MightyPen

There's of course no one blanket answer to the whole problem of people dependent upon assistance. Let's at least start by recognizing that there are many groups here: a) Yeah sure, those who are dependent on social assistance and wouldn't change even if they could. These are the folks that people talk about 'til their head bursts and who give the system a bad name. Then again -- capitalism, baby! Make the minimum investment for maximum possible return and screw everyone else and any sense of a larger duty to the society around you. Aren't these people doing exactly what our greed-based economy teaches them to do, and what we reward corporations for doing all the time? b) A set of people who are dependent and would like to escape, but don't know how and have no examples to follow; also, those who don't have the personal, internal intellectual or emotional resources to change. We need programs to reach out to these people and offer a path to better themselves. I personally think this accounts for a very large segment indeed. We who function in society forget how intimidating it is, and how insurmountable its minimum demands can seem when they've been outside your reach your entire life. c) The set of people who are capable of change, but whose circumstances prevent it. As an example: divorced single parents now struggling to care for kids they had in better times, and for whom jobs are unmanageable because they would cost more than they would bring in (daycare costs, transportation, a long series of things impossible to manage when you're isolated). There are people who manage to rise out of these circumstances despite the difficulties, and that's awesome. My own family worked hard to overcome humble beginnings. But let's not be too quick to judge those who are still struggling with the challenge. And when we're tempted to ask "gawd, how can they continue to live such tragic and unfulfilled lives?", maybe we should also ask: how do some people linger so long in sexless or loveless marriages? Financial self-neglect; emotional self-neglect. See, sometimes change is too terrifying, or the expected financial or social cost of change just seems too high. People get paralyzed in bad circumstances all the time. I try not to judge either case. As black and white as it looks from the outside, we just don't know all the circumstances. Who'll cast the first stone?

Oh heck, despite competing instincts, I'll just get this out there. Maybe pour encourager les autres (he said with full sense of irony 'cause yes, it was like an execution). Oh my god it was horrible. After a terribly shy and reclusive adolescence (long story), I finally started getting interest from women in university. I declined a couple of pointed offers from some women who didn't really interest me as politely as I could (see: gentleman), hoping to find something meaningful and honest. But then: (1) I was 24 (yes that's right) and with first girlfriend, who had approached me and I acquiesced. As things began, she was stunned to learn this was my very first time ("Never!?") and my Man Stock immediately plummeted close to zero. She offered little to no help, it was awkward and awful, and the brief relationship ended very soon afterward. (2) Because (1) really only counts for 1/2 despite being technically a success. The next opportunity was about year later. Classmate and I were extremely attracted to each other, and it had been building for months. Finally we're at my little apartment at night and I was extremely nervous; also, I'd stupidly (but understandably) concluded from experience (1) never, ever to reveal my inexperience because it would destroy any woman's opinion of me. As things began and she was on top of me, grinding hard against my leg and moaning, I slipped my hand under her shirt, up her back, and encountered... her bra clasp. I had no idea what to do with it. And I realized immediately that, in another five seconds, she'd know that I was totally clueless and I'd be doomed. Involuntarily, I giggled nervously. That brought everything to a screeching halt: she leapt off and retreated to another part of the room, I was too deeply stunned and ashamed to explain in more than halting half-sentences what had happened, and she would barely speak to me. One "Human History's Most Awkward Night's Sleep on separate beds" later, and extremely cold treatment from her in the morning, we parted ways and pretty much never spoke again, destroying what had been at least a very promising friendship 24 hours earlier. (3) Soon afterward I took up with someone else and it got better. Compared to (1) and (2) it was pretty mundane and straightforward so not worth the telling. I give myself enormous credit, after those first mis-spent 25 years, for how I've come along in the next 20. :)

I read these few sentences a while ago, but they've really stuck with me and now I find myself back at my keyboard specifically to address them. Holy crap it pisses me off that a guy would actually say that in your company. I'm so sorry Nicolette. The whole casual, backhanded nature of the insult and all the assumptions and judgement with a thin layer of "caring" to wrap it all up in: "Hey I'm here because you're fun to fuck, but now it's time for me to judge you. Boy your life sure must suck! Here, have some of my thinly-disguised pity and disdain." --puts on concerned face--. Should this happen again, please smack the guy hard directly in the balls, and then tell him it's from me. On an intellectual level I think you have it figured out Nicolette: it's their own shame and guilt speaking. Effectively, "boy we're both such low and pathetic creatures for having done this. Discuss." But on an emotional level I'm angry on your behalf, and I'm irritated at the kind of situations that clueless clients who are completely un-self-aware can put you in. For my part, I've found such great and healthy experiences with SPs that I tend to forget it can go other ways, even for the well-grounded women of CERB. I dunno. Rant over I guess. Not a lot of things make me really angry, but apparently this is one of them. All the best.

It's true, that particular war did take place during the first few years of the two decades I cited. I had in mind largely the postwar boom (and even that war period from mid-44 on, when victory was largely expected by most people, and their attention was already turning elsewhere). The postwar period was incredibly positive and forward-looking. Women's role in society was transforming thanks to their wartime employment, and socially there was no going back. People were picking up their lives and running with them, full of energy and optimism. I think the people who lived through those blossoming years would like to be remembered for those things too, and not just for the grim and solemn cloud of war from which they had worked so hard to emerge.

I agree; it's the elaborate clothing and the slight air of decadence in the wealthy and extremely well-dressed classes. The striking contract between public decorum and private, exuberant debauchery. I love just imagining all the complex layers with buttons and vents I'd find under one of those elaborate dresses... it would be like mastering a maze to find the prize. ;) And seriously. Benjamin Franklin? If that guy can score some triumphant debauchery in France, I'm totally going to those parties. I guess the only other era I envy that I haven't mentioned yet is the end of the 19th century. I've always wanted to carry a cane and wear a tophat & tails, and stroll down a foggy cobblestone street. Sherlock Holmes (as payed by Jeremy Brett...). I'm --right there--. I spent a week alone in London a few years ago and it was magical. I kept seeing superimposed ghosts everywhere I looked, spirits of the history and literature I'd studied all around me. It felt like home. PLUS I bought a little porcelain snuffbox from the rather cheesy Sherlock Holmes museum for good measure... there it is right over there on my desk this very moment. ;)

I think it's safe to say nobody really wants to go back in time and actually live in the times they're citing; I'm rather fond of modern medicine after all. :) Plus the marriage equality thing, and the like. But other eras can lay claim to something that's missing or absent from ours; it's all a matter of perspective. Plus, the cost of our elaborate digital lives is the eroding of personal contact. When your community is virtual, it's less inclined to be local; how many of us know more people more deeply on other continents than we do within 500m of our home? And e-mails aren't handwritten letters, each a little work of everyday art. Losses, for sure. Outweighed on the whole by gains, I think... but losses nonetheless. Hence, perhaps, this thread. ;)

40s and 50s; basically the Cary Grant years. Mostly because there was a whole social layer people had to navigate which is absent today. You wore a suit and a hat, but they weren't prisons; more like scaffolds for self-expression. There were elaborate constraints of social manners, but (like Cary Grant) once you'd mastered them you could play within them and convey an ocean of subversive meaning with a well-timed quip. I guess it was that cusp in time when what had been a crushing conformity of the first half of the century was eroding and setting the stage for the revolution that came in the 60s, but the trappings of the older social order were still there to have fun with in their twilight. Plus, you know, the underwear. Because c'mon, the 50s are the Bettie Paige years too! :)

Absolutely, and a critical point about lots of things other than sex. It takes a lot of work, confidence, and a fundamentally open mind to examine yourself and find what YOU want. If you don't do that work, or simply aren't capable of it, you end up just being what the prevailing culture tells you you should be. Sometimes you really do want the same things the culture expects of you. But other times... no so much. You make the point well here about our sexual lives Audrey but it's true of other things too. Should we buy cars? Get married? Have kids? Buy houses in the suburbs? Go to a church and do what it tells us? Lots of people genuinely want these things, and more power to them. Lots of others, though, just do them because they've simply absorbed the expectations of the culture around them, or of the people who have social sway over them. Tragic.

I was about to type a bunch of stuff about this ('cause it's one of my favourite subjects), but then I remembered I'd touched upon this very question before. Here, shamelessly copied and pasted to save multithreading, is what I wrote: This is a great subject. You can't really resolve it without looking at how the mind works. Every one of us has a map deep in our subconscious about who we think we are, how we think about other people, and how we think about our interactions with others. These maps get laid down while our age is in early single digits, and we can never, ever perceive them directly. They're completely beyond direct reach, yet they completely dominate how we move around the world of other human beings. One part of that map is devoted to sex, and once again it's completely beyond our ability to perceive directly. We can only get clues about it indirectly, when something we perceive or experience triggers a response. Do enough of that, and you slowly build up a sense of what makes you work sexually, like mapping the sea floor with sonar; most of it is flat, but every so often you stumble across a bump that tells you "something is here!". Thing is, that map is completely irrational. Some of it is built up automatically to guide us to reproduction, but it's also littered with whatever your single-digit mind had access to at the time. It's full of symbolic meaning that often has nothing at ALL to do with reproductive-oriented sex. There's no way to predict what might provoke a sexual response from your deep subconscious until you go exploring and stumble across what works for you. That's how you end up with sexual fetishes, or simple preoccupations. Some thing are charged with meaning; we have a growing thread here devoted to stockings (awesome!) which, objectively speaking, are just an impractical kind of legwear. Yet they trigger ideas about clinging closely to a shapely leg, of something slightly-hidden-but-visible, and of a woman's body pointedly dressed up to emphasize gender and therefore sexuality, rather than practicality. I'm always amazed by the variety of things that can symbolize sex, and provoke a sexual response, without being explicitly sexual. There are entire languages being spoken with clothing, with postures and attitudes, with dominance and submission, risky ventures, simple shared "naughtiness", Good vs. Bad, and the potency of sharing a secret desire. It's --so-- much more about the brain; the body follows afterward. See; LINK

It's unquestionably a sexual part of your body. It's just not a reproductive part. (See also: mouth) Once we get over the idea that sex and reproduction are inextricably linked, a lot of other things about sex become easier to grasp and new horizons open up.

This was a couple of weeks ago but... I was out alone in the woods walking my dogs around 11:00 at night. It was cold and crisp out, but I was warmly dressed and the air was absolutely still. There was a clear sky and a bright, full moon. Everything cast sharp shadows in the moonlight, and the trees' black branches were all covered with little white mounds of powdery snow. We were in a clearing, and the dogs were frolicking in snow up to their bellies and having a great time playing-fighting, chasing each other, and rolling around in the drifts. I stopped, looked around, looked up at the stars for a little while, then down again... and made myself drink in the whole scene, thinking "okay, this is why it's good to be alive."

Heh heh, I still remember the very first time I "successfully" masturbated to an orgasm and ejaculated. I freaked at the gooey stuff that emerged; my only reference point was sex ed classes we were doing in school at the time and the "discharge" I'd learned could resulted from some venereal diseases. So I struggled briefly with the possibility that, though I was a virgin, I'd somehow caught something horrible and my orgasm had just revealed it. Don't ask me how I knew enough to fear a diseased "discharge", but somehow hadn't grasped what the normal outcome of an orgasm was. I can't figure that one out myself. It was a weird and reclusive childhood. Didn't take me long to embrace it with enthusiasm though! Still a source of great delight. I love that altered state of my aroused mind, and how long it can be dragged out and teased. And then... isn't it weird how suddenly that state it can vanish immediately after orgasm? Weird.

The moods of other people are absolutely infectious, but I find I also have a kind of immune system of varying strength. People who are miserable or despairing can sometimes ruin my own day; other times I'm in a place that's balanced and reinforced enough that I survive the encounter unscathed and might even help them out in the process. Likewise, cheerful and positive people can lift me out of a slump, but other times I'm so deep in the crater and I've grown so used to the dark, that the light they keep trying to shine down is just annoying and I cling to the shadows despite their best efforts. So yeah, I find it's a mix... depends on them, but also on how deeply wed I am to my own mood at the moment.

I'm an advocate of the flu shot, but everyone gets to make their own choice. I'd just throw this into the mix: the flu shot doesn't try to make you clean, it actually makes you dirty on purpose.(1) It contains the actual virus (or parts thereof) in order to make your body stronger, not weaker. The virus you get in the shot is dead, so your body gets to learn what it looks like without the virus trying to kill you. And then your body will react faster next time you're exposed. It's the same process that would happen in nature if you simply were exposed to the living virus; your body learns its shape and you overcome it, left stronger for next time. But it's controlled. As Jesse Pinkman would say: Yeah science! (1) And now some community-targeted advocacy: C'mon -- who on this board can turn down a chance to get dirty on purpose!?!? And I mean that deep-down, it-runs-in-your-veins kind of dirty that's worth paying some money for. And you get the shot from a nurse. Who's making you dirty! So she must be a naughty nurse! Etc. etc.

The replies so far do a bang-up job of answering your question. I'll just reiterate that: - pursuing special interests is extremely common - you should briefly explain your interest during your initial inquiry; and - worst case, she'll say "no, sorry, I don't do that" but she won't judge. When describing your interest give enough information to let her know clearly what you're after, but not so much that you're writing amateur porn. ;) Something like: "Hi! My name is [name], I'm [gender] and [age]. I saw your ad on CERB and I'm considering making an appointment with you soon. I have a real fetish for X, and during our session I'd like to try doing Y and Z involving X. Is that possible? If so, an appointment lasting [duration] on [date] from #:00 to #:00 would work well for me. I hope we can meet, and I look forward to hearing back from you." If her answer is "yes" you can always provide some more detail about X, Y, and Z in a follow-up before finalizing the appointment. She may even have some suggestions to add, or questions of her own. Then you're off to the races. Good luck and have lots and lots of fun!

Clients who book with MAs or SPs and then don't show, giving the rest of us a bad name. Clients who haggle with MAs or SPs, giving the rest of us a bad name. Clients who are late, filthy, missing cash, ignorant, etc. etc. for the same reasons. Guys who think that having money makes them special or puts them in charge. That kind of stuff.

Never, ever, ever too old, unless you've let yourself think you are. And even the most mature escorts will always find some clients particularly interested in what they have to offer. Although I haven't seen it much in Canada, I've seen some escorts in their 60s on some British sites. They clearly feel sexy about themselves, and that alone makes them genuinely sexy. Some are slim and pretty and look younger than their years; others are more matronly, wonderfully self-possessed, and clearly still having fun and enjoying their sexuality. (Not only are they simply sexy women, but for the latter type there's an element of "proper lady isn't so proper after all", and that has its own appeal. Some revel in old-style, full-fashioned underthings, evoking the traditionally unavailable mature ladies from our youth now made available...) I'd book time with them in an instant. I rather wish we had the same thing here.

Well okay, following your example, I'll give this one more shot too. ;) The question is straightforward. There's no point looking for a less value-laden term, because the whole question is about the moral choice the decision represents (or doesn't, if your answer is "no"). And sure, because we can all agree that cheating is objectively bad, saying "yes it's cheating" really does mean saying "yes, that act is bad". But that's not the end of the story. Saying "you're doing something bad" is NOT the same thing as saying "you're a bad person". And that's the most interesting part of this whole discussion: when can a good person decide that cheating in some form is their best option? And we know from this thread and others that there are lots of ways someone can understandably arrive at that decision. Personally I just can't follow the "it's not cheating and here's why" arguments; that's why I said in my first post that they're all just convoluted rationalizations to me. It seems to deny the risks involved, and I think it shrinks away from the reality of the situation. But on the other hand, I'm right on board with someone who can say "yes, I know it's cheating, and yet I've made the decision it's overall the best course of action for my circumstances." You can make that decision with open eyes and still be a responsible adult. There's probably an interesting human story there, that can teach you something about how real grown-up lives can go. It's life, and it's more complicated than we thought when we were twelve.

Just far, far too many to name. If I had to pick one without knowing exactly who I'm recommending it for, it would be Arkham Horror. It's a cooperative game set in the 1920s in which the players, as a team of "investigators", try to stop the end of the world at the hand of the malevolent Old Ones and their minions. See here for more information: Arkham Horror The best resource on the 'net for boardgames is: Boardgame Geek Here's Boardgamegeek's list of community favourite games for exactly two players: Two-player games And the best Ottawa store for finding boardgame like those you'll read about on that site (including Arkham Horror) is the venerable Fandom II, located downtown at Laurier and Elgin; but it's a bit of a geek cave (I say affectionately) so be prepared. The "euro-games" like Carcasonne (or Settlers of Cataan) are good at encouraging cooperation and indirect competition, versus the traditional "I attack you!" American-style games that reigned for so long, and this can make them better candidates for family play. Ameri-games are for kicking your buddy's ass in cutthroat competition on the tabletop.

So did anyone else finish Life of Pi over the holidays? I'm all done and I'm curious to hear what others thought before I add to my wall o' text two posts up.

I've enjoyed all of your discussion threads, Jane; I think they were all thought-provoking and invited everyone to try to shed light on some of the fuzzy boundaries in sexual relations and identities, in ways that were relevant to this industry and the people reading. This thread was particularly risky since it pushes sensitive buttons for a lot of people, but it's a worthwhile discussion to undertake. Even though you and I have different answers to your question, I find the ways you and I got to our respective conclusions educational. Thanks. This thread unfolded partly as I hoped, and partly as I feared. ("Hoped" because we started to get into the nature of cheating and what it means, or doesn't; "feared" because some people are getting predictably uncomfortable and feeling the discussion itself judges and condemns them.) I'm at the point where I've pretty much made my own understanding clear so I haven't much more to add. But I support your effort to engage in an extremely relevant discussion. (And after all, those uncomfortable with the subject could simply choose not to read the thread.)

Yup, I think it's entirely possible. It's not everyone's experience or goal in this "hobby", but for those in search of it then all SP services can be therapeutic, not just those provided by a domme. If Thing X has particular meaning for you, then exploring Thing X is part of life's healthy process of self-discovery and exploration. You get to explore the thoughts and feelings that Thing X evokes in you directly, through experience rather than fantasy, and in getting to know those feelings better you get to know yourself better. You draw all kinds of conclusions from that experience, and it can be transformational. "Thing X" can be the sexual power dynamics that are the defining part of BDSM, or it could be simply be the experience of unashamed, non-judgmental sexuality for those who can't find that elsewhere. In either case, SPs certainly have the power to be psychologically helpful to their clients if they're compassionate and intuitive in their work.

I dunno about that. Let's consider the difference between "I'd like to punch that guy in the face!" and actually punching that guy in the face. The first is harmless and healthy; letting yourself feel angry is an important step in dealing with both your own anger and the issue at hand. --Acting-- on the anger by actually punching someone, though, is a whole different thing and the real-world action involves risks and costs. I think the key issue isn't the state of mind at all, but rather the act that we choose to take as a result (or don't).

Indulging a masturbatory fantasy isn't cheating. In fact if someone never does, then I accuse that person of a failure of imagination. :) Mind you, if you neglect your partner because you're too preoccupied with your solo fantasy, then there's a problem -- but it's not about "cheating", it's about the selfish act of neglect. I feel the same way about your second case a shared masturbatory fantasy. I think it's healthy to involve a partner in one's fantasy life, and equally healthy for the partner will support it. I'll go one step further: I think it's also healthy to seek the permission of one's partner to enact the fantasy. What happens next (is permission granted? does the partner want to/insist upon being involved?) is just the regular negotiation that happens in any relationship over big issues. An issue arises though when doing these things without the partner's knowledge and consent. I use "issue" here because it's not my aim to judge or condemn; only to point out that this action carries a risk and potential cost, and anyone undertaking it should be honest with themselves about both of those things. If they'v done so, then the decision simply falls into that category I mentioned in my last post: adult ethical conundrums we all face in lots of forms in our grown-up lives. Additional Comments: Totally agree. I'm concerned that my initial frank answer may have been perceived as a judgment, but I tried to allude to the other issues in that post and I've elaborated on them in my subsequent posts. It's a delicate minefield of a question here naturally. Allow for the possibility that clients with partners may vary widely in the degree to which they've faced and reconciled themselves on this issue. Responses will range the spectrum, accordingly. Additional Comments: This is definitely the type of thing I was getting at when I said in my original post that "cheating can be preferable to burning the rest of your life to the ground". I think the situation you describe is a very common one. I'd personally (personally!) differ with your statement that there isn't "anything at all wrong with that"; making the decision solo carries some risk for your relationship. But I agree completely that it's one of those situations where a person can acknowledge the "wrong" in a decision is nevertheless a part of what they have decided is the best choice under their circumstances. And they're in the best position to make that decision, and to evaluate it, when it comes to their own adult life. Make sense?

I think you have the perfect answer, and it's the one I thought we'd get to in "round 2" of answering Jane's original question. In my first post in the thread I stuck to answering the factual side of Jane's question ("yes, it's cheating"); but especially if a client has come to terms with that, who am I to judge his choice? My list of follow-up questions was intended to lead in that direction. As you say, everyone's circumstances are different, and until you understand them it's impossible to really come to a personal verdict on anyone's decision. As adults we all have the power and responsibility to make difficult decisions in the course of our lives, and often all of our available choices are imperfect. So it becomes a matter of choosing which costs we're most willing to pay, and which risks to assume.