Why does it have to be someone's loss?

Please don't forget that it's not always meant in a passive/aggressive way. If I say it to someone, it's meant as a 'pat on the back' sort of thing. While the aggrieved person is thinking in a 'glass is half empty' way, it's a reminder that the 'glass is half full' also.

It can be meant nicely but it's all in the context.

This is the most acceptable explanation I've heard so far. I still think it is discourteous to the "offending" party, but I get that the offending party is not the intended target of the statement. I take issue with using someone else as a "stepping stone," so to speak, to make another person feel better. But, understanding that it is intended as a "pat on the back" as you put it, it is somewhat less offensive to me, considering the intent is not necessarily to put the other person down, even if that happens to be a by-product of using such a statement to uplift the spirits of the intended recipient. Thank you for your input.

Well, WHY would anyone want to put themselves ON PURPOSE in a situation that might not work out for the best.....? Hell, there's plenty of providers and even more hobbyists and it's probably a good thing to "shop" for the experience you would like to have at least as much as you would when buying a gas grille, pair of shoes, or whatever.

Agreed. If shoes could talk, and during my introduction with a pair they looked at me and said "You know, I like you and all, but I really think I'd chaff your feet," I'd be relieved that I didn't buy that pair and learn that unfortunate fact afterwards. I'd thank them for their effort to save me some pain and money and move on to a more comfortable pair. :P Maybe not the best analogy, but when you mentioned shopping for shoes, that's what came to mind. LOL. Thank you for your input.

Me saying it 'doesn't have meaning' means the person saying it didn't mean anything by it. They just SAID it, but didn't mean it...because it's a commonly used expression.

Does that help?

Somewhat. I would still have to question why they said something they didn't mean. Wasted energy, in my very humble opinion. Thank you for your input.

To be blunt, this is more of a business-oriented question; namely the goodies being offered by the Provider, so I think the signage "I refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" applies. It's not like there's only one pussy in town so it's not being rationed in my opinion. If one Subway isn't up to my standards or the cute lady fixing my salami doesn't want to serve me then I'll drive to the next Subway. No offense either way.

A very logical conclusion. Thank you for your input.

I think it's said as a way to save face or because feelings are hurt. It's said in many areas of life not just here. Kind of like...you can't fire me I quit.

Now where I'm concerned...This isn't a cheap endeavor so I try hard to make sure someone knows what I like before I see them through my P411 profile. If someone reads that and refuses to see me I'd be thankful. The worst sessions are the ones where likes and expectations are out of whack.

Good point. Feelings and logic are often on opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm starting to understand that this statement is expressed by hurt feelings, which are almost always illogical. Logic is something I respect and strive to achieve. Emotional outbursts are something I have a hard time relating to and understanding at times. Thank you for your input. It was quite helpful.

Sometimes, way too much thought is given to trivialities around here. "It's your/his/her loss" is simply a colloquialism that can be as innocuous as "Oh well."

It's commonly used in my family, and rarely ever intended to be ugly. A synonymous phrase might be,"Well, he/she/you/they missed out" or "Too bad, it would have been nice" or anything along those lines.

Maybe your frame of reference is negative in regard to this phrase?

TP

Sometimes, way too much thought is given to trivialities around here. "It's your/his/her loss" is simply a colloquialism that can be as innocuous as "Oh well."

It's commonly used in my family, and rarely ever intended to be ugly. A synonymous phrase might be,"Well, he/she/you/they missed out" or "Too bad, it would have been nice" or anything along those lines.

Maybe your frame of reference is negative in regard to this phrase?

TP Originally Posted by Tony Patella

I understand your position and apologize if you find my curiosity and lack of understanding for the motivation behind such phrases trivial. Help yourself to a tomato.

I understand your position and apologize if you find my curiosity and lack of understanding for the motivation behind such phrases trivial. Help yourself to a tomato. Originally Posted by tracibrooks

Clearly my dear, you're not interested in a different perspective, especially when the interpretation doesn't agree with yours.

Thanks for the lovely homegrown tomato. It sure tastes great!

Why, when a provider declines to see a client, or vice versa, for whatever reason, does it have to be someone's loss? As in, "Oh well, it's his/her loss." Why? And why is it usually said with an air of superiority? As if the other person were really missing out on a great thing (which could very well be true). Is this a way to make yourself or the rejected party feel better? Is it intended to make the other party feel guilty or bad about it? Originally Posted by tracibrooks

Seems like two different situations here with differing explanations:

1. Said by the rejected person to the person rejecting him or her; and

2. Said by someone to the rejected person.

As to the first, I think it's a defensive reaction like others have suggested. No one likes getting rejected, especially if it's based on something personal. Maybe it's a way to try to salve some wounded pride by attacking the person who did the rejecting. At least in the context of provider-client, though, I think you're right that it is a little lacking in grace. I also agree that I'd rather get rejected than have a sub-par session. But, I can understand why someone could get their feeling hurt if he were rejected because he was too old, or too heavy, or the "wrong" ethnicity, or bald, etc. I think I'm old enough and mature enough not to lash out and seeing one particular provider instead of another is not the most important thing in my life, but it still wouldn't feel good having someone I want to see and who is in the business of seeing guys reject me because of who I am.

In the second case, I think it's just a way to make the rejected person feel better. I can empathize with someone who's been rejected and feels bad about it. By saying that it's the other person's loss, I'm affirming the value of the person who has been rejected. I'm not trying to insult the rejecting party because the statement is not addressed to him or her and most likely they never hear or read it. Yeah, it may not be true. But, we all tell little white lies to smooth relationships and make others feel better about themselves. And, that's a good thing.

No stones or even tomatos being thrown your way. Maybe a pillow, but it would only be done in fun.

Clearly my dear, you're not interested in a different perspective, especially when the interpretation doesn't agree with yours.

Thanks for the lovely homegrown tomato. It sure tastes great! Originally Posted by Tony Patella

On the contrary, I am interested in different perspectives. If you will notice, I have found other opinions so far quite enlightening. You called my inquiry "trivial," which obviously I do not agree with or I wouldn't have asked. I also don't necessarily appreciate my thread being called trivial, and wonder why someone who thinks so would take the time to respond to it, considering they find it trivial. You also suggested that my "frame of reference" was negative in regard to this phrase. Obviously I view this phrase as a negative statement, which I thought I had made clear. So that was just kind of stating the obvious in my opinion. Also, I've noticed that more than half of the opinions and explanations given regarding the phrase also linked it with negative feelings.

I'm not trying to be combative, just explain my position. Perhaps I was for a moment a teensy bit insulted that you called it trivial, but all opinions are valid and have worth, so I process the information, use what I find valuable, and disregard the rest. As I'm positive you do. Please don't harbor any ill will toward me, as I will not toward you. I find debate invigorating and informative, and I'm not upset that you expressed your opinion and feelings, even if I do not happen to agree with them or perhaps their motivation. It does not make you an unlikable person to me, and I hope I am not unlikable to you.

Seems like two different situations here with differing explanations:

1. Said by the rejected to person to the person rejecting him or her; and

2. Said by someone to the rejected person.

As to the first, I think it's a defensive reaction like others have suggested. No one likes getting rejected, especially if it's based on something personal. Maybe it's a way to try to salve some wounded pride by attacking the person who did the rejecting. At least in the context of provider-client, though, I think you're right that it is a little lacking in grace. I also agree that I'd rather get rejected than have a sub-par session. But, I can understand why someone could get their feeling hurt if he were rejected because he was too old, or too heavy, or the "wrong" ethnicity, or bald, etc. I think I'm old enough and mature enough not to lash out and seeing one particular provider instead of another is not the most important thing in my life, but it still wouldn't feel good having someone I want to see and who is in the business of seeing guys reject me because of who I am.

In the second case, I think it's just a way to make the rejected person feel better. I can empathize with someone who's been rejected and feels bad about it. By saying that it's the other person's loss, I'm affirming the value of the person who has been rejected. I'm not trying to insult the rejecting party because the statement is not addressed to him or her and most likely they never hear or read it. Yeah, it may not be true. But, we all tell little white lies to smooth relationships and make others feel better about themselves. And, that's a good thing.

No stones or even tomatos being thrown your way. Maybe a pillow, but it would only be done in fun. Originally Posted by Shackleton

Perhaps the best explanation, in my opinion, so far. Very well thought out, and I appreciate your insight. I can see now, in being spoken to a rejected party, that this is more of a salve for his/her pride. "No, dear, your ass looks GREAT in that dress." White lie. Got it. In this case, I suppose I find the statement acceptable and maybe even in good taste if it has the intended effect. Thank you for your input.

Good question

I cant speak for hobbyist but they can be really crude. Without ever knowing what really happen.

Well as a provider, we get stomped on all the time. I certainly don't advertise the best pussy around, however, I think some hobbyist should be a bit open-minded.

I also think alot is competition, can I be honest?, flat out stupid childish competition.

Can I throw flowers at you instead, the pretty smelling kinds.......hehehe Originally Posted by lisa.lisa0302

I totally missed your reply the first time through, Lisa. I apologize. I agree completely. The competition aspect is childish. And I love flowers, so toss away.

As for being a good person, usually a pass on an appointment with a hobbyist or provider has nothing to do with whether or not they are a good person. I would think it would more often have something to do with perceived compatibility (or lack there-of). Originally Posted by tracibrooks

Traci, consider whether you are the norm among Dallas providers. I don't doubt at all that most of the time when you reject a session request it is because a perceived lack of compatibility. But, is that the norm? I suspect most providers are willing to see just about anyone who has a provider reference or two and no alerts or other red flags about bad behavior. I'm certain that many providers do not even ask for references or check alerts.

Compatibility? Ummmm, is that a matching dick size/pussy depth thing? Lol!!

I keed! I keed!

Mmmm. I don't know, Traci. I get the impression, I could be wrong here, but it seems that many things that go on in the hobby and some of the people in it, you seem to think are beneath you. You've referred to more than one thing as childish. I dunno. Just something that caught my eye. We're all different people, and our differences is what makes the hobby what it is, which can be good and bad.

Not trying to be abrasive or anything. Just speaking on observation.

And I'm not sure what you're looking for on that 'compatibility' thing, either. It sounds like a dating game requirement rather than a one hour, fun filled hobby encounter. I mean, I've seen girls that may not be 'compatible' in any long term endeavors, but are a blast for an hour or so. And I would see them more than once, based on the fun we had within an hour.

Again, not trying to be abrasive. Just trying to get a feel on your thought process (not COP a feel...lol).

Traci, consider whether you are the norm among Dallas providers. I don't doubt at all that most of the time when you reject a session request it is because a perceived lack of compatibility. But, is that the norm? I suspect most providers are willing to see just about anyone who has a provider reference or two and no alerts or other red flags about bad behavior. I'm certain that many providers do not even ask for references or check alerts. Originally Posted by Shackleton

Point taken. And I have no doubt your assessment is valid in many cases. I do know, though, that there are many ladies that seem to take an interest in their potential clients, and do seem to care about things such as screening and compatibility. I do doubt that they are the majority, however. Thank you for the alternate perspective.

You are welcome Traci

From the responses im reading, its just a defense tactic, but not always used correctly.

Provider showed up Hobbyist A, and avoided Hobbyist B like the plaque. Hobbyist B would maybe become defensive and say oh well her loss.

Does that sound right.

It works the same way with some providers unfortunately.

Compatibility? Ummmm, is that a matching dick size/pussy depth thing? Lol!!

I keed! I keed!

LOL.

Mmmm. I don't know, Traci. I get the impression, I could be wrong here, but it seems that many things that go on in the hobby and some of the people in it, you seem to think are beneath you. You've referred to more than one thing as childish. I dunno. Just something that caught my eye. We're all different people, and our differences is what makes the hobby what it is, which can be good and bad.

Not trying to be abrasive or anything. Just speaking on observation.

And I'm not sure what you're looking for on that 'compatibility' thing, either. It sounds like a dating game requirement rather than a one hour, fun filled hobby encounter. I mean, I've seen girls that may not be 'compatible' in any long term endeavors, but are a blast for an hour or so. And I would see them more than once, based on the fun we had within an hour.

Again, not trying to be abrasive. Just trying to get a feel on your thought process (not COP a feel...lol).

I can see how you would get that impression. There are things that I think I'm too good for, as I'm sure everyone does. I don't want to be caught up in board drama (or any drama, really). I don't want to associate with people that have a lack of respect for themselves and those around them. I find physical confrontation barbaric and distasteful. So, yes, there are things I consider beneath me. Being rude to someone for no good reason is one of them. I didn't take your opinion as abrasive, but valid and worthy of response.

As for the compatibility issue, I understand that there are fine gentlemen (and ladies) such as yourself that do not see compatibility as a requirement, and even unnecessary. I, however, do find it necessary in order to enjoy myself in an appointment, which will allow me to relax and have fun, as opposed to being stiff and uncomfortable, which would make my job of satisfying the needs and desires of my client difficult, if not impossible, for me.

Which job would you rather have? The one you get up and are happy to head to every morning (or at least most mornings), or the one where you wake up and would rather chew your own arm off than go to. I choose to make my job as enjoyable as possible for myself so that all involved are happy and satisfied. I feel like I do a better job that way, and that it is a courtesy, as opposed to a headache, for my clients. Do I miss out on some money? Of course I do. But I still make enough to support myself comfortably and save for rainy days. And that is enough for me.

On the contrary, I am interested in different perspectives. If you will notice, I have found other opinions so far quite enlightening. You called my inquiry "trivial," which obviously I do not agree with or I wouldn't have asked. I also don't necessarily appreciate my thread being called trivial, and wonder why someone who thinks so would take the time to respond to it, considering they find it trivial. You also suggested that my "frame of reference" was negative in regard to this phrase. Obviously I view this phrase as a negative statement, which I thought I had made clear. So that was just kind of stating the obvious in my opinion. Also, I've noticed that more than half of the opinions and explanations given regarding the phrase also linked it with negative feelings.

I'm not trying to be combative, just explain my position. Perhaps I was for a moment a teensy bit insulted that you called it trivial, but all opinions are valid and have worth, so I process the information, use what I find valuable, and disregard the rest. As I'm positive you do. Please don't harbor any ill will toward me, as I will not toward you. I find debate invigorating and informative, and I'm not upset that you expressed your opinion and feelings, even if I do not happen to agree with them or perhaps their motivation. It does not make you an unlikable person to me, and I hope I am not unlikable to you. Originally Posted by tracibrooks

Traci:

I never called your inquiry trivial, rather I stated "Sometimes, way too much thought is given to trivialities around here." There is a significant difference. But, in fairness to you, maybe i should have said "Sometimes, we're way too sensitive around here." I was referring to the trend of late to carp, complain, pile on and engage in frivolous he-said, she-said debates. It was intended as a generalization, my mistake for not clarifying.

You now as well as I do, that reading the printed word via internet and email allows for much personal interpretation, which is often misguided.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinions, since they are based on my own frame of reference formed over a lifetime of varied experiences.

No ill will generated on my part...