-ever episode 9/10, and it loses the one point only because, unlike almost any other episode of Breaking Bad, you kind of knew ahead of time the major beats it had to hit and the mood it would strike at the very end. And yet it still got there masterfully. I'm thankful for a show that reminded us that television doesn't have to be "just t.v", but can in fact be real art.

Yeah, this one really annoys me; it's a classic case of "'my immediate convenience is more important than the safety of everyone else around me (including my passengers)." About half the time I see a car make some crazy-assed manoeuver or nearly clip something or someone, the driver has a phone glued to his/her ear. And there are SO many alternatives these days -- hands-free interfaces, or just pulling off the road while you're on the phone -- that I've got no patience for any of these tired excuses.

Yeah, this is really miserable behaviour. Most of all, it makes me feel terrible for anyone these guys contact who, due to whatever unhappy circumstances, actually accedes to the request. (Are these guys even for real? Do they show up for these appointments? Or is it just some sad guy making stuff up, seeing if he can get someone to agree to put themselves at risk like this?) Hmm. There was just a news story about an Ottawa cop who would set up appointments with SPs only to show up in uniform and deliver a safety talk. Maybe we could flip that around, and set something up with the city whereby BBFS-seeking clients are strung along enough to show up to an appointment, only to be greeted by a Health Services doctor in a labcoat who sits them down and delivers a long lecture about STDs and their questionable mental health.

Yeah! I saw that earlier today. Inexplicably makes me a little sad, as if I actually knew the guy. Ah well.

Geez, you'd think if they were going to go to people's homes and discuss the issue, they'd use terms that people outside the telecom industry could understand -- or at least explain them. What's the point of going to someone's door only to tell them "there's some non-trivial flabberghasting with the secondary optical subwidgets"? Just tell them that service is dropping and you need to look at stuff to fix it.

Two little ones close to my heart. Five years ago: Last winter:

I know this isn't remotely on the menu you're intending, but while thinking about this I came up with "knead and seed" and decided I have to use that in a conversation sometime before I die. Also possibly: "stroke and poke" and... uh... "untighten and delighten" (!?!?). Okay, now I'm coming up dry.

Uh... wow! First, horrible that the guy would exploit his position. Second, interesting that online discussions are playing a role in the investigation. Third, a wag of my finger at the SUN for its headline, in which they write the term escorts as 'escorts'. Seems kind of dickish.

You know, like you Chanel I thought it was a sort of standard industry term that promised the advertiser had a kinky side. But after reading this thread I see that the term means many things, and sometimes nothing, and only some of its meanings are what they were. Still, I think "open-minded" remains a valuable phrase in your advertising to reassure the kinky among us that you're receptive to playing off in those special corners of the sexual map. For those clients who take it another way... well, you can sort them out when the time comes.

I'm dropping into the middle of an ongoing conversation here, but I wanted to pick up on this point in particular. Sex is an enormously powerful psychological thing, with such deep and unpredictable subconscious roots that maybe it's not surprising that people can have... issues about it. Among the many things sex can be are a) a demonstration of one's power, by which I mean "the means to obtain a thing that's desired," and b) a way to achieve a unique kind of personal validation. Problem is, it also comes with the built-in possibility of the opposite should sex goes wrong: a sense of powerlessness, failure, and rejection, each as overwhelming as one's sexual desire is in the first place. Insecure people will use sex to achieve those positive rewards, and can react very badly indeed if things look like they might go the other way. And it can be very hard (sometimes impossible) to tell ahead of time who might have a hidden agenda and trigger. This is one of the things that I imagine would worry me the most about being an SP; that you might not know until it's too late, and the two of you are physically close and compromised, before you discover there's something nasty going on. And no matter how well equipped you are to handle this once it arises, it's at very minimum going to be really unpleasant to deal with. For that reason, it makes perfect sense to me that an SP's spidey-senses would be scanning the communication and other behaviour leading up to an encounter for clues about a client, even for seemingly trivial things that could just be mistakes, but... might not. And yes, any kind of petty social power play -- perfunctory or disdainful messages, getting all cat-and-mouse about following rules to test boundaries -- would be a definite flag. Of course that analysis is easier to do when speaking to someone, and subject to the usual limitations when interpreting text alone. Tough job. I know I couldn't do it.