When you and a client *really* disagree

Nah, I think this one is around for a while Originally Posted by discreetgent

Maybe your guppy will be of some comfort to you.

Maybe your guppy will be of some comfort to you. Originally Posted by Ansley

Nah, they died at least a few months back.

Nah, they died at least a few months back. Originally Posted by discreetgent

You did have a bad year, didn't ya babe. I know Becky will be so sad when she reads about your precious pets. Come on tell the truth, did you flush em?

You did have a bad year, didn't ya babe. I know Becky will be so sad when she reads about your precious pets. Come on tell the truth, did you flush em? Originally Posted by Ansley

Nah, I sent them to Edward for dinner; didn't Becky tell you?

I didn't think Charles was trying to be hurtful. Originally Posted by Ansley

Neither did I.

That is why I agreed with FL.

Speaking for myself, this 'work' is just not tolerable if you really don't like someone. It's such a giving of mind/body/spirit that to really be uncomfortable with somone and try and fake it just takes too much out of me and leaves me empty for the person I do connect well with. You can't put a price tag on that.

I left a guy sitting in the lounge here in Honolulu yesterday for that exact reason, although we didn't get far enough for any discussion.
Besides being a total slob (I am not talking just overweight) he had a dour and negative attitude. Ug. I ain't going anywhere near that, and business has not been good here! Protecting your own energy and carrying on with a good attitude is much more important than a few bucks. Originally Posted by ClairJordan

I think I am in love.

You would fall in love with moi!

I think I am in love. Originally Posted by London Rayne

With the total slob?

Speaking for myself, this 'work' is just not tolerable if you really don't like someone. It's such a giving of mind/body/spirit that to really be uncomfortable with somone and try and fake it just takes too much out of me and leaves me empty for the person I do connect well with. You can't put a price tag on that.

I left a guy sitting in the lounge here in Honolulu yesterday for that exact reason, although we didn't get far enough for any discussion.
Besides being a total slob (I am not talking just overweight) he had a dour and negative attitude. Ug. I ain't going anywhere near that, and business has not been good here! Protecting your own energy and carrying on with a good attitude is much more important than a few bucks. Originally Posted by ClairJordan

You mean with all the Obama hangers-on (press, staff, etc.) you couldn't find someone to do? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Hey that was kind of rude. Originally Posted by Naomi4u

Not for this forum. We like to rib each other and use lots of sarcasm. Oh, and bring politics into a thread whenever possible. Originally Posted by Ansley

Ansley was right. It wasn't rude. It was ignorant. Originally Posted by FLWrite

Sorry Charlie, I agree with FL. Originally Posted by WTF

I think it would be rude and ignorant on Charles' part if Clair was new to this forum. I didn't think Charles was trying to be hurtful. Now Charles if you were, say your sorry. Originally Posted by Ansley

That would be completely out of character. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yes, Charles has thrown out some hurtful things in his posts. I didn't think this was one of those times. Originally Posted by Ansley

This is a serious post. I wasn't going to respond to this, but apparently my "reputation" has colored this one sentence post of mine, so for what it's worth, here is the accurate explanation.

I was focusing on Clair's stay in Hawaii being not good for business. I remembered that Obama was vacationing there, and supposed (without any empirical evidence) that there would be literally thousands of people traveling there because that was where the President was. Lots of mice away from home. And I found it hard to believe that they wouldn't take advantage of being in a Hawaiian paradise w/o getting in some extra entertainment. And Clair was uniquely located to assist. You know, sort of like Dallas is supposed to be during the Superbowl this year.

Actually, the one-liner I posted was supposed to be funny. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously, I didn't achieve that goal.

Was it rude? I didn't think so. Was it ignorant? Now that's a description that kind of escaped me. To understand the thrust of my post, you had to know that at least the President was vacationing in Hawaii, and that a multitude of hangers-on would be there, too. So, in order to understand the one-liner, you had to be a little abreast of current events. I did not understand the "ignorant" appellation.

Nor was my post meant to disparage Clair in any way.

Clair, if you did take offense to anything in my post, I apologize.

This is a serious post. I wasn't going to respond to this, but apparently my "reputation" has colored this one sentence post of mine, so for what it's worth, here is the accurate explanation.

I was focusing on Clair's stay in Hawaii being not good for business. I remembered that Obama was vacationing there, and supposed (without any empirical evidence) that there would be literally thousands of people traveling there because that was where the President was. Lots of mice away from home. And I found it hard to believe that they wouldn't take advantage of being in a Hawaiian paradise w/o getting in some extra entertainment. And Clair was uniquely located to assist. You know, sort of like Dallas is supposed to be during the Superbowl this year.

Actually, the one-liner I posted was supposed to be funny. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously, I didn't achieve that goal.

Was it rude? I didn't think so. Was it ignorant? Now that's a description that kind of escaped me. To understand the thrust of my post, you had to know that at least the President was vacationing in Hawaii, and that a multitude of hangers-on would be there, too. So, in order to understand the one-liner, you had to be a little abreast of current events. I did not understand the "ignorant" appellation.

Nor was my post meant to disparage Clair in any way.

Clair, if you did take offense to anything in my post, I apologize. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charles that is exactly how I thought you meant it. I did not think you did it mean spirited. That is why I didn't think it assholeish! Now I can't speak for FL but maybe he, like I, thought it crass. It sounded something like this to me:
"All these folks in Hawaii and you can't even find one that will fuc you or that you wanna fuc?''

Just not a question one ask IMHO. Again that is why I agreed with FL. For clarity I do not think you are ignorant in all matters as we all say and do ignorant things.

I think I am in love. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Clair and London, together? OMFG. I might have known you two would fall for one another eventually.

Nah, I think this one is around for a while Originally Posted by discreetgent

Oh, I hope not.... (with apologies to Bill Dana)

Nah, I sent them to Edward for dinner; didn't Becky tell you? Originally Posted by discreetgent

You shoulda sent half to each diner, methinks...

This is a serious post. I wasn't going to respond to this, but apparently my "reputation" has colored this one sentence post of mine, so for what it's worth, here is the accurate explanation.

I was focusing on Clair's stay in Hawaii being not good for business. I remembered that Obama was vacationing there, and supposed (without any empirical evidence) that there would be literally thousands of people traveling there because that was where the President was. Lots of mice away from home. And I found it hard to believe that they wouldn't take advantage of being in a Hawaiian paradise w/o getting in some extra entertainment. And Clair was uniquely located to assist. You know, sort of like Dallas is supposed to be during the Superbowl this year.

Actually, the one-liner I posted was supposed to be funny. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously, I didn't achieve that goal.

Was it rude? I didn't think so. Was it ignorant? Now that's a description that kind of escaped me. To understand the thrust of my post, you had to know that at least the President was vacationing in Hawaii, and that a multitude of hangers-on would be there, too. So, in order to understand the one-liner, you had to be a little abreast of current events. I did not understand the "ignorant" appellation.

Nor was my post meant to disparage Clair in any way.

Clair, if you did take offense to anything in my post, I apologize. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I have to think those on official detail or press corps would not want to risk a daliance & probably can't afford Clair anyway.

I know a lot of "regulars" in vacation hot spots that (any) President visits/takes over want nothing to do with the place that week because of all the hassle caused by the entourage/security outweighs the slim chance of maybe a photo op in the ice cream shoppe

I have to think those on official detail or press corps would not want to risk a daliance & probably can't afford Clair anyway. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You mean they don't have their own PAC =Providers' Action Committee?

You're probably right. Unless you're elected, you probly have to be on ur best behavior.

It seems to me that Natalie's "friend" has two major/serious grievances with the guy in question: 1 - his offensively racist views, and 2 - his unwillingness to honor her request that they avoid the unpleasant topic. At first blush, these would appear to be more than sufficient reason to dump the guy, perhaps after giving him another warning and another chance.

However, Natalie has not been nearly as specific about what her "friend" finds desirable in the guy's company...some vague combination of chemistry, common interests, enjoyment of each other's company, financial arrangements etc. So, I think it is hard for any of us to draw a definite conclusion about what this "friend" should or shouldn't tolerate. Relationships often require taking some measure of the bad for the sake of the good, especially when we are not talking about anyone's primary or only relationship (where one needs/wants something more nearly ideal). The trade-off judgement is going to be hard for anyone but Natalie's "friend" to weigh, imo.

This

this couple in particular has, in many ways, broken the client/companion boundaries. She is no longer paid hourly, but they have a mutual agreement to care for one another's needs in a less formal arrangement. Originally Posted by Natalie

however is what makes it really tricky. This couple is not on the standard "social script" of either a romantic couple or that of a sex worker and client couple...or indeed on any social script at all. This means that neither of them has any external reference or standard to tell them what they can reasonably/fairly expect of the other person and what the other person can similarly expect of them. All they can do is each rely on their own internal notions and desires for how the relationship should function. There is an excellent chance that these will differ.

At this point I should perhaps mention that I have a "friend" who has been a little way down this road with a few escorts and very very far down it with one. And I can assure you, or rather my "friend" can assure you, that it can become hellishly complex and confusing...a difficult navigation of dangerous waters with neither map nor GPS, so to speak. Also, I/he would have to say that it can be worth the major effort involved, at least sometimes.

Anyway, drawing this verbosity to a close, my "friend's" bottom line advice to Natalie's "friend" is to apply one standard to the relationship that makes sense for either a purely romantic or a purely commercial connection (and thus for a combination of the two presumably). Namely, as long as she finds herself still being consistently glad/happy about opportunities to spend time with the guy, she should continue to seek ways to solve the problem (of which the best might be to talk about the issue as openly and directly as Natalie does in the IP of this thread). However, if she finds herself *routinely* dreading/disliking their time together, she should bring their arrangement to an end. And, of course, he should be making a similar "calculation".

-Ww

That is incredibly disrespectful and childish. He knows that the issue is important enough to you that you felt the need to tell him it made you upset and uncomfortable, but he continues to bring it up, hoping to get a rise out of you. When I was in fifth grade, we called that bullying. Most of us realized that was not acceptable behavior and outgrew that phase.

If I were you, I'd explain to him again -- through email perhaps, if emotions tend to get the better of either of you face to face -- how his behavior is making you feel. If, after you have given him a generous second chance to apologize and change his attitude, he persists in purposefully attempting to offend you... well, that's not the kind of relationship I'd want to continue to have with anyone, regardless of our history. Originally Posted by Carrie Hillcrest

I love this advice! Elegant and spot-on. It may be that this particular client is a little confused and thinks it's somehow cute or funny to try to push your buttons—I know sometimes I might smile when I'm being serious because I don't care for confrontation, and that could send the wrong signal—but there are not many excuses as to why he'd continue his behavior when you've made it clear it makes you uncomfortable. If he couldn't respect a simple request like avoiding bigoted comments, I'd be concerned about what other requests he'd be unable to honor.