MightyPen

If party A says they don't want sex to happen, and they're clear about it, and it happens anyway, then it's sexual assault. Period. I don't care if party A was breathing fasts, flushed, rock-hard, or came in a giant mess of goo. Unwanted sex is an assault no matter what the orgasmic outcome. Party B doesn't get to decide when it's "really" an assault or not, second-guessing party A and using the state of his/her body against a statement of will. Among other things, the alternative leads to "well sure I hear "no", but if I just keep going she/he will realize she/he really wants it... it's perfectly obvious to me!" No thanks.

Are you especially hot? (And dry?) ;)

Yeah, heat is the way to go. The dryer advice is good. Even when you want to eradicate bed bugs en masse from a room or building, the best way is just to fill the place with with heaters, close the doors, and leave it for a while. The bugs all dry up and die. What's less admirable about that e-mail is the naked xenophobia (things come "...from companies outside of America, (sad but true)"). That's not sad, it's trade. Geez. The message is only half about bed bugs; the other half is about how horrible "those countries" are. It's a well-crafted semantic virus -- it's encapsulated in a seemingly benign host ("bed bug advice!"), but once it has your interest and gets past your filters, it delivers its little package of prejudice, fear, and loathing ("those dirty foreign countries!"). Frankly if this message was true, I'd be most leery of anything coming from NYC. No criticism of you though, Roamingguy -- I know you're just sharing it for the good part.

That's the best thing I've heard in a long time. Well done.

The Sun is a simple rag that just panders to its base. This is a problem with all newspapers, in fact all ad-based media; they exist to sell ads to readers in the service of advertisers, so they must print not necessarily what's true or reasonable -- just whatever they think will sell the most copies. Newspapers aren't selling news to you; they're selling you to advertisers. It's always been that way. In the case of the Sun, I've always imagined that they peg their market as made up of readers who are, well, a bit dim. Think permanent 17-year-olds on the verge of dropping out of high school. They like to ogle and snicker, but they're fundamentally conservative -- especially in public, like on editorial pages. They have their urges, but they draw strength from feeling like they're members of their parent's conservative clan. So you get exactly the hypocrisy you describe -- escort ads, page X girls, but shallow thinking and sanctimonious moralizing in editorials. Readers check the sports scores, nod in cantankerous agreement with the editorials, maybe say something to the wife about the fall of society... and then dial up an escort from the back pages. I'd point you to the Citizen instead, but... it's got David Warren. I cancelled my subscription ages ago 'cause of that guy, and told them I wouldn't be back until he was gone. Now I just read it for free online, and only for the local news.

Karma's fundamental idea is that "even if you can't see or predict how, your moral behaviour in the past affects your present; and your moral behaviour in the present will be repaid in your future." For me two questions arise: a) do you believe this is literally, objectively true as a rule of existence? b) what does the idea mean to you, and how would it affect your life to believe it? I don't believe the rules of karma are literally true; I've seen too much evil rewarded, and good unrewarded, to accept the idea as a rule of nature. The postponement of promised rewards and penalties to future lives is just a way to prevent us from ever testing and proving/disproving the idea. But... despite this, I try to live as though it is true. Because something in me responds to the idea, and I would prefer that the world did work that way. So I try to make karma come true around me, by rewarding the good I find in people around me and not rewarding evil. And for the same reasons I try to act well, and not evil, myself. If enough of us act as though the rules of karma are true... well, eventually they become true because we made it so. And I like that world better than the alternative.

'cause if we all did that, very soon none of us would have anyone left in our company to be direct with. ;)

Absolutely. I think we're on exactly the same page then. That inclination for men to act on desires, and women less so, stems from our culture -- and the culture is changing. But the desires themselves are universal. I agree though, let's not sidetrack things. Besides, I've recorded "Game Change" and want to watch the rest of it. :)

Woah! Sorry, I can't let that one pass, even though I'm in a rush and can't post my thoughts fully. I agree with just about everything else you wrote backrubman, and I think this is a great subject for discussion. I hope to dive in again with thoughts on other aspects. But I've gotta say I really groan every time I see the popular meme that men as a gender are intrinsically wired for infidelity more than our female counterparts. I know all about the evolutionary theory behind the arguments, and those theories argue equally for infidelity by both sexes. *Everyone* is inclined to infidelity, and we all deal with those inclinations in our own respective ways. But we need to own our decisions, and we men need to recognize that our impulses to play around are no different than those experienced by women. The big difference between how the two sexes deal with temptation is cultural, and that difference is disappearing fast these days as both genders complete the process of staking out equal claim to self-satisfaction. Whatever else applies when dealing with the subject of infidelity, there's no "my gender did it" get-out-of-jail-free card for guys.

I'm pretty sure that we're reading different recommendations. Or, that we're looking for different kinds of "details". I suppose it comes down to what kind of encounter you're looking for exactly, and what information you consider important when choosing a woman's companionship.

CERB is absolutely tremendous help with "finding the right service", which is the most important thing. There are plenty of recommendations here with quite a bit of detail, so you can really understand why someone is being recommended and whether those reasons match your own tastes. What you'll get with a warehouse of "negative comments" is a way to identify wrong services. Who needs that when CERB already helps you find the right ones? That we don't dwell on the bad stuff here doesn't make us "limited", just civil and positive. You can still get everything you need to know from CERB to help with your search. Unless you have a morbid fascination with the negative, that is. In which case... you know... I very sincerely wish you success in your search.

40+ romeo loves to play: cute smile, spouts obscure movie quotes and bits of sonnets, loves fun and small furry animals. No, not that way. Most limbs still intact! Your mileage may vary. Contents may have settled during shipping and handling.

Not so fond of the mirror, but I do like having a light off to one side so that we cast shadows on the opposite wall. Then I try to make our shadow look like animals! "Look, a duck!" "Hey, is that a triceratops?" "Ooo, we've almost got an elephant. Wait, stick your army out like THIS to be the trunk!" *smack* "ow!"

Waitaminnit... depending on my mood, that doesn't always sound so bad. And the moral is... remember your context! :)

Yup. In my earlier post in this thread, I almost invoked my second-favourite* quotation: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." You need to know the rules and understand their purpose, but one of the privileges and burdens of being an adult is that you can choose to bend or break them. But the responsibility is on YOU. You need to use your hard-earned wisdom to decide when a situation warrants breaking a rule, and also when and how you go about it. * My MOST favourite quotation is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", because it's along the same lines, PLUS it's got "hobgoblin" in it!

I can sympathize. I was a weird, bookish, nerdy kid and FIRMLY on the outside of society throughout high school. People's behaviour frequently made no sense to me, especially in groups. Dating was absolutely out of the question, and I learned to dismiss even the possibility that any woman would find me interesting or attractive. Intimacy was simply not available to me. This started to fix in my early 20s, but slowly. I learned things the hard way through a series of disasters. But I still took forever to catch on when anyone was interested in me, and I know it cost me lots of opportunities. Ah, well. Now that it's 20 years on that stuff is largely resolved, but in some respects I'm still a high-functioning imbecile when it comes to certain interpersonal signals. I'm just not thinking the same way as most people most of the time. *Shrug* I've come to accept it, and things haven't turned out too badly.

I don't really mind that the OP said something public, heartfelt, and challenging before he left. And the discussion afterward has been useful. After all, we don't hold funerals for the benefit of the dead. How can they benefit? They're dead. We hold funerals for the sake of the living, who are still here and can use the chance to sort out how they feel about the death. Likewise, the OP's public death-rattle for his life on CERB is a chance for those of us still here to compare notes on how we feel about the same issues. Which I think we're doing pretty well.

Oddly enough, it makes me think of the way gypsies were despised in Europe for the longest time, because they had no land to tie them down -- they just travelled and lived as they could. Being without land or a community fixed in one place was contemptible, and this deviation from the narrow-minded norm implied you were unprincipled, irresponsible, and untrustworthy. If you hadn't bought into the prevailing institutions, you were a threat the Order Of Things. You were shunned and chased out of the area. I think even today, a lot of our prevailing morals have outdated, conservative roots, and come from times when churches held sway, communities were small and struggling, human labour was our primary engine for getting anything done, and Earth Needed People. The relevant old-time attitudes here are: a) making more people is the only legitimate way to spend a life b) marriage is the solemn institution in which you must perform a) c) sex is reserved exclusively for marriage in order to gild that particular cage d) prostitution is a threat to c) as well as b), and must be publicly condemned. So prostitutes, if they were known publicly, got the same treatment as gypsies: condemned, hounded, chased away -- even at the hands of their former clients. After all, we all know how ancient and universal prostitution is; that condemnation I mention in d) is about public display, not private behaviour. But it's a deep-rooted reflex for a lot of people who don't think this stuff through for themselves. Happily we're starting to emerge from that outdated framework. Same-sex marriage is one of the spearheads being driven into the heart of that particular institutionalized view of relationships, and shows the triumph of real-world experience and the tide of public opinion over archaic and fossilized irrational attitudes. I'm optimistic.

We know so little about the original poster. That makes it hard to draw specific conclusions, and I find myself trying to fill in the other details through guesswork, so I can decide what lessons can be drawn here. But that's a mistake. I can't comment on the OP's specific, real situation because I just don't know enough about him. But here are some assorted thoughts based on that post: - I think clients seek the company of SPs to fill a void in their lives. Seeing SPs can be expensive and risky (especially if you're in a relationship...!). That you'd choose to do so anyway should tell you that the need that propelled you was real. - In addition to being just a whole lot of fun, SPs can be fantastic resources for addressing that void, and not just with some immediate and fleeting relief. They can provide reassurance that what you're seeking is normal and healthy (whatever it is). And the experiences we have with SPs can equip us to ultimately confront and fill that void within the rest of our lives, without depending exclusively on paid companionship. Seeing SPs is perfectly healthy and perfectly normal. CERB made it seem that way because it *is* that way. BUT... how you integrate it with the rest of your life is up to you. - Seeing an SP while you're in a relationship is a serious decision and you have to take full responsibility for doing so. There's no absolute right or wrong here; everyone's circumstances are different. Some men's partners are sexually unavailable, unresponsive, repressed, or openly hostile. There are a hundred ways a couple's intimate life can be failing, and I think that for frustrated men, SPs *can be* a legitimate resource for addressing a sexual void. Ideally there would be a conversation and you could bring your partner on board first, but I understand how unlikely that is for most partners and relationships. But the choice isn't one to be made lightly, or carelessly, and you have to take full responsibility for the decision you're making and all of its possible consequences. - And finally, on that note: what to do if you're caught. I don't know if the OP was just caught visiting CERB, or having seen an SP, or what... but regardless, the game is up and your diversion is exposed. Now what...? Well, one choice is to condemn the entire sex industry and its entire apparatus, including CERB and everyone on it, for making itself seem legitimate. Run away from the whole thing, condemn the instincts that ever drove you here, and try your hardest to restore your life to the before-state and pretend nothing happened. ... OR ... Recognize that what drove you to seek out CERB might have been a legitimate need. Now that your partner knows what you were doing, it's time to talk to her about it, why you felt you couldn't talk with her about it before, and decide what you're going to do about it. I don't know if seeking out SPs was a serious or whimsical decision for you, whether it was ultimately justified or unjustified, but you made it and this is your chance to build a life that recognizes that choice, instead of running away from it. If you can't at least make your wife understand your decision by the time the conversation is done, then you've found an even larger problem in your relationship. Personally I recommend the second course of action. Because the first one -- denying something is missing for you, and blaming others for your decision -- is likely to fail in the long term, and I predict you'll end up in a similar place in the future. Only then it'll be steeped even further in shame, and so maybe it'll be just some ugly impulsive street action, and oboy... now you're screwing up in twenty new and different ways. Learn something from this. Don't just condemn it reflexively. And build a better life with what you've learned. Lots of us are already doing that, and speaking personally, being here on CERB *is* part of that better life for me.

Ottawa International Airport

Always had a soft spot for this one.

Hey that was cool; thanks. I'm glad it was more than just dogfight eye candy. And I thought I recognized that English pilot -- he's Johnny Quid from RockNRolla! The political stance in question -- I won't spoil it for people who haven't watched it yet -- is pretty smart, given the long-term ambitions of that nation. Don't want to alienate anyone who might be useful down the road... But I'm surprised it would have caught Our Hero by surprise. I never, ever imagined that British vs. German dogfights ever happened over that particular patch of land though -- I'm trying to imagine how that works fuel-wise for the Germans, who I thought after crossing the channel from France had only 10 minutes over England proper before they had to turn back "home"? And that was one of the big issues in the Battle of Britain. Sorry, didn't mean to nitpick, just updating my mental model for that little slice of WW2! EDIT: Okay, yeah, found some discussion on this point and an English/German dogfight in that location is pure fantasy. ;) Some bombers could make it there and back but not single-engine fighters. With that aside... cool movie! Short films are pretty stunning these days. The new software has certainly democratized film-making, and the 'net plus festival circuit has democratized distribution. Only a good thing.

Sorry to hear about this; like others I hope it's just a misguided client and not the stalker you had so much trouble with. I wonder if the guy who left the flowers mistakenly thought that "anonymous" equalled "discreet"; that you'd be happier that the card was unsigned rather than one reading "From querty1234@somewhere" or "From Jim at 123-4567". Of course, that would only work from his perspective; he knows he's harmless and well-meaning. But for you the gift could be from *anyone*, so you don't know what meaning you should attribute to it. No matter how this turns out, you chose the perfect thread title. The most important lesson here is that the client/SP relationship does NOT have room for surprises, in either direction.

Greta Garbo in a tux! I have to agree, I like it when our tidy definitions are challenged. The first, fundamental category in which we slot other human beings is their gender, and the fashion industry is built first and foremost on that foundation. Categories are handy but we can become slaves to them, and begin to think that people MUST be either male or female, one or the other, all the time. Choose only one! Sit! Stay! But in fact the boundaries are sometimes blurry biologically, and they can be downright irrelevant in presentation. Some people are completely interchangeable in the way they present themselves to the world, and that poses a healthy challenge to our comfortable boxes. The androgynous model is an awesome example of the latter. Sounds like Julie Wilde is another. Very, very cool. There's a lot of fun to be found in challenging gender roles in sex play, too, and that's something available to all of us, not just the androgynous. There's a real goldmine you can tap into when sex moves past the physical and obvious, and you start to play with psychology and meaning. *Sigh* It's been a while. Must make some plans... Heh, might as well date myself. This post got me thinking of "Androgynous" by the Crash Test Dummies. Crappy video, decent sound: Hmm, takes me back.

Milk is $4.59 at the nearest grocery store, but $4.39 10 seconds down the road. Same milk. Or maybe you were thinking of something else...? A high price does not signify quality. Applies to many, many things.