Brad

"The punishment for stealing airline seats is severe."

"If women used pick-up lines" A few of these were roll-your-eyes corny fun (I'm also not too proud to say they'd probably work on me...but then, I'm an easy mark ;) )

I've no advice that isn't a cliche, but just want to acknowledge that's rough. It's one thing for a promising relationship to (possibly) end, but to not know why or what's going on is a hard thing to swallow and makes it so much harder to know what to feel or, if it's come to it, move past. I hope you get your answers, and that maybe they turn out to be happy ones and it still works out. If not, then I hope you manage to put it behind you and find better luck elsewhere.

Reminds me of Betty White's classic:

Wow...did you ever read me wrong. I'm actually more than a little insulted you'd try to put the words in my mouth that I'm somehow saying a provider's life is of less value. I'd hope anyone whose read me at all on this board knows me better than that. Obviously any sexual activity comes with a risk. That goes, I thought, without saying. I certainly never said that condoms mean there's no risk. My suggestion was only that if a person has unprotected sex with someone they are more likely to transmit something, and so that person may feel a greater need for testing. It's a matter of scale, not all or nothing! If a person is only having sexual encounters with a provider using protection, there is of course risk, testing is important, etc. But the chance of an STI is lessened because of the use of condoms. If a person is also having unprotected sex with someone--such as their spouse--they might feel the need to get tested more often because if they are positive for anything--the chances of passing it along are greater. Think of it this way. A person might get tested on a fairly regular basis. But then during an encounter the condom breaks. Because of the increased risk that person might feel like getting an extra test ahead of schedule. It's the same idea. That is all I was suggesting.

Isabella, I probably shouldn't speak for others, but at a guess I'd say it's not that they don't care about a provider's safety, but that the thinking is if they were having sex with their wives it would likely be unprotected sex and so the risk of transmission would simply be so much greater. So safety and considerations of a provider's health is of course important, but where it's probably hard to explain to a spouse why you suddenly think they need to use condoms all the time, using protection with a provider is a given.

.

Always a fan of red hair. :)

.

Porter, I don't think most ladies mind some communication ahead of time to help establish that it's an appropriate fit for everyone and to discuss expectations, assuming your intention to book is clear. I imagine some ladies are reluctant to spend much time doing so because of how many messages they get from those without any real intent to set up an appointment. I'm assuming of course by communication you mean email messages, and not in-person social time (which, if the lady offers it, would require compensation). My take is that it's those that ask for free social time or that email excessively without booking that are annoying; not those who send a few messages or questions in good faith.

.

I gotta stay away from these threads, they make me jealous! 2-3 times a year, I'd say. 2-3 times a week if you count my dreams. ;) Ah well, at least those times sure are memorable!

I think it's one of those ideas that is good and fine in theory (MightyPen as usual summed it up well) but I would say likely to be bad in actual practice. I think the can of worms it would open is that it would encourage too many guys to start offering services in return instead of the requested donation amount. It's all too easy to picture a fellow telling one lady how "the other lady agreed if I washed her dishes and walked her dog I'd get 30 minutes!" Or "you let my friend have time with you for court-side tickets, why can't I??" It's my opinion that it's a lady's right to decide what her time is worth--be that a $ amount or some other good or service. And if the only time such an exchange happened was a when a lady specifically advertised for such, then it may not be too bad. But as I say, doing so comes with the risk that it will increase how often guys try such negotiations when it's not appropriate or wanted.

.

Is it too soon to suggest that this thread should be sticky'd? ;)

My favourites are the ads read more like a sensual story, a tale of what could be.

Saw this and it reminded me of a couple posts in this thread: :)

I'm finding the recent discussion interesting, and has made me think about a few of my own assumptions. And I think that's what part of the recent discussion is about...what is a reasonable or standard assumption: a) Should (and "should" is a key word) a fellow be able to assume during DATY that a lady isn't on her period? Or... b) Should a guy assume whenever he is going down on a lady that it is possible she is on (or could be about to start) her period? I think this in part is where the discussion has evolved, and is a fair and interesting question. For myself, I'm in the "B" camp. Yes, it may be that a the risks increase if a lady is on her period, but menstruation is also a natural, frequently occurring process. It can't be viewed in the same camp as someone not disclosing an STD. It seems to me that just like someone who partakes in greek has to go in (so to speak) knowing there's always the risk of a bit of mess, those of us who love giving daty must do so knowing it's possible she is about to start her period, or on it and using a sponge. Another way of looking at the issue is this: if it's important for a guy to know whether or not a lady is on her period, is the burden of communication on the lady or the gent? I can see arguments both ways. After all, there's plenty of activities we assume won't happen unless a person communicates about it first. Maybe it's true this falls into that group. I'm not so sure, since the rule of thumb generally seems to be that if you have an issue to something fairly common/natural, then the onus is on the person with the issue to bring it up. And "shoulds" aside, it's clear it could happen regardless, so probably better to assume it's a possibility and go in with one's eyes wide open (or at least wearing goggles). :) Anyway, just some thoughts.

A bit of a ramble before my question: I prefer to arrange encounters at least several days in advance, in part because I enjoy the anticipation but also because it gives everyone plenty of time to reply. I imagine, however, that while it's generally a bad idea to try and arrange something the very last minute, doing so for the same-day with at least a few hours notice is fairly normal. But as people have mentioned before if you leave a message for someone (or text, email, etc) it's not reasonable to expect an immediate response. But on the other hand if you wait even a few hours for a resply before trying someone else, your chance for the day could easily be gone. I suspect one solution is if there's 2 or 3 ladies a person would be interested in meeting to message them all in the hopes that one is available and will reply. But this seems potentially rude, since it's always possible more than one will end up responding. I would think ladies could get annoyed if they take time to reply to a same-day request only to be told they were too late. But I guess that's what I want to know. From the ladies' perspective, does it bother you if you get back to someone the same day and they reply that they've already booked with someone else? If someone is looking to arrange something within a few hours, is the better solution for them to only try with ladies that book by phone rather than text/email?