MightyPen

Yeah, this is one of those things that, when it happens, is really cool. When it does, it's a natural outgrowth of each partner's state of mind and excitement. In particular, being turned on by your partner's mounting excitement can make for a really cool feedback loop in which the obvious approach of one partner's "finish" helps lift the other partner up and over that last little hurdle to their own. That said... striving to make this happen on purpose, or using simultaneous endings as the yardstick of success or failure, kinda kills the whole thing. 'Cause now it's a requirement, and even should you achieve it it becomes more like checking a box off on a list ("Good! Well done!") than letting things grow organically wherever they may. Same things for "endings" period, not just their simultaneity. In my early days it was all about reaching that destination, straight down the highway all the way, and a shiny gold star for both getting there at the same moment. But after a while it became much more about all the side trips and the interesting countryside to explore and enjoy together while headed in that general direction, and the fun little surprises it held! That's sometimes such a fun journey that you just stop for the night in some awesome bed-and-breakfast you just found, and don't really worry about that place you first set out for. Okay, totally got carried away with the metaphor there.

Yeah... enforced monogamy is the product of a society in which people are viewed as property, and relationships are contracts for that property's disposition. And yup, religion was the moral institution for the longest time and enforced the principle of monogamy with the careful logic of all religious edicts: "because I say so". Now that those kind of external moral guardians are fading away, we're each left to decide for ourselves how we want to live our personal, romantic, and sexual lives. Monogamy is now just one of many choices available. BUT... I think most people would agree that to be ethically poly, you need to be open with your partner; everyone has to be on the same page in order to participate equally as a consenting adult. I'm thrilled to bits that people are exploring this freedom to find what works for them. But at the same time, monogamous relationships are still entirely cool for a lot of perfectly healthy and liberal-minded people. And such voluntary monogamy can be a source of enormous strength when the relationship is healthy, functional, and satisfying. It's all about how particular people are wired up, and what they need and expect from their relationships. We're human beings, and enormously diverse. So those needs, and what it takes to meet them, are naturally all over the map.

I'm finding this season is noticeably better than any other season since the first one. Subplots don't drag on, they're resolved within a few episodes and we move on. And the characters have all adapted to their circumstances and now do things smartly and capably. The current bounce between three groups is keeping things fresh and suspenseful; I approve. Also, let's take a moment to record what we know about dealing with zombies, in order to aid anyone in the future confronting a zombie apocalypse: remember, to kill a zombie you must attack its ..... Nowhere else; only the .... matters! It doesn't much matter what you use: bullet to the .... crowbar to the .... pointy stick to the .... fire engine's water stream to the .... As long as you hit the ..... The ..... That's the most important part to remember: the ..... There! Now I feel a little better knowing that future generations are a bit safer armed with this knowledge! Hey... waitaminnit! Damn you Stephen Harper! The fall of civilization to the zombie apocalypse is on YOU!

Easiest way is to make a list and then capture that list as an image, then post the image in a thread. The board filter catches text, but it can't tell one pixel in an image from another. (And for this reason, if you post ads that include images containing text, you'll want to check those closely because the filter can't read the words.) Not surprisingly, I disagree. :) First, posting the list make it easier for me to write posts because I know ahead of time what not to say. Second, by seeing the full list of words I'll be able to see the reasoning behind mod's selection and obey its spirit, not just its letter; I can avoid accidentally using even synonyms that the list might have missed. (And there's the text-in-images thing I mentioned above, but that's a minor point.) Right now I have a vague sense of the list's intention, but mod knows much more about its specific intention and boundaries than I do. (I can't write a certain bill's name? Really? Okay. Any other surprises?) Seeing the list would leave me much better informed and make posting here a better experience. (If you were in a new country and they mystifyingly refused to tell you the laws, but assured you that the instant before you did something illegal someone would always be there to tap you on the shoulder so you could change your mind... would that seem efficient? And a native strolling up and exhorting you that "c'mon, it's simple, just use common sense" really wouldn't improve the situation much.)

Yeah, I accept this change in policy is necessary. But like Jabba I look forward to that word list so I can plan my post's content to avoid the "...."s that will make it unintelligible or just torpedo my point. Thanks for the hard work maintaining the site, mod, even in the face of new law.

Not at all. Sex is important to me, both as an act and as a set of associated ideas and meanings. But I'm not always preoccupied with its pursuit, and my interest in it doesn't inhibit my enjoyment of many other things in my life. Because I'm curious about sex in multiple contexts, escorts are a great way to explore with manageable risk. It's variety where nobody gets hurt. I can see how someone who's less intrigued by sex might find that hard to understand, but that just makes us different... not one of us healthy and the other sick. I think sex addiction is a real thing for some people -- when they can find pleasure in nothing else, and sexual desire overtakes and dominates their lives. But most of the time, I think the term is just thrown out as a prudish moral judgement -- even upon one's self -- that treats sexual curiosity and a love of variety as "addiction". Families are small these days. If someone had six kids instead of two, would we label that person "addicted to children"?

Sure, but there should still be a significant market for women who want discreet sex. A frustrated married woman can't just head down to the bar and pick up anyone. Shouldn't they represent a huge client base? If it weren't for cultural hangups, I'd expect women's desire for male escorts (whether for good companionship and gentle seduction, or wild sweaty anonymous and kinky fucking) should be every bit equal to men's. I think what remains is what the others have touched on: - many, many women aren't comfortable pursuing sexual pleasure outside of a relationship, because they've been indoctrinated that "quality women don't do that". - many women just don't have the money to do it (yet; the balance is changing here so let's see what the market is like in 50 years). - and I'll add that the physical risks to female clients seem greater to me. If things go wrong during the encounter and there's any kind of struggle, women may be less physically able to protect themselves. Even if this risk is minimized with SP references etc., the simple fear of what might happen may dissuade women who otherwise want and can afford the service. But as others note, male escorts find a market in more sexually comfortable cultures, so there's hope yet!

Cool, hope my post was useful in some way. Sounds, though, like I've retraced a lot of ground your friends were already telling you. I can understand the frustration of not knowing what's going on, but it's possible that your friend's times of crisis are the very times she's least likely to be able to communicate what's going on with her. It sounds like NOT always knowing is going to be an ongoing aspect of your relationship. So in part, what happens going forward is going to depend on how comfortable you are managing that absence of information. Friends who might tell you "it's not fair for her to do this to you" would be right. But sometimes "unfair" isn't the same as "malicious", especially when the behaviour is to some degree out of her control. But hey -- I don't know. I'm running with just one version of what's going on, but it could be lots of things. Best wishes and good luck.

This is a tough one, and you certainly need to ask yourself what you require of a relationship and of your current friend. I'm hesitant to reply because while you've certainly shared some key points, there are a million things I don't know because I haven't been there to grasp the full context. But here are some thoughts about people and relationships. First point: your relationship with this woman will probably always be difficult. She has shared with you that she has a form of mental illness (I'm not using that perjoratively) which she is treating as best she and her doctors can. But such treatments are never perfect. From what you've described you can probably expect these low points, rough patches, and periods of noncommunication to recur from time to time. Second point: hey, we all get to set the boundaries and expectations for our relationships, what we require of our partners and what we will and won't endure. These are individual decisions. If my paragraph above makes you think "yeah, fuck that," that's a perfectly valid and honest response and you should extract yourself. Third point: what's a relationship? If relationships are purely transactional -- "I will put in these things in and I expect you to do or be these other things to my standards, or I walk," then sure. If someone falls below your standards, you walk. But human relationships are also about support and commitment even when things get tough and, at least in patches, may fall below your usual expectations. I know your relationship isn't there yet, but if you *love* someone, then the transactional part becomes very small. Instead you commit yourself to supporting your partner even when he or she is difficult, even uncooperative, and things are hard and frustrating and -- yeah -- kind of crazy. Not that we should make ourselves martyrs, but rather that we should look at our relationships in terms of what we're willing to give, at least as much as what we're expecting to receive. So maybe ask yourself: how much farther than halfway are you willing to go in your relationship with this particular friend? She has some personal challenges, which it sounds like she's been open about. She's been going through stressful times with midterms and maybe she's overwhelmed and can't deal with other human beings right now. For some people, shutting down and withdrawing is the way they cope. It's a primary symptom of depression, or even just flare-ups of introversion. Or hell, maybe it's something entirely different and maybe nastier. I don't know. Neither do you. You have no information about her state of mind or anything else: just silence. In your position, based only on what you've told me, I'd give her time and space, continue to let her know (but not too frequently) that you're still there, and see what happens. But until you hear back, you're deciding based on guesses on what her actions MIGHT mean, without knowing what they DO mean. Hey, sometimes that's all we ever get. And sometimes things do reach a limit. But I'd suggest waiting until you know what's going on, or are reasonably confident you do, before making a final decision. Unless, that is, the prospect of this pattern repeating itself in the future is by itself enough to make you walk. In which case -- hey, your decision is already made, isn't it?

Thanks for this. My favourite expression of this sentiment incidentally comes from A Man for All Seasons: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! The hearing is better than the reading:

You raise interesting points TT. But... a) You're right, there are exceptions to the "no outing" rule. For example, if a client is violent or thieving, an SP can report that person to the police as they would anyone else who committed a crime against them. Sure the client is "outed", but the client gave up the promise of anonymity once they committed their crime. Now, I can see how some people might conclude "well being a standard bearer for a law that endangers SPs is practically the same thing!" But... hypocrisy is not a crime, and in fact I think it's an understood part of the political game. And more importantly... b) Between the two extremes of "expose the hypocrites!" and "do nothing", there's a WHOLE HOST of legal and ethical options for fighting this bill which are already being pursued. I think the court challenge after its passage is the ultimate remedy. The process of law is slow, but I think on this issue the system can be relied upon to fix this ridiculous situation. While we have these other options to pursue, I don't think attacking a clutch of hypocritical politicians (I'm shocked -- SHOCKED!) in what's effectively very public blackmail is justified. Not to mention, I don't think it would accomplish anything. For my fuller thoughts on this, see my post on the subject from a few days ago: POST

Although in some ways it would feel satisfying to see politicians exposed as employers of the very service they're trying so noisily to outlaw, I don't think anything useful can come of it. First: few people would be surprised to learn that politicians are hypocrites. You might take down a few -- hey, maybe many -- but this wouldn't cause a lasting change. Those individuals would just be replaced by others from the same team who were safe from such a charge. Second: it's not unconstitutional or illogical that one of the parties involved in a crime might be safe from charges if the crime was reported. One of the cornerstones of this ridiculous law is the idea that all SPs are vulnerable and exploited, and need special protection from the consequences of their own industry; in effect, children. So no surprise that, just like a minor, an SP could report illegal sexual activity under this law without fear of being charged. There's precedent for asymmetrical risk under the law for two participants in the same act. Third: let's not kid ourselves about the job politicians do and its relationship to their real selves and personal lives. A politician is an actor on a public stage, playing a role dictated by his or her party's script. The script is written in whatever way is most likely to secure votes from the party's base in future elections, and gain/retain office and power. Does the script sometimes match the politician's personal views? Sure, but it's little more than coincidence when it does. Politics is scripted theatre, most people know it's theatre, and I actually don't have a particularly big problem with politicians being human beings who have lives and views that contradict what they do during their workday. They wouldn't be the only ones. Most importantly: this law is ridiculous just on its own legal 'merits', and it can be attacked and defeated that way -- in court if (likely) necessary. There's no reason to make this personal with the individuals who are just reading their lines. Even if that worked for a bit it would fail in the longer term as their replacements picked up the same banner and carried it forward. Defeat the law itself -- based on its own stupid message and all the shallow thinking behind it. Don't target the messengers however hypocritical they are -- it's needless, unproductive, and just looks angry and spiteful. I've e-mailed this response to the address provided.

Good on ya RG. These sound like really great times spent together. You strike me as a guy who has a thorough grasp of the relationships involved, the little considerations that come with mutual respect, and a good sense of boundaries and allowances for your partner. I'm sure you and your companion are enjoying these times together to the fullest. If there were client recommendation sites, I'm sure you'd have a long list of glowing stories under your name. ;) Lots of wishes for more happy times ahead.

Yup... threats (even to oneself -- "but I'll kill myself if you leave!") and anger aren't signs of love. They're signs of deep insecurity, immaturity, and a compulsive desire to own and control another person. Not the most attractive qualities, which is why they usually achieve the opposite of their intention.

Any of those is fine. (Re. fantasy/adventure I remember seeing Ninja Scroll and being really impressed. But oboy am I ever dating myself severely.) I'd say anything with a few layers of meaning will hold my attention, and let the artist tell that story in the genre that works for them. I'm adaptable. BOOM: Done! That sounds tailor made for me. :) I'll look into the other things on your list -- thanks again! But I'm looking into getting Time of Eve *right now*.

I don't quite qualify 'cause I don't keep up with it; but I have an interest. Mostly my experience has been with films: I remember being suitably impressed with AKIRA waaaaay back in the day, and absolutely transfixed by GHOST IN THE SHELL a few years later. (For the uninitiated, we're talking 1988 and 1995... well, plus the couple of years it took for such things to reach North America at the time.) I also watched a good chunk of Cowboy Bebop last year (led to it by "it's like Firefly in Anime!"). But that's hardly the leading edge; I've basically got an interest, but I haven't really taken the full dive yet. Don't really have a guide to help me sift through the mountain and find the gold. Any suggestions for good stuff to start with these days?

It's an interesting question. I imagine there are lots of reasons guys make this mistake (well, people in general, but here we're pretty much talking about guys), particularly when an established "regular" SP calls things to a halt. A few things that occur to me, from least sympathetic to most: Some guys are control freaks and don't want to have another person dictate terms for any kind of relationship, no matter how little the "r" in "relationship". There can sometimes be an element of misogyny here too ("the guy is supposed to call the shots", and other sad and pitiful ideas about gender roles). Other guys are just insecure and see any "no" as a blanket condemnation of their whole selves, and a threat to their sense of self-worth. They'll fight unreasonably to avoid facing this particular terror. Other guys just think that you're supposed to fight for everything you want, to press your case and persevere in the face of obstacles. This is even sometimes a good idea in civilian relationships... other times not. But it's NEVER a good idea in a professional entanglement like this one. Other guys (here we're talking about those "regulars") are just yearning for the connection with this particular woman to continue. It has come to fill a deep emotional hole within them. Letting this kind of emotional fog descend over the relationship is probably why the SP has called things to a halt in the first place. There's no question that it's a mistake to try to change an SP's mind once she's made a decision. But if I try to fully understand the human dynamics at play, the reasons range from contemptible (#1, #2 above) to just badly misplaced (#3) to outright tragic (#4). When you get the news that any kind of human connection is over, or simply refused, it's tricky as a human being to find the right balance in response. It's somewhere between the one extreme of feeling nothing at all and just giving a shrug, and the other of losing all perspective and tilting desperately at a windmill. Even for people with good emotional balance, it can be hard to resist the allure of persisting in the face of adversity to honour your own feelings -- "sure, I'm a Montague and she's a Capulet, but what's that next to my earnest desires?!" That's not really what's happening, but people can re-frame a situation in their own mind to fit that noble model no matter how far off the mark. Learning our way though this minefield and finding the right balance is part of becoming an adult. Not everyone has made it there regardless of age -- and even those who have can forget for a while under the right (wrong?) circumstances. Returning to your original question: I guess those are some of the reasons some people make dumb mistakes like persisting when an SP has declined a client, or called an ongoing thing to a halt.

I think the key here is that you have NO INFORMATION except that she's been out of contact. It's natural, in trying to make sense of things, to fill that void with assumptions and fears. But there are lots of different ways this circumstance could come about. Just a few: It's possible there's been a tragic accident, so leave room for that possibility... but yeah that's not that most likely case. It could be a wide range of other things, including that she simply needs some space or is reconsidering stuff. In this case your behaviour in this interval is important. Don't inundate her with messages, just make sure she's aware that you're there when she's ready and leave her alone. It's also true she may have already made a decision and things are over, and who knows she may have made the decision a while ago... ... or even from the start. You may never know the answer. But don't get preoccupied with that last possibility, when there are still the others above that fit the available information. My only advice, knowing only what you've said here, is: send her one calm message that just says you care for her and are there if she's ready to talk again, and then leave her alone. The next step is up to her and there's nothing you can, or should, do to try to influence that.

I like your questions, and I agree it's cool that the OP raised an complicated (and yes, possibly controversial) question. Happily it's a civil place so this could be interesting. But I'd phrase the question above differently. I don't actually expect the church to satisfy *everyone's* needs; but I do require it to be true to its own philosophy. If a religion's core philosophy is to care for the weak and powerless, to value love over power, and to be in the community and amongst the people... then it needs to exemplify that, especially in its "home base" buildings. Turning away someone who needs shelter from the rain is a failure as measured by the church's own rules. And once you're not true to your philosophy, but instead they're just vague principles you discard when it's inconvenient, then... well, okay. Now you're just a fancy clubhouse with some odd interior decoration. Forfeit your tax exemption and go into business like everyone else.

No. You've just had a revealing encounter with Modern Church: a combination club/community centre that's all about preserving privilege and enforcing rules. I think it's kind of funny that your brief rainy-day experience neatly encapsulates the reason why churches are dying today: you must meet them on their terms, or get out. At most you'll get a plastic bag as a token gesture of concern for your welfare. You got out. So do a lot of people, and not just on rainy days. There is exactly one hope for the Christian church today, and it's Pope Francis. And I say this as an atheist: that guy represents everything good about the church's potential. Go out and live in the community. Embrace people and love people, even those who don't follow all the rules you follow. Even people who are visibly deformed. Champion the poor and powerless. Provide an example of selflessness. Shun privilege, and live your ideals. And if someone approaches you in need, embrace them and help them. Don't put them to a test or send them into the rain. Because helping people is what you're THERE for. Now, ANYbody should be doing this; but Francis embodies this inside a Christian context, and suggests an admirable direction and potential meaning for a very large club indeed. In an age of corporatism, greed, and materialism, we've got exactly one prominent example I know of that reminds us how human beings SHOULD interact: not with fear, but with concern, caring, and even love. Your encounter with this dubious building that happened to have religious decorations was none of those things. And that's revealing. Shame on the place, although the individuals involved were only acting from recent example. I hope it gets better now that it has Francis' example for a possible future.

I'd be more concerned about Industrial Disease. (Two men say they're Jesus -- ONE of them must be wrong.) (Y'know, listening to this I just had the MOST VIVID flashback to my 20s. Jeezuz!)

Yeah, this one is tough. A friend of mine just moved her parents from their lifelong house in the Maritimes to Ottawa because they couldn't live on their own any more. They're in a townhome now, but one parent is deteriorating with Alzheimer's and the burden will only grow greater in the coming months and years. First step is marshalling all of your resources, and that means getting any other local siblings on board with a plan. More distant siblings can contribute cash for supplies. Don't let yourself become the single "dutiful son/daughter" carrying the whole burden and and relieving others of the responsibility. But do make sure to set a meeting and make a plan so this can all be discussed in the open. Nobody gets a free pass because they're "busy" or "busier than X" or "Y has more money than me" -- everyone needs to contribute. And yes, know what your limits are and set them up front. You can't hand your whole life over to another person's welfare, not even a parent. Finally, when health issues start to get in the way, look for local support agencies and home care. There are plenty of (costly) paid agencies looking to fill this role, but for Ontario you might consider starting here: Home, Community and Residential Care Services

BITCOIN! 'Cause it's 2014, and no thread is complete without a Bitcoin reference. :)

Incidentally, part of my premise was that the SP was interested in doing this in the first place (which Layah seemed to be saying). As you and RG touch upon, no client should be introducing barter as a negotiating tactic. (Or negotiating at all.) "Hey, I got this '79 Ford Pinto..." "I'm really ace with a Bedazzler; I could add studs and rhinestones to change your wardrobe from dull to daring!" Ew. Stay classy, my friends! ;)

I think it's totally fine if both parties are comfortable with it. What two people choose to exchange is entirely between them. After all, what's the difference between asking for $500, versus something you both agree is worth $500? Part of the trick, though, is agreeing beforehand on what's really worth $500, plus ensuring that Service B really does get performed following the delivery of Service A. There can be a lot of practical problems making service-barter work in real life. Currency is immediate and convenient, which is one of the reasons it's so popular in general. ;) Incidentally I voted "no opinion" because I don't think is a bad idea, nor a great idea, just a bit tricky and situational.