Do the best escorts lack a conscience?

[+ deej]

This isn't an unnuanced post.

 

I wasn't going to do this....

 

They have to have sexual relations (OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: we pay for their time) with all kinds of people (it's in the job description), people that are old (yep), fat (show of hands?), and ugly (well, sure),people that are cheating on their wives (and...?), partners (as opposed to wives...), etc. (that etc. is always the bad shit!) They have to believe (one would hope) that they are worth 200 or more for an hour of their time, to basically, give them a blow job. (I usually want more, but a limited worldview might bring this impression about.) That requires a certain amount of unhealthy narcissism, does It not? (What is your opinion, bucko?)

If I was an escort (RUN-ON SENTENCE ALERT!), which I know I never could or would be,I know that to be able to not develop some sort of connection or feelings for any of these men that are showering me with attention, gifts, money, compliments, etc, I would have to lack a soul, because there is NO WAY I could keep seeing these people and NOT CARE that they have a family, or they have feelings for me, or that they admire me, or, for some reason, put me on a pedestal. (WHEW! Whatever. Start reading again...)

I could NEVER pretend to be into these people for the money. (Well clearly!) And I never would. (WHEW!)

What say you?

 

I'd expect this kind of immature rant from our old pal TaylorKY except he never learned to use capital letters.

 

I just don't see the dire harm. It's a childish taunt. In the event it's a serious inquiry, it has received well-considered replies.

[JoeyBryant]

I didnt care to read what was OP'd, but just glancing at the title and a few words clearly shows whoever it is is trying to break down the confidence and stride of all who derive pleasure from the industry.

 

The comments are neutralized because I'm sure there are 50 million other people who feel the exact same way as the OP. If I was to ask every person for an essay about how they felt about escorting then I'd quit before I could even think about it.

 

Its alot easier to post online so one doesn't have to deal with the verbal (and possible physical) repercussions of doing so. I say, who cares what anyone else has to say or think about it.

 

Oh...and I just laugh when someone mentions the stereotypical client, just like most stereotypes...

[NYTomcat]

I wasn't going to do this....

 

 

 

I'd expect this kind of immature rant from our old pal TaylorKY except he never learned to use capital letters.

 

I just don't see the dire harm. It's a childish taunt. In the event it's a serious inquiry, it has received well-considered replies.

 

OK deej you win. If you want to break it down that far I'll bite. Lets assume he is. I'll just go on ignoring them God knows hes not the only one just as Im sure many ignore me. But I still say it will be interesting if further posts show the same tone. I'm not in the boat of ban the posts... live and let live as long as you do no harm. Im back to not good, but interesting.

 

However I do not buy this as questioning and interested in escorting and looking for answers. But I give Boston his props for trying. Your a good man Charlie Brown.

[Guest zipperzone]

Regardless of his intentions he sure has stirred up some passionate opinions. 28 posts as a result of his request for a comment? I bet he's rubbing his sides in glee about now.

[orbital sander]

The insulting was actually pretty mild and I suspect the attacks were mostly in your own mind.

 

To me, the OP sounded like someone not experienced enough to construct a nuanced attack. At various times in my life I've known them by varying names: interns, law students , student teachers....

 

We all grow out of that, sooner or later.

 

Yes, and most often we "grow" out of that "sooner or later" by having our figurative asses kicked by our peers (or fellow forum members).

 

To me, the OP sounded like someone who was attacking, or at best behaving boorishly.

 

But that is just my opinion...

[TruthBTold]

While the original "question" may be all invective, the responses have been thoughtful (both the ones answering the question itself and those stating that it should not be answered at all). This situation reflects societal circumstances where a statement or activity is said or done just to provoke. The responses often respond to the statement itself or the fact that it was said at all. However, there is generally agreement that the original statement should be allowed to be made. Rock on, gentlemen.

[+ Lucky]

Okay, having had time to sleep on it:

When I was in high school I went to the dean to complain about a demerit. I was angry and it showed. He made me leave his office and return with a better attitude. So I did, and I won my request to have the demerit excised.

 

So, perhaps gaybor should also have been told to leave the room and come back with a better attitude. That way a point is made that he is welcome to participate here, but the tone of his message has to be civil. Why let someone start right out with the wrong attitude?

[seeker630]

Ground rules

 

Boston Guy does us no favors not to express some ground rules for making an inquiry here.

 

With respect, Lucky - who should make these ground rules & what should they be? It's obvious to me that there are many different opinions as to the purpose of this forum & what is 'acceptable'.

 

Since it's really Daddy's house, in which we are allowed to convene, I looked at the Terms of Service:

"RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE

 

1. Attacks against other people are not allowed. Personal attacks stifle discussion and create an atmosphere that discourages many people from joining us. We want all people to feel welcome here and welcome to state their opinions. Those who come here for advice or assistance should be treated with respect. You are free to criticize the opinions of other people at will. But please do not attack, insult or disparage others themselves; all are worthy of respect, even those with whom we disagree."

 

As to what consitutes "personal attacks"...those judgments are somewhat subjective too.

[+ Lucky]

The moderators have the difficult duty of determining who is in breach of the rules. The rest of us have the right not to respond to someone who comes in here flaming with insults. A group of people tried to establish a policy of ignoring this poster, but could not come up with unanimous backing.

So, it appears that the moderators, whom I love and respect, have the only opportunity to keep such folks out.

I think they are willing to give someone more benefit of the doubt than I am, but then again, I am not a moderator and am happy to live with their decisions in the face of a lack of unanimous agreement on a boycott of people like gaybor.

[seeker630]

Agreed!

 

The moderators have the difficult duty of determining who is in breach of the rules. The rest of us have the right not to respond to someone who comes in here flaming with insults. A group of people tried to establish a policy of ignoring this poster, but could not come up with unanimous backing.

So, it appears that the moderators, whom I love and respect, have the only opportunity to keep such folks out.

I think they are willing to give someone more benefit of the doubt than I am, but then again, I am not a moderator and am happy to live with their decisions in the face of a lack of unanimous agreement on a boycott of people like gaybor.

 

Like you, I may not draw the lines in the same place as the moderators, but I am willing to abide by their decisions and I do respect them and value their efforts.

 

And in this case, I agree with the decision, at the end.