MightyPen

Like others in this thread I'm at a point where I'm most interested in the contents, not the packaging. My eye can still be drawn by a pretty face, nice curves, and clothes that are tasteful with a touch of sexy. But I've too often seen these things fail to deliver on their superficial promise, so I don't put much faith in them by themselves any more. I can appreciate them still, but they don't really stir me. The thing that really gets my attention is someone who's engaged, energetic, looks people in the eye with a smile, and who has bent but not broken in the face of life's inevitable setbacks. I find I'm really drawn to a woman who has a bit of poise, humour, playfulness, and a slight elusiveness -- a sense that there's always something more about her that's still unrevealed and which it's tremendously rewarding to keep working at. And for the long term, someone I have confidence can contribute actively to building something unique together.

Love is so enormously important. At its strongest it promises that you can transcend that fundamental human barrier: "maybe I'm not alone after all." When romantic love is at its height, it's almost supernatural in its intensity and its power to transform our sense of who we are. Finding That Person feels like it's part of the awesome clockwork of the universe. "I've finally found my soul mate! She completes Me!" But over time, you realize... that's an illusion. She's just a human being, not the answer to the puzzle that is You. You MADE her into that ridiculously superhuman creature in your own mind. In the end yes, you care about each other, but she's not there by Fate. Same with that overwhelming supernatural bond with children. "He's my perfect little darling baby! His love is absolute and unconditional! It's the wonder of reproduction! This completes Me!" ... until you discover that no, your child is actually a separate human being with his/her own ambitions, not just an extension of your own ego. You might wake up one morning to the sad discovery the the kid you thought was so wonderful is actually just another asshole, and you need to keep your distance. Both of those feelings of love are overwhelming and wonderful while they last. You'd do ANYTHING for your girlfriend/boyfriend/son/daughter. But... that's just your reproductive faculties speaking. If you don't recover from the spell and get some perspective, then the object of your love can seize on that unquestioned commitment and manipulate you to your ruin. Your husband can treat you like crap or fritter away everything you own, but you'll stay because it's Fate and he's The One. Your kid can steal your car and rape and murder, but you'll mortgage your house and burn your savings for Him or Her because S/he is EVERYTHING to you. It's madness. It's your genes talking, and your genes are mindless idiots. That said... I'm realistic but NOT cynical about love. I think it's fantastic and one of the most valuable and constructive emotions we have. Because we're NOT alone. Granted, that supernatural sense of transcendent connection is an illusion, but there is SOME connection with the people who do love you back, and that's critical. In the end, love and its outcome is exactly what you make of it through your decisions and your actions. Be devoted to the people who care about you and who have proven themselves reliable. Do for them, as they do for you. Build a family, not based on shared genes or what you said 20 years ago in front of a priest, but with the people who year after year have proven themselves worthy of your commitment and devotion. Don't live in solitude; it wastes the best part of being human. And love is the glue that keeps such human allies together. "Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel." (Oh, and dogs too. Naturally they're honorary human beings. But you knew that.)

Heal up and get well! Best wishes.

Cool. I think it's not always in the power of the participants to put in place the boundaries that serve everyone's long-term interest instead of immediate gratification. It takes an outside authority (the collective we) to enact and enforce the rules that server the general welfare. Obviously a problem in this gray industry. Cool here too. I guess my main concern is that talking about bareback activities amongst civilians with relatively few partners is a very different subject than the "merits" of bareback FS involving SPs; the SPs are at enormous risk due to both the number of partners and female vs. male risk factors. It's just madness for a client to seek, or an SP to offer, BBFS even in relatively healthy Canada. But... I agree these risks have been covered on this and other threads, no need to resurrect those arguments.

"The market" produces sweatshops, child labour, and kiddie porn. "The market" will blithely chart the point where those who want it can even get bbfs. "The market" says nothing about whether its outcome is good or laudable, it just plots all those points where anything that's desired finally gets close enough to shake hands with someone else's willingness to provide it. That willingness might be coaxed by more cash, or simply extracted by the provider's desperation at some particular moment. Pay enough, or find someone desperate enough, and sure... "the market" will eventually provide just about anything you can think of, no matter how bad an idea it is for one or both parties. Despite the thread we're in, I make this point not to condemn bbbj; I just have no patience for the idea that "the market" is an unquestionable arbiter of desirable outcomes, and that its workings are good for all participants. When your alternative is starvation or eviction for you and your family, you can just barely be described as a free and willing participant in the market for a service you then provide. It's not always civilized to let "the market" take its course. Human values often require intervention, and at least some regulation. This glosses too breezily over what factors might play into what a provider decides is "appropriate". Several admirable and insightful SPs in the last couple of days have stated clearly that they push the line to a place they're not entirely happy with, because that's what it takes to secure clients in "the market". And only an untalented SP, having already made her decision, will let you know during an appointment that yes, the market has forced her into a place she doesn't want to be. I'm troubled by this sentence, but maybe you mistyped. Did you really have BBFS in mind here too?

True; I had in mind voluntary removal of the condom, not breaks or accidents. My point to the client in that situation was, "you will not have been unique in this regard."

I think that any time the condom comes off, the uncovered act that follows is exactly as unsafe as it was 30 years ago. You're diving "head-first" into one big pool of shared particles populated by your SP and all of her clients, and all of their partners, and all of yours. There's no getting around that. That's compounded by the recent (and inevitable) rise of antibiotic-resistant strains of STDs in the news. It's not just AIDS that can change your life forever.

It's as dangerous as you think. It's a lot like a client saying to an SP, "hey, can I draw some of my blood with this needle and inject it into your veins during our session? Don't worry, I'm totally clean." It's a ridiculously stupid, reckless, and insulting thing to expect. I think there are two things going on here: a) the client may genuinely feel like sex with a condom just isn't the same and he really wants the full unprotected thing (and he's a complete idiot, ignorant or for some reason indifferent to the obvious risks to health and life for both involved) b) the client wants to prove he can force his will past the woman's sensible boundaries; essentially proving "my money puts me in charge and you will deny me nothing I want". Anyone looking for this is simply insane.

Homemade chicken stew, dark bread from a local bakery, and a Strongbow cider! (Or two.) Truly hit the spot on a chilly winter's night.

Those are really good points. And the classic motivator for soldiers is the fear of letting down their brothers in arms. I'm going to hang on the view, though, that at least sometimes it's purely the aspiration for something good, and not just the dread of the alternative, that motivates us to strive and overcome our fears.

Keep in mind too that "morals" vary immensely, depending the principles you start from. There are many different yet legitimate ways to construct moral systems. Even if we somehow had a guarantee that everyone would start acting strictly "morally" tomorrow, the result would be chaos because even honest standards would vary so widely. The functions of law isn't just to enforce morals for those who have none (and act on basic instincts); it's simply to set the standard of behaviour that "we" collectively have chosen to enforce, regardless of everyone's different, individual moral codes. And really I think that's the tension -- my code versus "our" code -- that leads to breaking or challenging the law, more often that NO code vs. "our" code. I think there are very few people who live exclusively by their own code or exclusively by the law all the time. Additional Comments: I agree that fear is a powerful and basic motivator. Every life features tension between fear and desire; some would say fear and ambition. For non-human animals it's more often just fear vs. hunger. But yeah, fear can't be the most powerful motivator, or else soldiers would never go over that wall, we'd never go to that first job interview, or we'd never have asked that boy or girl out on a date. We all find our own solution to that tension, and even for a single person that balance can be different all the time. Fear is a valuable and healthy indicator about any situation. So is anger. Neither should be acted upon all the time; but it's good to be aware of them, because they both help point the way to a problem that needs to be solved. That said... I agree with you that most people would generally rather avoid risks, and their level of desire, or ambition, or hunger has to be pretty high before they'll risk breaking the law. As a side note: the way I've constructed that last paragraph makes it sound like the noblest people rise above their fear and choose valiantly to ignore the law in the pursuit of their own goals. Hooray for the human spirit! But... what if the desire in question is felt by a pedophile? What if the ambition is felt by a would-be brutal dictator? Sometimes we should cheer when the law triumphs over someone's individual code.

What's that saying? "...a time and a season for all things...". The depth of feeling you have about the companion you've lost is a perfect indicator of how fortunate you were for the experience in the first place, and to have had her company for the time that you did. That's one of those things in life; early on it keeps giving you new things and experiences, but over time you're forced to deal with the feelings when something, often completely out of our control, takes them away. It's always a hard transition, but I find that grief eventually gives way to that second sentiment of appreciation. And while it's common to feel like a lost partner was The One, that's not true... what you've really learned is that such experiences are possible for you, and while there's still time you should look for them again. Don't forget anything; that's never the point. Let your memories of what's possible motivate you into moving forward. I always hated it when people would make these kind of statements when I was in the midst of grief; it sounds so trite and almost like it's trying to trivialize the loss or the person I missed. But not so. Really it's just an assurance that you've had a wonderful human experience, and it's worth searching for again. You can absolutely recapture that feeling with someone new. But you need to put in some work to get there. That's one of life's great adventures. So you're Columbus and you discovered the Bahamas? Awesome! But now that's behind you, time for another voyage. Cuba and the Americas are waiting. I guess my only practical advice is: time. And to not stop trying with new people. And try not to let the shadow of your old experiences get in the way of appreciating the new ones while they're happening.

I'll have to answer a weaselly "it depends": on who you're talking to, when you happen to catch them, and what acts you're talking about. I don't rob banks because I perceive the harm it would do, and because I wouldn't want other people to rob me; so yeah, in that case it's my own convictions. But I'm certain there are some people who would love to rob banks, but stop only because they don't think they can get away with it. So for them, the same choice is one of simple fear and obedience. I had to think for a while to come up with anything I don't do only because the law forbids it. Best example I could come up with was the speed I drive on the highway; on the open road between here and Toronto I'll usually go just a hair under 120. I could go faster safely; but the fines start to get silly, and you can never really predict where the cops might be. So my behaviour in this case isn't completely governed by law, but it is curbed. That said, if I had some kind of emergency the equation would change and I'd go however fast I needed to. So yeah, for me it depends on what we're talking about. Related note: I've often thought that "you know people by the rules they break." Anyone can just follow all of the rules, and you could never tell if they were behaving that way because that's what they wanted to do, or because they were just obedient and restraining their underlying nature. But when someone breaks a rule (in this case law), they've made a clear decision and so you're more likely to be seeing the "real" them. Those actions provide more valuable insight into their character. (Though even here I can think of exceptions.) Maybe more topically: how many clients here would still be seeing SPs if they lived in the States and it was illegal? Would they see them as often? Would they post on CERB as freely...?

Looks like it's time for a refresher on the law, courtesy of Breaking Bad. According to this extraordinarily skinny would-be meth buyer, "if you ask a cop if he's a cop, he's, like, obligated to tell you. It's in the Constitution." [of America]. But make sure you ask it, like, official. Let's see how that works out for Badger. (I'll seize any opportunity to post a clip from the best tv show ever made!)

Hang on a minute though. In the era of Fox News, we can't dismiss the fact that corporate media can absolutely seize upon an audience's worst instincts and fan that flame into a bonfire if it will turn a profit. I agree that men and women have been checking each other out and assigning themselves a rung on the ladder since the start of the species. It's not the media's fault that we're like that. But... it deserves some blame for reinforcing that message almost every minute of every day. Private media exists to make money, and it's hugely profitable to exploit people's insecurities about self-image and whether they actually deserve to be loved at all. It starts with just showing us what we already want to see -- check out the conspicuous youth and beauty of everyone on American television. People will tune in more if every cop and scientist is hot. But there's also advertising that earnestly tells everyone in the audience that YOU have a beauty problem getting in the way of true happiness, and it has just the solution to sell you. What's that Don Draper says? "Love was created by guys like me to sell nylons". I wish it was just the simpleminded who made easy prey, but even smart people can trip over their innate insecurities. And slickly produced media -- television, magazines, the ads on billboards and in bus shelters, everywhere you look -- spend a lot of money to exploit those insecurities and turn them into money. They've had a long time to get very, very good at it. There's a science. We kind of take it for granted that the media works this way, but it doesn't have to. We can stop it. After all, you don't see cigarette ads any more; the ads themselves were bad for everyone. They made promises they could never keep ("You'll be as handsome and rugged as a cowboy!") and took your money and your health in the process. Maybe we shouldn't stop with cigarettes. Is our mental health less worth protecting? But there's a fight to be waged against a deeply entrenched habit of thought. Check out the sometimes ugly backlash against Girls, an intriguing show that defies conventions of beauty and the male's expectations of women's behaviour. One of its main artistic pillars: "fuck the male gaze". In the same way, the campaign that's the focus of this thread is still the exception in today's world of messaging... and that's pretty sad. (Sorry, that went on longer than I planned. Constructed culture is a big subject for me.)

Maybe the problem is simply that the SP's working name is the same as that of the client's wife, or his daughter, or someone else in his life. I guess I can see how that might be an obstacle. EDIT: I've just figured out that the OP is herself a woman, so... the SP could even have the client's own name! So a change of genders, but same in principle.

Weird that my last post was about a guy reacting badly to being denied a service and treating an SP poorly. This is the other side of the coin; when a client becomes attached and a line blurs. The line was there for a good reason. Now feelings will at least be badly bruised, and what had been a great relationship within its natural boundaries is ruined. I once lost a treasured friendship with a fantastic woman, who was married but (it turned out) feeling neglected. She made overtures, I knew that acting on them would ruin an awesome friendship, and as I tried to save things they instead collapsed. I was stunned how quickly we lost something so valuable built over a long time. It's not the same thing Cat describes, but it's another example of two people with necessary boundaries, and what you lose when one of you tries to cross them. Everyone gets hurt and you tragically waste an important part of your life. Keep perspective, and value the good things you do have for as long as you can. They're rare enough as it is.

Woah! That's an enormous difference. I thank you for clearing things up. I acknowledge that in light of what you've explained, the second part of my statement: ... would not have been supported by the post you intended to write.

Okay, let me try again with less metaphor. In explaining your own reply to the OP ("that's why there's a search function") you've emphasized one aspect: that it was teaching him self-sufficiency instead of simply handing the guy the thing he's asked for without explanation. And you're right. I'm suggesting there's another aspect that's just as important, and that's some warmth, friendliness, and generosity with new folks. We could serve both purposes with a response to his post something like: "Sure, here's a link to that; and I got it by doing X." And although I'm sure not intentional, your reply was perhaps terse enough that it didn't serve this second purpose very well. I'll bet you find that an unjustified and skewed interpretation of your initial post. That's cool. I thought my bit of metaphorical flourish in my own explanation was darkly funny and directly to the point, but for you (and not just you) it clearly was not. So, see? We both made mistakes yesterday. I suggest we blame the internet, communicating via text, and the problem of conveying our full intentions in hasty thread postings. ;) Happy to move on.

Google the build-a-man-a-fire quote instead and it'll save you some time. :) G'night. Keep well.

Time for a stern letter of rebuke to Terry Pratchett! ;)

I'll give you "unexpectedly gruesome". But speaking logically, it's very much to the point. It came to mind because friends and I have been using that counter-example among ourselves for years.

Similarly: build a man a fire, and you've made him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and you've made him warm for the rest of his (brief) life. Which one's better? Burning the poor new guy right out the gate is a bit harsh and might scare away a valuable new contributor. I get the principle of self-sufficiency you're going for but hey... there are all kinds of ways to show a guy how to help himself, and some are less stern and aloof than others.

It's the difference between an arrangement that says "I'll give you this if you'll sleep with me", versus one that says "sleep with me or I'll take that away from you"... when "that" is the place you live. This isn't just "an alternative to convention"; it's threat and exploitation. For a client-SP relationship to be ethical there needs to be freedom of choice on both sides, at all times. But the OP was setting up a situation where someone made an agreement at one point in time in exchange for a place to live, and would then be held to that agreement at least weekly or be thrown out of her home. For some people -- especially someone willing to sign such an agreement in the first place -- being thrown out of a home can be extremely serious, and she may feel she has no choice but to compromise herself seriously to avoid it. I thought at first that he'd missed that coercive element of the relationship. But then it turned out that he was specifically interested in her dependence upon him, because of the leverage it gave him over the terms of her service. I sometimes pay women to (hopefully) have sex with me. That doesn't preclude me from condemning, let's say, human trafficking in the street trade. Nor from calling out a plan for exploitation when it's laid out so nakedly.

Dude. You'd be creating a situation where you exert power over her, and she's required to have sex with you according to a schedule or else you can threaten to take away her home. It wouldn't matter that you'd found someone foolish enough to sign such an agreement on some particularly dark day. What happens when she changes her mind about the service? What if you no longer "like" her? She has to leave her home because she's not servicing you? And what if she was so desperate that she had nowhere else to go and is afraid to say "no" or she'll be kicked out; she's now your monthly sex slave? Do not do this. Do not even consider putting another person in such a horrible situation. Additional Comments: Oh for fuck's sake.