Introspective discussion about ourselves from within the hobby

I do not permit CIM with most of the ladies I see.

Why not?

Because if I were in their place, I wouldn't want some man I barely know ejaculating in my mouth.

Now, it is true that I might be making a really huge assumption. Hell, for all I know, maybe a given provider has a semen fetish and will feel seriously unfulfilled unless she swallows my cum. But if she has such a fetish, she certainly hasn't told me that.

So barring her explicit communication of her desires; I have to work on some default assumptions. She hasn't TOLD me not to tie her up and beat her with a board spiked with rusty nails; so maybe it is desired. But I ASSUME it is NOT desired because I know that were roles reversed, I damned sure wouldn't want to be beaten that way.

So by default, I assume that a woman wants to be treated the way I'd want to be treated if the roles were reversed. But that is a DEFAULT. The default is overridden by her explicit expression of a contradictory desire.

For example; I absolutely will never allow a provider to tie me up. Ever. Period. Not happening. So, by default, I do not seek to tie providers up either.

However, recently a provider contacted me and asked me quite specifically to tie her up and do various things.

In HER case, she is going to get tied up because she has communicated her desires.

(By the way, I accidentally used the wrong icon in my previous post -- I was trying to do a smiley. )

That having been said, I believe that there are limits to a woman's consent. That is, her consent is not a command. I have an absolute right to refuse to perform any act based upon my own understanding and value-system.

Can a provider consent to me breaking her leg? In my view -- no she cannot. She can consent all she wants, but that consent isn't valid. She cannot consent to be harmed. If she is just dying to have it done, she'll have to book some other guy with fewer scruples to do it, because I won't.

Which brings me to an element of my own hobbying philosophy.

When I have put myself in a situation to be alone with a woman; to a certain extent her safety and wellbeing become part of my responsibility during that time. The fact that I paid a fee does not relieve me of basic human obligations that I would render to any person on the street. If she has a seizure am I supposed to just leave her there and walk out to protect my anonymity? Or should I weigh the differentials in damage by using human life as my standard of value for comparison? I agree with the latter.

So I believe I have a responsibility to, to the best of my knowledge, do nothing that harms the woman. And I believe her consent is valid only to the extent that whatever she is consenting to will not harm her.

In fact, using an extreme example, if she hands me a gun and tells me that having me shoot her would be an incredible turn-on; she has just demonstrated to me that she is not mentally competent to give informed consent. Therefore on those grounds alone it is not valid.

I have given a whole bunch of physical-world examples to make the concept clear; because everybody knows and accepts that you shouldn't be shooting people or beating them with a stick spiked with rusty nails. Everybody can understand the harm. And most can agree that even if she were to consent to those acts, the consent would not be valid.

Well -- why would you look at a woman's psychological wellbeing any differently? Do you think psychological trauma is just a plaything and not real simply because it leaves no blood?

IF it becomes evident to me that any particular act stands a reasonable likelihood of damaging a particular woman psychologically; I have an absolute right to refuse.

It may sound egotistical as hell; but I am my sister's keeper.

It may sound egotistical as hell Originally Posted by Laurentius

Yep. I personally don't find it attractive when a man believes he knows what's best for me and brags about how well he knows women.

Of course no one should consent to an act they are uncomfortable with, even if the other party desires it - it's a two way street. Common sense.

I would be willing to bet that PJ could write the same thing in about two sentences.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=39803&page=7

I notice, Lauren, that rather than dispute my reasoning you have simply attempted to impeach the source (i.e. concentrating on the idea I may be egotistical).

In essence, an ad hominem which is an admission that you cannot (or will not) dispute the reasoning.

You darned well know that if you were to collapse during a date you would MUCH prefer to have a man there who would do whatever was necessary to assure your health and wellbeing rather than skulking off and leaving you to die.

Lauren, you are no doubt familiar with the peer pressure studies involving the lines drawn on a card. (See this link for refreshing your recollection: http://www.family.org.sg/default.asp...rticle&aid=643)

I'm a guy who will choose what I believe to be the right answer in spite of massive peer pressure to the contrary. It is one reason I am very successful in various endeavors and can afford the prices providers charge.

That is confidence; not egocentrism. Though I DO understand that many have difficulty drawing the distinction.

In spite of that confidence; I AM subject to changing my views on any topic in the face of superior data.

But simply noting that you think I sound egotistical does not constitute "superior data."

Actually, I'm going to rip into you a bit on this Lauren.

"Yep. I personally don't find it attractive when a man believes he knows what's best for me and brags about how well he knows women."

Excuse me? Show me where I bragged about how well I know women. You are setting up a strawman.

And as for "knowing what is best for you" -- what? Am I dictating your diet?

In fact, I have made ZERO statements about how YOU should behave and MANY about how *I* should behave.

I personally find reading comprehension extremely attractive.

I would be willing to bet that PJ could write the same thing in about two sentences.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=39803&page=7 Originally Posted by Ansley

Except PJ doesnt have time to read the 700 words in that post to figure out WTF he is talking about.

But simply noting that you think I sound egotistical does not constitute "superior data." Originally Posted by Laurentius

Sometimes that "superior data" is highly overrated. I will agree with Lauren, your "persona" is very egotistical.

Well, I can figure out 2 people that I'll never have to exclaim "get a room!"

Actually, I'm going to rip into you a bit on this Lauren.

"Yep. I personally don't find it attractive when a man believes he knows what's best for me and brags about how well he knows women."

Excuse me? Show me where I bragged about how well I know women. You are setting up a strawman.

And as for "knowing what is best for you" -- what? Am I dictating your diet?

In fact, I have made ZERO statements about how YOU should behave and MANY about how *I* should behave.

I personally find reading comprehension extremely attractive. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Other gents on the forums have given me plenty of practice being ripped into, you aren't going to knock me off kilter, so don't sweat it

My opinion is of your general attitude and statements throughout the thread. I post while working at my day job, so I'm not going to go though it all and pull out quotes (that and I'd rather read and book lol).

You presume to have superior understanding. I personally find your tone righteous, patranizing and condescending, but others may disagree and enjoy your writing. And you clearly have opinions of my style

I have in fact disputed your reasoning, and to do so again would be to repeat my previous posts... Your use of extremes to illustrate your point fails, as those extreme situations (which are black and white) boil down to the use of common sense. Such arguments fail to address the subtlety in life.

Do you know anything about Talmudic logic? It provides fascinating reads, outlining the break down of situations involving moral decision making. Reading it you learn that no two situations are the same, and with each case there different concerns, with different answers.

IF it becomes evident to me that any particular act stands a reasonable likelihood of damaging a particular woman psychologically; I have an absolute right to refuse.

It may sound egotistical as hell; but I am my sister's keeper. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Yes it does sound egotistical, but I digress lol

I think you are overstating the case. The key part of your statement is "if it becomes evident to me." I don't think you would get much disagreement on that. However, if I am reading your previous posts correctly you are positing that one should pro-actively find out if an act will damage a woman psychologically, ie did she take up escorting based on a history of abuse or other psychological trauma. I - and I think others - are positing that we do not have that kind of obligation. Unless it is really evident to us we are not responsible for basing our decision on the choices that she has made.

Except PJ doesnt have time to read the 700 words in that post to figure out WTF he is talking about. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Do we have a Ben Stein smiley?

Sometimes that "superior data" is highly overrated. I will agree with Lauren, your "persona" is very egotistical. Originally Posted by Ansley

I can appreciate that you are willing to draw the distinction as to persona in a thread and what I might actually be like in person.

Personally, I think the attitude of Lauren's persona toward me has demonstrated a sense of personal supremacy and has been dismissive, arrogant and condescending in the extreme.

However, I am not so foolish as to automatically believe that is how she would be if I were to take her to a movie.

But I also want to point something out.

Take this thread in context. This thread is about our fears and concerns. I had the chutzpah to at least express mine; and in the face of some ridicule to boot. And my fears and concerns boil down to my fear of hurting someone. If that makes me an arrogant bastard -- so be it.

And as for Lauren, yes, I am familiar with the Talmud. I am also familiar with the fact that moral choices are indeed contextual. But this idea has been expressed elsewhere than the Talmud. Martin Luther explained it as a hierarchy of values, as did Ayn Rand who pointed out that anything that is true is true only within a given context. Nietzsche, my personal favorite, noted that: "All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values."

Again, you talk down to me while accusing me of arrogance.

Yes it does sound egotistical, but I digress lol

I think you are overstating the case. The key part of your statement is "if it becomes evident to me." I don't think you would get much disagreement on that. However, if I am reading your previous posts correctly you are positing that one should pro-actively find out if an act will damage a woman psychologically, ie did she take up escorting based on a history of abuse or other psychological trauma. I - and I think others - are positing that we do not have that kind of obligation. Unless it is really evident to us we are not responsible for basing our decision on the choices that she has made. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I am not trying to say that I should send a provider to a psychological evaluation as a prerequisite to booking her. Nor am I implying that I have superhuman capacities to evaluate someone who is a superior actress.

But, yes, IF in the process of looking a woman over, something stands out as indicative that seeing me might harm her -- I see nothing wrong with me passing just as I would pass over a girl who didn't fulfill some other more superficial requirement such as hair color.

And, in reality, a lot of providers do the exact same thing. They avoid booking men they think might become inordinately attached and the like.

Personally, I think the attitude of Lauren's persona toward me has demonstrated a sense of personal supremacy and has been dismissive, arrogant and condescending in the extreme. Originally Posted by Laurentius

I can understand why you have those opinions. You seem to want to be in control of situations. Lauren is a woman that is smart, and isn't scared to go toe to toe with you. Are you threatened by a women with a mind of her own?

I can understand why you have those opinions. You seem to want to be in control of situations. Lauren is a woman that is smart, and isn't scared to go toe to toe with you. Are you threatened by a women with a mind of her own? Originally Posted by Ansley

While I would hesitate to admit it in this context; I find her intellect very stimulating. I have nearly zero interest in a woman who rolls over and plays dead. A woman like Lauren is someone with whom consent -- if it occurs -- is unambiguous. I can 100% certain she is immune to any harm I could do.

I find this aspect of her ungodly attractive. A woman who will assert herself turns me on.