Introspective discussion about ourselves from within the hobby

Roses have thorns they say.

The best roses do.

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. Originally Posted by Laurentius

A point I can happily concur with.

I was pointed to these two threads (done by the L&L boys) by one of my friends here.

It does beg the question...Do you guys really want to understand women that much? Most of 'em look great. They either like you or they don't. If they do?...just lay back and enjoy it. If they don't...change the channel.

Hell, I figure if I ever do figure out something about 'em, there gonna change it just to keep me off balance. I don't need to know why gravity works to keep my feet on the ground. I don't need to why the wind blows to build a sail. And I don't need to know how their head works to enjoy some time around 'em. Just do what they say when they ask...and if you don't?...try not to get caught ....and if you do get caught?...Say, "You're right. I'm wrong. I'm sorry"...then try not to get caught again.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to understand what I'm doing or, as Ansley mentioned, controlling my environment.

I think most folks acknowledge that, to some extent, we are products of not just biology, but environment.

I can't do much about my biology; but if I can understand and control my environment, to a certain extent I can control who I become. Sort of self-directed evolution.

I don't think there is any such thing as "understanding women" because at best you end up with something very general (like the study showing that women have more orgasms with rich men) that may not apply to any given individual example.

Likewise, general understandings of men (e.g. that they seek eye candy) may also fall short in a given case.

In general I see no problem with attempting to gain at least some degree of understanding, though.

Probably that reflects my general initial background, though -- which is in hard sciences and engineering.

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

Lauren is one of the few people on this thread who really took the time to read, and offer a thoughtful response to your concerns.I do not see how that could be viewed as dismissive.

If we all just admit we are srewed up messes can we make this thread end please ? ( now you see that was dismissive. I am sorry but I just coudn't stop myself)

"If we all just admit we are srewed up messes can we make this thread end please ?"

I admit I am a screwed up mess and will no longer post to this thread.

I can't do much about my biology; but if I can understand and control my environment, to a certain extent I can control who I become. Sort of self-directed evolution.
. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Its not your enviroment we are having the disagreement over. It is your need to control others enviroment. What you are asking is akin to dining out with a woman and then leaving because she orders what you deem harmful to her. You will not contribute to her unhealthy life style. We can all agree that if she were ordering massive shots to Tequila then that might be prudent but what you are asking is.......is more like is the much more subtle ''Is the dessert unhealthy for her''? It very well may be but are we really in a position to judge that far into ones life?

Understood that after explaining your personal situtation that you are like a doctor that has seen the effects of obesity. You might not ever be able to eat dessert with another again. I personally do not see that as a healthy way to conduct ones life but I am not you.

If we all just admit we are srewed up messes can we make this thread end please ? ( now you see that was dismissive. I am sorry but I just coudn't stop myself) Originally Posted by Becky

I'll admit that there are some screwed up posters on this thread!

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. Originally Posted by Laurentius

There is usually an extra charge for necrophilia

There is usually an extra charge for necrophilia Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'll admit that there are some screwed up posters on this thread! Originally Posted by WTF

SEE!

Its not your enviroment we are having the disagreement over. It is your need to control others enviroment. Originally Posted by WTF

No, not their environment -- only what happens when with ME. What they may do with others is none of my concern.

What you are asking is akin to dining out with a woman and then leaving because she orders what you deem harmful to her. You will not contribute to her unhealthy life style. Originally Posted by WTF

A reasonable comparison.

We can all agree that if she were ordering massive shots to Tequila then that might be prudent Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, I can reasonably judge if an immediate action might do irreparable bodily injury. But in lesser extremes it is less clear for sure.

but what you are asking is.......is more like is the much more subtle ''Is the dessert unhealthy for her''? It very well may be but are we really in a position to judge that far into ones life? Originally Posted by WTF

Using your example, if I KNOW she is a diabetic so it would be unhealthy in the extreme; then I think maybe I should say something. But if I thought it just might be unhealthy generally, it is none of my business.

However, if she conceals the fact she is a diabetic from me and then has me treat her to an ice cream sundae; I think it could reasonably be argued, as others have pointed out, that if she drops to the floor and dies it is her fault -- not mine. That doesn't mean I'd feel joyful about it though.

Understood that after explaining your personal situtation that you are like a doctor that has seen the effects of obesity. You might not ever be able to eat dessert with another again. I personally do not see that as a healthy way to conduct ones life but I am not you. Originally Posted by WTF

I think it is likely that, due to the nature of the medium; I conveyed a stronger impression than intended. After all, I have been hobbying for 3.5 years and didn't run all the ladies through a battery of tests.

I admit I am a screwed up mess and will no longer post to this thread. Originally Posted by Laurentius

YOU PROMISED!!!

I can see how you might think I'm condescending and dismissive - I disagree with a lot of what you have to say. However, my words are aimed at your philosophy, not you. Perhaps I should use softer adjectives and ease up on my tone. I guess I'm a bit in business mode while since I'm at the office and being to blunt for my own good. I don't mind you in the sandbox, but if I disagree I'll say so. Naturally I feel passionately about a subject that my life revolves around.

Driving to a lunch meeting this thread a few thoughts bounced around. The following is not a judgment or directed at anyone, just the meditation of a drive across town on a warm day.

Oh to beat a dead horse! I had additional thoughts on the matters of concern for the abused and victimology:

When studying therapy for the abused we were taught that the experience of violence (regardless of the type) is an extremely private experience, in fact it is the most personal and intimate (and thus traumatic) experience a person can have.

Ever drive down the highway after a nasty accident, and the only thing slowing down traffic ate the rubber necks slowing down to take a peak? Or see the gathering gawkers at the side of an ambulance? That is a deep violation for the emegency staff on scene and the victim. In therapy discussions with paramedics you find they are deeply disturbed by the onlookers for that very reason.

It's a bit much to post about someone else's tragedy in detail, even if we do not know their name. It is disrespectful to try and find out that kind of information about someone's past. If they want to let you know about such experiences, they'll bring it up. Trying to surmise before getting involved with them is prying. Most people discuss such things with a precious few in their lives.

Also, the people who are survivors of violence do not want to be defined by their pain. They don't want their entire character , and every future experience to be looked at through the lens of that traumatic event. It is important to be able to separate the subject's construct of personal identity from the event that occurred. To suggest a victim of violence should be treated with great delicacy when that is not what the subject asks for, seeks, or desires, takes away their perception of power and control over their own identity - which is precisely what happens in an instance of violence. Believing that a victim of violence is fundamentally and irreparably changed takes away their hope of being whole again. Who wants to be pitied? So this might sound confusing, but what I'm saying is: to forever treat victims, as victims, revictimizes them... I think my brain hurt itself on that one.

I have a great fascination with WWII history. There is quite a bit of debate over the word "Holocaust", which is theologically insulting to many. It's meaning translating to "burnt offering". The problem with that: a burnt offering is a gift to God (and a pagan one). As the holocaust survivor in "The Reader" said: "Nothing come out of the camps..." Nothing good came out of it, there is no silver lining, no hallmark sympathies apply. In stead many have adopted the word: Shoah. It translates as "calamity". It is a dark place, void of God. Sheer, empty blackness.

We should not wear other people's wounds as a badge of honour, or try to give true darkness a silver lining.

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

So rational and reasonable. Regardless of our past, we would like to be treated as capable, responsible adults with pride. No one wants to go into a therapy session when they're looking to play.

I was pointed to these two threads (done by the L&L boys) by one of my friends here.
Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I hope your friend was kind enough to give you a Cliff's Notes version of the prior 100+ posts...I feel bad for you if you tried to wade thru all of this