MightyPen

1. Breaking Bad Hands-down best TV series of all time. Dramatic, funny, deep, tells an evolving story with complex characters with a story arc planned out from the beginning. Now on its last season. 2. Deadwood Complex characters, great commentary on human nature and how and why communities get built from the ground up. Plus, all the swearing you could ever want. And a handful of smart, cynical, entirely human prostitutes, so there's that. 3. Firefly A little off the mainstream path and this can be a hurdle for some, which is the reason it's not in my #1 spot. A niche show that rewards putting a little time in. Funny as hell, dramatic, with believable and human characters. Tugs at my heartstrings every time to think about what could have been if only it had continued. Also the best line in TV history: "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." 4. The Wire This really belongs in the #1 spot, but this isn't a show for casual viewing and that can put a lot of people off. This show takes work to watch, because it doesn't spell everything out for you and it can take a while to learn who everyone is, their relationship, and how the pieces fit together. But if you can get past that, this is dense, smart, real, honest, and socially relevant television. Nothing else even comes close. One of the few shows I've watched and come away when it's done thinking, "I really do understand the real world better and more deeply than when I started." Honourable mentions: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (both getting a bit dated now, though) Veronica Mars (same problem) The first three seasons of Dexter (and then stop) Terriers <-- little known and just one season, but I really really liked this Game of Thrones (the setting can be a hurdle if you're not comfy with fantasy though)

My favourite ever illustration of this "cops must identify themselves" fallacy comes from the Breaking Bad episode "Better Call Saul": Unfolds slowly and maybe best enjoyed if you're already invested in the show and characters. ("Poor Badger!"). Best parts are the solemn "it's in the Constitution!" and "no, no... ask it like, official". As always, EVERYONE must watch Breaking Bad. All the way through. It's on the first half of the final season now.

Haha! I really like the title and the mood of your post. Based on that alone, and although I've not yet had the pleasure of meeting you, I now love you a little bit too. :) Life is full of things we just have to do with little or no choice; they many not be much fun, but we do them because they serve some bigger objective. But we have to be sure to add a few things into our lives that we do just for ourselves, to reward ourselves a little bit today and not just wait for the bigger ones down the road. Personally I've been tackling something big and new at work that serves my own agenda as much as my employer's; spending more time out on the wooded pathways with my dogs (I love my dogs!); and doing some writing I've always wanted to do. All of these things make me happy about how I'm leading my life.

Will trying new restaurants lead to obesity? Of course not. Just because someone likes to explore varied menus doesn't mean they'll abandon everything else in their lives in this one pursuit. I think there really are cases of sex addiction, in which people come to crave the psychological rewards of sex almost exclusively and actively sabotage their own larger well-being in its pursuit. But I think it's rare. On the other hand I think it's common for people to crave intimacy, and for some people to end up taking risks to obtain it when it's absent from a primary relationship. In this respect I guess I'm just repeating the point Samantha already made, but I wanted to add a "+1" to her post. People who don't understand the role of physical intimacy in living a healthy, fulfilled life (or who halfway understand it, but dismiss it or wave it away with contempt as alarmingly weird or a kind of weakness) are quick to label a case of "needs intimacy" as "is addicted to sex". Racing to slap the addiction label onto a simple, varied sex life is a way to diminish and scorn it, and it helps make people with small, narrow sex lives feel safe and validated. Again, I think there can be genuine cases of clinical sex addiction recognizable by professionals. But I think most of the time when lay people cite sex addiction, it's mostly an expression of their own deep-seated puritanism.

I think there are two different conversations happening in this thread, and I'll post separately about each. First up: infidelity. Without question the ideal way to respond when a relationship has lots its spark, or even lost intimacy altogether, is for the partners to talk and sort something out. There's guaranteed to be other things going on of which this is just a symptom. And if you can't talk with your partner about something so fundamental, then there are much bigger problems with the relationship than just the sex. BUT... everyone's circumstances are different. Let's accept that sometimes there are some situations where that conversation is just not possible. The risk of the conversation going badly is too great, the partner is unreasonable but there are other considerations like children... whatever. For reasons important only to the individual, he has decided to take the dubious, risky, but in this case justified-in-his-mind step of looking outside the relationship to satisfy emotional, intimate, and sexual needs. Once that decision is made, SPs can provide an extremely wise option. While going out and seeking an affair with a "civilian" is like jumping into an unpredictable, raging river, seeing an SP is like filling a measuring cup from a tap. The SP experience comes with known boundaries of duration and emotional entanglement; and usually both parties have a full understanding and respect for these boundaries. I almost imagine The Most Interesting Man in the World saying into the camera, "I don't always step outside my relationship; but when I do, it's with an escort." Best-case scenario: the experience with the SP equips the guy to look more deeply into his relationship and summon the conviction to deal with its problems. Next: the irrational psychology of sex. The second conversation in this thread, which largely subsided after a few posts but is also interesting, is: the psychology of "having" another man's wife. Although this is a treacherous subject, it's the type of thing I find so deeply fascinating about sex. So much psychology surrounds it, drawing from fundamental motives and deeply buried ideas about sexual roles, power games, and thrilling taboos. I imagine the "having his wife" scenario draws from a couple of things. One obvious piece of the puzzle is that it's a triumphant victory in a competition with another man. Even if it's secret and the other man doesn't realize there's a game going on, he's been beaten and you've taken his property. (Sorry to all women for how horrible that sounds -- we're talking foundational, sometimes ugly psychological motives here.) It's playing out a little scene featuring the basic instinct of people to compete with others of the same sex for mates. On a slightly more positive note there's the idea that the married woman has given herself to you despite the obvious risks and pressures that would normally prevent it. Now it's not about having beaten the other man; it's about successfully seducing the woman against the odds. Once again -- what a triumph! Look what you've accomplished! To have convinced not just a free woman, but a "taken" woman, to hop into bed with you, you must be a prodigiously talented player in the sexual game. It's easy to poke holes in both of these interpretations of what's really happening in an affair. But the subconscious is seldom rational; it's about meeting emotional needs and shoring up our self-worth and sense of security and achievement. The fact that sexual behaviour is so expressive of these basic desires means it can lead to strange and destructive, yet powerfully compelling, decisions and actions.

This is a really interesting topic. Fundamentally, "YMMV" means "the provider reserves the right to use her discretion about the exact services she provides". Going into an appointment, assuming advertisement on one side and research on the other, both parties know the transaction is pretty much going to include services "X" unless something goes dramatically wrong. But if she feels inclined during the appointment, some ladies might also provide "Y"; but that's entirely her choice, and a client doesn't get to complain if Y isn't offered. When Y happens, it's not because the client paid for Y; it's solely because the lady chose to offer it at her own discretion. Y is never bought by a client; it's something that's earned. What moves an encounter from X to X+Y? Sometimes it's just about hygiene and mechanics -- right size, that kind of stuff. But also it's about the same simple but not always common stuff that makes it work in conventional relationships. In my experience: are you trustworthy? Are you giving and considerate? (1) Have you given your partner reason to believe she can let down her defenses a little and engage with you a little more? And ultimately... is the chemistry and mood there? Also, as a client: have you engaged your partner in more ways that was strictly "required" of you -- in other words, have you shown the same extra consideration for her that she'd be showing you if she bestowed Y? (1) Hee hee... I'm suddenly reminded of the Boy Scout Law from my youth. It's been a few decades but: A scout is... honest and trustworthy, kind and cheerful, considerate and clean, and wise in the use of his resources. Yes, that's right. The first rule of good intimacy is: follow the Boy Scout Law. If you thought being a Boy Scout was just about helping women across the street... well, you were wrong.

I thought immediately of this thread this morning when I heard someone say this on a British panel show: "I used to know a landlord of a pub who would say to any female guest he liked the look of: 'I've got a nine-inch tongue, and I can breathe through my ears."

I'm not an SP, but... I think that could only work if the guy really knew what he was doing, and he was sure to spread his time around, exploring all the little towns and the countryside of that tiny female province. 'Cause if he's an amateur and he just spends all his time just hanging out at the capital, it's likely to turn into way too much of a good thing, moving from SexyFunTime!... to tedious... and then onto sore... and then even painful. If I was an SP, I'd probably just say "no thanks" rather than risk that experience. Guys offered the equivalent service the other way around for a solid hour might at first think it was an awesome idea, but let them try and then check with them an hour later and see what sensations they have left to report. Besides... isn't there a lot more fun in variety? Just sayin'.

Haha! Yeah, that answer could have been awkward. Glad you liked it. I agree, it did a very grown-up job of showing two people who were flawed, but not malicious; and things didn't work out, but you could kind of see why. It was a relationship with the Hollywood magic taken away, and instead a frank look and the up-and-down cycle that any relationship can go through. And fundamentally... that a) you have to move on, and b) happiness and fulfillment come from within, and can't be contingent on one particular other person. The guy's problem was of course that he had inflated the idea of the relationship to be something supernaturally awesome, and thought it had to follow "rules of love" and therefore last forever. Fact is, it doesn't work that way -- relationships reflect the people in them, and we're all only human. Summer, Zooey's character, went into the relationship with a wiser, more worldly point of view, and conducted herself well throughout (navigating the downturn in the relationship as well, or badly, as anybody else typically does). Her one big black mark was the way she conducted herself afterward: the meeting on the train/fun and mixed signals at the reunion party/an invitation to a party at her place once they're back home/aaaaaannnnd oops, it's not the party he was expecting. Bad behaviour on her part, but still seems more unaware than malicious. One of my favourite bits is when the three little things he so likes about her early on become the three little things he says he hates about her once things are turning sour (her charming little laugh... that stupid little laugh!). :) And of course... early on, at that point The Morning After, where he sees his reflection in the car window as Han Solo. Hee hee. Anyway... as I said, glad you liked it too.

I'm glad you raised this, and that you've described the arrangement as you have. We haven't had the pleasure of meeting, but here are my thoughts -- and I'll bet they're what you imagined some guys might feel. Personally I've never booked through an agency because I hate, hate, hate the idea that the woman I'm spending time with will be getting less than 100% of the fee. Fundamentally (and irrationally, I suppose) I perceive an agency as a pimp; and I resent the idea that the agency would skim some of the woman's earnings, and that my cash might be supporting them. But in this case that's clearly a dumb and badly inaccurate description of the arrangement you have with the agency. It's clear you're entering into the arrangement having thought it all through, and you've already shown you have all the skills they do, so you don't need them -- you've just decided you'd rather outsource some of the administrative overhead work and you're happy with the terms of the arrangement. So, knowing that, it would no longer affect my decision to book you -- but I must say, if you also provided an option to contact you directly and ensure you didn't have to share the fee, I'd still prefer to do that.

Yup, good point. I thought the UK might be better (with prostitution being all legal there and everything, so why try to hide it?) but it's true there too. What a shame.

Wow! That was certainly a sight. I watched all the way from the start to the beginning of the athlete parade. A big "history of the United Kingdom" pageant. I can't say it --moved-- me exactly, but I respect the accomplishment. I have to admire the spectacle, and the amazing feat of logistics it took to pull that whole thing off. I spent the best days of my life in London, not far from where the stadium now sits... so I'll watch a bit of the Games, though I really don't care who wins anything. Mostly I'll just be rooting for my favourite city on the planet, hoping everything goes fantastically for them. (Despite Mitt Romney's now-infamous misgivings.)

It's a terrible shame that you're leaving, WIT. I have to say I don't think the quote above about other people's perceptions of you is true; certainly it's not for me. But I don't have any real insight into the second part about your own experience, and of course that's the most important piece of the puzzle. I'll have to take you at your word. Please consider taking a break for however long you need, but without committing yourself to never, ever returning. Maybe you won't make it back here, but don't paint yourself into a corner where if you do feel inclined to return, you'll feel you shouldn't because you stated publicly that you were gone for good. Y'know? Best wishes, and thanks for all of your posts. It's been great to read your contributions.

Would you pay double her rate if it's her birthday? Didn't think so. ;)

Welcome to CERB! I'm glad you're finding the community helpful in dispelling illusions and clarifying etiquette. I think that's one of the most important things that CERB can do for people who are just starting to explore the landscape. It means that responsible people who want to inform themselves before taking the plunge have a place that helps. And unlike some passive "guide to the industry" site, CERB is chock full of real people! :) I wish you many fun adventures with the lovely and intriguing women you'll find here.

That would be my main concern. Here at home you can learn the lay of the land, recognize most circumstances, and have a better chance of figuring out whether someone wants to be doing what they're doing. When you're visiting somewhere else briefly, there's much less chance to fully recognize and grasp the complexities of such a delicate situation so prone to abuse and coercion. And on the Russia tangent: that place is deeply, institutionally criminal and corrupt. Plus, lots and lots of people there are terribly desperate. I'm not sure I'd trust anything I saw or heard there. Third-world isn't that far off, sort of like Greece.

Hahaha! Fantastic, thanks. Good for them. "You spelled my name wrong." --crackle-- "Ah, we spelled his name wrong." --disappointed--

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.

This weekend I broke a tooth (OW! YUK!) and had to go to the dentist today to get it fixed. Now the anesthetic is wearing off and my face hurts (OW again!). Sigh. But it'll be all better in a day or two. Additional Comments: Hee hee. Hee hee hee.

Ooo! I --love-- cider. I've never developed a taste for beer, but cider goes down nice 'n easy. I'll look for Somersby. Most pubs will have Strongbow, and that's alright; but my absolute favourite is Waupoos cider --on tap--. Just like you describe Sara, it's almost like drinking apple juice. The only place I know to get it on tap in Ottawa is at the Cheshire Cat pub on Carp road (a nice place with a character all its own; my favourite pub). Don't buy it in bottles at the LCBO; it's just not the same. Once or twice each summer I make the drive down to the County Cider Winery where they make the stuff... less than an hour past Kingston and they have a great little patio where they serve a nice lunch and yes, that's right, you can get their Waupoos cider on tap. I was just there on Canada Day weekend. --Great-- time. I'm VERY happy to see cider catching on more in Canada. A few years ago I visited friends in Liverpool and they had a whole front porch --full-- of different cider varieties for me to try. --Sigh-- Hafta get back there soon. Failing that, my other summer drink is Sangria -- cheap fruity red wine, woohoo! :) Somehow my big sister hadn't tried it until I shared some with her at my place last summer. Instant convert.

Ah, thanks so much Cat. That makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks very much for that insightful post Cat. Curious though... can you define "square" in this context? I know about these of course, but I'm not sure if they cover what you mean here: - A noticeably unhip, mainstream individual, a straight. Someone either ignorant or disinterested of underground subcultures. The antithesis of a hipster. - A person who is regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends.

Hey, no worries -- I agree that this would be a challenge for a lot of people, and certainly something a couple would have to discuss openly and come to a clear agreement on. I can personally imagine some circumstances where I'd be fine with it, and others where I wouldn't be able to manage it; it's going to depend on me, her, our relationship, and who knows what other external factors in my life at the time. But I think you and I both agree that this is about our own limitations and our maturity, and not a suggestion that the situation is somehow intrinsically, objectively "wrong". One more note, though: it's not just men who are prone to jealousy and possessiveness. That's a human quality, not a gender-specific one. We shouldn't try to excuse any jealousy we might feel because "my gender did it!". Men and women struggle with this equally, and some individuals of both genders simply deal with it better than others.

Wow! That's... that's... really weird. I'm inappropriately curious about how she justified the difference. ;) Though it does raise the other question I considered asking in my previous post: Manitoba, do you also feel that you, as a (presumed) customer of SPs, must always reveal that fact to your future partners at the start of any new relationship? If you didn't, and she found out later that you'd visited SPs two years, five years, or 10 years ago... would she be justified in immediately dumping you, not because you'd been a customer, but because you'd shattered her trust by not telling her right away yourself? I'm genuinely curious whether you think there's a difference.

If you found out that someone you were involved with had been a veterinarian, would it affect your relationship? A dentist? A physicist? No? So why would another occupation she might have had bother you? Think seriously about this. Tease out exactly what it is that you're hung up on, don't just settle for a sense of vague, undefined discomfort. If it's "she'd have slept with a lot of guys other than me", this could be equally true of any partner you meet. But it doesn't matter, because those events were in the past. You just need to worry about your relationship, in the present. If her past experience really bothers you now, then you're sexually insecure. The problem isn't her; it's you. If it's "she was intimate with men and took money for it", then you need to examine your attitude toward the women whose company you (presumably) pay for from time to time. There's nothing wrong with the work an SP does, and she's not cheapened by having done it. If you can't accept that, please stop seeing SPs. Me? Frankly I would admire the implied sexual maturity and her comfort with her sexual self, and 'd be happy for what she might be able to teach me because her experience would be far vaster than my own. If she was willing to share I'd love to hear her stories, because she'd have learned many, many, many first-hand lessons about human behaviour I'll likely never be in a position to learn myself. But mostly I wouldn't really care, because I'd be dating a whole person, all of her, as she is today, and as she wants to be tomorrow; and there's infinitely more to know and love and care about her than how she once chose (or chooses) to make her living. I'll leave aside the "but what if you'd seen her as an SP first?" because that falls into the same old "I've fallen in love with my SP!" discussion for the gazillionth time, and Search can provide all the insight you need.