MightyPen

Their ugly comments are just glimpses into their ugly minds. They're not making objective statements about you, who they don't even know; they're just disgorging repugnant little bits of themselves. Small people will always attack what they don't understand, and what they fear.

I think that when you're up close and intimate, touch becomes the primary sense and so that would be the hardest to give up. Maybe a more challenging version of the question would be, if you could keep your sense of touch, what single OTHER sense would you retain? I'm inclined to sight myself, although hearing is a very close competitor.

Yeah, that's so sad. I'm thankful for the work he did while he was here, and I wish his personal and internal lives could have been happier. EDIT: I was prompted to go back and look at some of his work, and while I have a half-dozen favourites this one struck me as apt for today:

Wow! Nice work! :)

This is the reddest of all red flags.

While reading my favourite blog/commentary "The Dish", I found it had linked to the following article by a woman who worked as a dominatrix in NYC: [URL="http://therumpus.net/2014/08/lessons-i-learned-as-a-dominatrix-10-things-that-dont-exist/"][B]LESSONS I LEARNED AS A DOMINATRIX: 10 THINGS THAT DONâ??T EXIST[/B][/URL] I found the article a frank and interesting discussion of things the author learned or just thought about as a result of her work. In the article she lists "ten things that don't exist", according to what she learned: 1. Intimacy without vulnerability 2. An accurate definition of sex 3. A typical submissive man 4. A woman who isnâ??t someoneâ??s wildest fantasy 5. A neat cause-and-effect explanation for the nuances of human psychology 6. â??Normalâ? 7. A replacement for hard work 8. A one-sided relationship 9. Universal taboos 10. A good age to stop playing For any of you who choose to follow the link, I think you'll find the things she says awfully familiar. I like the article a lot, but I was also struck that I can think of a dozen women here on CERB who could have written something very close to it. (And in several cases HAVE written something like it here, and more than once.) It takes some risk and some work to organize thoughts and share them like this, and I've always appreciated it wherever I've seen it. I think one of the reasons I so value this kind of article AND the ladies' frank discussions here on CERB is that, when I was in my teens and early 20s, sex and intimacy of any type were completely alien to me. What comes naturally to a lot of people definitely did NOT come naturally to me, and I spent a lot of time trying to figure out social dynamics and especially the mystery surrounding intimacy. It was no use; some of the social wiring of the brain just didn't come right for me, and later when I was finally ready I had to build it piece by piece through painful trial and error. Eventually I built a rough enough understanding to work with, enough that I was able to start moving forward, and after a few more heartwrenching disappointments I began to really get a handle on things, people, and myself. I shook off the old shackles, and became a functioning person. (This background would come as a shock to people who know me casually in real life today.) Although I've come a long, long way since then, I'm still prone to puzzling over my own sexual landscape and history, poking the pieces and wondering about sex, me, and other people. This makes me highly responsive to the type of article I linked to, and many discussions here -- because they offer more examples of people puzzling through the same things I had to, and sometimes making the same mistakes. (For so long I thought I was the only one who had a hard time with sexuality! It always looked so easy for others...) Anyway... why am I posting all this? I dunno. Because the article made me smile and read with interest and visit that same contemplative space again. Because it reminded me of the men and women who post here about the same things, and with the same honesty, and how much I've gained from those discussions. Because it reminded me that sex is complicated. And even that I'm a little envious of SPs for getting to glimpse such a wide variety of clients and see others' sometimes most secret sexual selves up close, and learn so much about human beings in the process. Also because I'm frustrated by the coming changes here in Canada, and even the effect it will have on this little community and our ability to discuss this kind of thing honestly. I've always valued people's reflective posts here, and I'll miss them if they occur less often. And I hate losing stuff I like. And maybe a bit of a mood. ;) Anyway, hope folks find the article interesting.

Well, in that case people were just trying to point out the poster's error and remind him of the board rules. (He saw an SP in city A; he posted two recommendations from the same visit, one in City A and one in her home city, B; the B recommendation, if posted at all, should have been put into an existing thread for her in City B.) It began simply enough with one comment about the error, but then the thread kind of got on a roll because people were confused. I began to find it more funny than anything else. (I hope I helped push it firmly into "absurd".) So I don't have a problem with simple corrective comments like the first one in that thread. But yeah (barring confusion as in that thread), once the problem is pointed out it's not really helpful for multiple people to pile on pointing out the same thing.

Haha! Since it's worth 1,000 words, start with this guy: http://www.treknews.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/jonathan-frakes-star-trek-tng-s1.jpg ... but follow MightyPen's Rule of 15: add 15 years add 15 pounds and dial down the handsome by about 15% :) That should do it! Still got all the hair. My family is lucky that way I guess.

Ah, now I see what the trend was that curious7 was referring to! Shame to lose folks, but best wishes for everything that comes next. Take care.

Shame to see you go but sounds like you've got your head thoroughly sorted about the decision. Thanks for the time you did spend here, and good luck with whatever you choose going forward. Take care.

Yeah! I'm all over this. I like the familiar faces, but I'm particularly happy to see Powers Boothe on a screen again, and I'm kind of liking everything Joseph Gordon-Levitt is doing these days. I know Sin City is just overall film noir dialed up to 14, so the comparison may seem trite... but parts of this remind me specifically of Chinatown for sheer darkness. Sort of in the way that, if you were going to set out to make Chinatown in 2014, this is what you'd come up with. Looking forward to it.

Yup, you've just about got it. I'd say presumption of "ulterior motive" isn't always the concern, since it implies a kind of conscious planning (or hope) to cross a boundary. That's sometimes the case, but more generally it's just expectation that drama may ensue, and is best avoided. I noticed your frank self-description in the "SP/hobbyist" space ( :) ) and so I take your questions as honest attempts to decipher some of the unspoken codes of social interaction. So with that in mind, we can take a purely analytical approach to why people hang out at all, or don't. I think you can sort of break down that decision process into three items: a) what does that person have to offer me? b) how's my current supply of that thing? c) and what are the potential downsides of interacting? SPs considering hanging out with other SPs might feel that: - they get unique and valuable insights from fellow SPs who know the same profession in depth and first-hand. - Their supply of those insights from others is limited (they have their own insights of course, but there are relatively few SPs with whom to meet and and share). - And the risks are minor; any misunderstandings can probably get ironed out between reasonable people since their emotional stake is limited. But SPs considering hanging out with clients is a different case. - Sure, the client may offer the usual social benefits that come with hanging out with people generally. Maybe the client has some interesting or attractive attributes. Okay, nice enough. - But SPs are generally going to be attractive women who have little trouble finding guys who want to hang out with them, so that kind of companionship is familiar and its supply is already plentiful. - And the risks are significant, for the reasons already covered here: guy/girl stuff is fraught with emotional investment, misunderstanding, and risk; and there's a significant chance the guy may drift over the line from wanting simple social companionship to wanting sex, and all the drama that comes with that. So you can see how the calculation yields different results for two very different propositions.

If it helps, imagine that you were seeing a psychotherapist who listened attentively to all of your innermost thoughts for, say, one hour each week. It's great! She listens to you with such interest! Surely you should take this relationship to the next level and see each other outside your therapy sessions! Would you confuse this professional therapeutic relationship with a friendship on her personal terms? Would you ask your therapist out to for a drink or on a date? Do you think making such a request would go well? Naturally no, it would not go well. That's not a comment about your personal qualities -- it's just that a professional relationship generally precludes a personal one. Same thing with an SP. Sure, you do sometimes hear about other relationships evolving, but 99.9% of the time such confusion and blurring of boundaries just ruins what could have remained an ongoing happy play time. Also: do you imagine that a therapist's day job means she must surely charge her real-life friends for conversations or advice? "Great talk. Glad your family is well! Oh, and here's my bill." Once again... same thing. And I have to tell you, I think it was a... jarring question for you to ask. Hope you can see why.

In similar news: Christian fundamentalist ignores, dismisses Richard Dawkins. It's all ceased to surprise me. Still sad, though.

The date is auto-generated, so no it's not a typo. Proceed with caution. It's the Internet after all.

I getcha, RG. You're simply observing that "You have no choice but to vote for choice!" is weird, and that's all. As to why a party might enforce a single position regarding "choice" -- well you already know that. This is such a core platform issue that the party must take a stand as part of its political identify, even if its members vary so much that some may have different personal opinions on the matter. And as an aside, this goes back to my own point in the thread: MPs are beholden not just to a) their personal consciences, but to b) their constituents who voted for them as members of a particular party and its platform, not just for their personal qualities, and c) that party to which they belong and which has a certain political identity and can therefore make demands of them and expect their instructions to be followed. Integrity is a balancing act about duties to all three.

You could also just keep an enormous squirt bottle of Ivory dish soap handy. A little distraction ("Look! A squirrel!"), some quick sleight of hand... and you're all set. Just be careful about how you play with the stuff afterward. NOT TASTY.

That's a really important point, and worth reinforcing. Some people think that strength of character comes from choosing a position and sticking to it no matter what. But in fact the real strength is in knowing why you have chosen a position, and being open to revising your position when that foundation changes. That's a lot harder than being blindly stubborn. That said, though, there are other factors that can constrain our freedom to act on new information. Among other things: once you've made a promise to do something, you need to have an exceptionally good reason not to follow through. This can lead to a politician acting against his personal conscience yet serving what he sees as a greater good; and he'd still have personal integrity. It's all about your frame of reference when evaluating people's behaviour. Overall: I think personal integrity involves being true both to yourself AND to the people to whom you've made commitments (whether they're family, friends, partners, colleagues...). As a result, I'm slow to make promises... but I (almost) always keep the ones that I do make.

The committee hearings (and the entire consultation/review process in fact) are like a Soviet show trial. The script is tightly controlled (you saw this with the "yes"/"no" options) and absolutely nothing said there will alter what's coming, because the Conservatives are behind this in lockstep and they have the votes to pass it. The Conservatives know that overall, the popular will is either indifferent or against this (they have those secret survey results to prove it), and they probably know that the bill-soon-to-be-law won't withstand a legal challenge. But it doesn't matter -- this is political theatre for their base to get the future vote out. There's an election coming, and it's about THAT. Nothing matters until the inevitable court challenge after the law is passed. Everything rides on that challenge. All we can do in the meantime is hang on.

Make pleasure, and not necessarily orgasm, the desired result. That puts our sexual ambitions more in line with real human behaviour/capabilities/experience, and nobody has to fake anything.

I left Montreal for Ottawa back in 1984 (wow, that was a long time ago) but still miss my old city. So no holiday for me, but I do raise a quiet little toast to my home province on this day. Bonne fête!

On the contrary, I think if you read through the thread you'll see that those topics were raised in response to the OP's subsequent points and questions as the thread progressed. Clearly we're having different experiences with SPs, and approaching the OP's queries from different perspectives, but that's cool. He, and others reading the thread, will draw their own conclusions.

Thanks Deepstrut for sharing your countering view. All (respectful) perspectives are useful here. While those are certainly two possible outcomes, they're far from the only ones. Another is that you walk away smiling and happy, recognize that intimacy is not something to fear but to be enjoyed, and having gained confidence and familiarity with the way intimacy unfolds, more ready to seek it in other relationships. If you keep your head straight about the boundaries of the client-SP relationship, you can still benefit from the exposure to intimacy and the legitimate caring that a good SP will provide. A comparison: if you go to see a psychotherapist to talk about deeply personal issues, she's not really your friend; but that doesn't mean the discussion can't be honest and lead somewhere valuable, or that the experience won't be useful to you in making changes in your "real" life. If your experience with women is limited, and you're self-conscious about that, then gaining some experience to lower the intimidation factor can be quite useful. It's true I wouldn't go to an SP in order to learn how to "seduce" a woman (although the general confidence I might gain afterward might help in that regard). But in terms of learning what it's like to be intimate, to laugh and relax and enjoy someone's close company... that experience can make intimacy more welcome and less intimidating. Incidentally, I've never had an experience as artificial as an SP telling me I was the sexiest guy in the world. Maybe that does happen sometimes, but in my experience it's much more a case of SPs being willing to see the good and attractive parts in a client, and overlook his shortcomings. The circumstances of the encounter are artificial (I've paid to be there and there's a sharp boundary on our time), but beyond that I've mostly found the interactions quite genuine. Excellent advice; I couldn't agree more.

That's not an uncommon view ("I'd never PAY for it!") but it's based in a ridiculous, shallow, and outdated view of human relations. You don't have to answer to such narrow-minded people, when you've already made your mind up for yourself. From what you've described, you have some concerns about your interactions with women and you'd like to learn. You've made a perfectly reasonable decision to do something about that, in a way you can control. That's not desperate -- it's insightful, positive, and action-oriented. Carry on forward! I think you've probably had a chance by now to look around this site and see that people here are actually pretty cool and normal. Intelligent, thoughtful, and caring. Compare that evidence of your own eyes with the cliché judgments of others regarding sex workers and their clients. You have better information that them. So make a decision for yourself, know why you're taking the action you are, and proceed... and damn the nay-sayers.

I don't fault your friend for trying to look out for you (as she understands it). But she seems to have the cliché, streetwalker view of SPs. That is NOT what you're looking for, and that's why I suggest you start with an SP from CERB. I think that offers the best chance to find someone responsible and caring. Legalities aren't much of an issue (for now...). Check out the legal threads for specifics, as there's a change of law possible which MAY soon alter the legal landscape regarding prostitution in Canada. STIs are a manageable risk; there are threads here for that too. Finally... you aren't required to provide a complete sexual resume to all your future partners (nor they to you). We all get to choose what to share from our past. There's no shame in what you're planning, but it will be your call whether, and how, to deal with that and a future partner when the time comes. Don't let some hypothetical future partner's possible prudery* keep you from taking positive action for yourself, today. * alliteration -- it's fun!