GENIUS FORUMS

but I still don't see how this would justify you regarding a man as a bigot just because he does have a taste for them.

Carmel:
Nick, his whoring has absolutely nothing to do with why I think he's a bigot. I'm not sure how you derived at that conclusion. Anyway, I think it might be best if you discussed his views with him directly.

Nick:
To me it's just a matter of personal preference, and not worth getting upset about.[/quote]

Carmel:
Honestly, I wasn't at all upset with him. I have no feeling for him whatsoever, nor much respect for him, which again, has nothing to do with his whoring. ... It was Diebert that I was perturbed by, but that's only because I actually have respect for him and some of his statements seemed incongruent with my perception of him. It threw me off balance a bit, but it's neither here nor there, I think it's time to give it a rest.

Oh I was just taking the discussion off on a different tangent. It had nothing to do with anyone here specifically.

Carmel wrote:

If you had a genuine desire not to be the target of people's aggression over this subject matter, the guidance of your intuition is probably 100 times more effective than making a list about how to do it.

ok, that was redemptive, excellent point, Nick. :)

Well, it's easy for me to say that in reference to Diebert, but for most people a list would be absolutely necessary.

dejavu wrote:Dan, you curmudgeon, how much was your expensive prostitute?

If I recall correctly, $180 for an hour. But here's a funny anecdote relating to that that persons of more insight - and less of a desperate need to suck up to women as you display - might like to psychoanalyze: I was 23 at the time. After watching a local football match I went to a friend's place (actually, my brother's friend; I didn't really have any friends of my own - insert sad face). He was feeling what was euphemistically called "toey" so he suggested we get some girls in. I wasn't all that keen as I was never a causal, mechanical sex kind of guy, but he was pretty persuasive (and desperate) so I agreed. Two surprisingly attractive ladies showed up and even more surprisingly I got the more attractive of the two. She was 29 and seriously gorgeous. As I lay over her near perfect body I made the fatal mistake of asking her some personal questions; to, well, personalize things, as was my foolish wont it seems. I discovered she had two children etc etc etc. At that moment I was simply unable to continue. No idea why; I just couldn't go through with it.

That was interesting enough I suppose, but the really interesting thing was her reaction. Even though she'd been paid and had to do nothing to earn it, her response was: "You're pathetic". She literally said that to me. And I don't mind admitting that at the time it hurt somewhat.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain to me why she responded like that. If you give me trite bullshit, you will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Go work things out with your sister instead of wasting your time bitching about the "female mind"

Mind your own business, you pretentious blowhard. Seriously. There's nothing for me to work out. I have no issue with my sister whatsoever. For me, we simply have a different philosophical view of things. I can accommodate that perfectly well. My disposition towards her has never been different at any time. The problem is on her side and only she can work that out.

dejavu wrote:Dan:

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain to me why she responded like that.

Your anecdote is very bare, and doesn't give me much to go on, but there are a few possible answers.

One, she may have taken offence at your asking questions of her background and personal life, as though that mattered when you were already lying on top of her, as though the way you resolved morally your being there with her at all somehow hung on the act of sexual intercourse itself as opposed to the situation as it stood in general. (Can't blame her if that's the case)

No, she was entirely happy to answer the questions. She showed no hesitation whatever is doing so. Actualy, she seemed to appreciate it if anything.

Two, she may have coarsely interpreted your hesitation and juvenile stabs at intimacy as a clear signal that she was not to receive a hearty rogering for her trouble. (If that's so, she was ungracious, and should have counted her blessings and or dollars)

That's closer, but you're not out of self-destruct danger yet.

Three, she may have looked into your eyes whilst lying beneath you as you quizzed her on her kids pets etc. and thought you a pretentious blowhard, her ejaculation being the most natural way to put you out of (and into) your misery. (The most likely scenario, but you yourself will have to tell us why you think she said it Dan)

Kaboom!!!!

I'll give you my interpretation when others have given theirs. There is no absolutely correct answer here, only quality ones.

She thought you were pathetic because here she was...a beautiful sex goddess...and you didn't even get turned on ....what kind of man are you ?

: )


or you said something moralistic....like: i can't do this...it's not right...

dejavu wrote:I think I've got it now. After answering your questions in good faith, your sudden dismount caused her some confusion as to what it was that she'd said for you to shy away, and she thought it best to shoot and perhaps not even ask questions afterwards.

My "dismount" wasn't entirely sudden. I didn't actually get to the mounting yard, so to speak.

Is it possible that you, a weather-beaten man of the infinite, need love to fuel his lust?!

Well, not entirely, but to that extent (of actual sex), yes. I plead guilty to that charge. It has always been that way for me.

Kunga wrote:She thought you were pathetic because here she was...a beautiful sex goddess...and you didn't even get turned on ....what kind of man are you ?

That's almost a bingo.

or you said something moralistic....like i can't do this...it's not right...

No, I didn't put any specific moral tone to it. But I did aplogise for not being able to go through with it, without being specific about why. That's because at the time I didn't really know myself.

so...was that your last sexual adventure ?

No. Of that type it was my first and last. I have always been a romantic fatalist. I have never dated and have never had a girlfriend, as such. i.e. the woman I've lived with the past 14 years is as close to a "girlfriend" as I've ever had. I was never the type to be lured into relationships for the mere sake of them, or the sake of convention, or whatever. When those you find yourself attracted to do not reciprocate, and your disposition is that of romantic fatalism, your fate is ultimately to be single.

No biggie.

i find it hard to believe that a woman has never fallen for you....you looked very attractive when you were young. Not only being attractive physically attracts but having a interesting and intelligent mind...and compassionate heart...and good sense of humor...it is strange someone didn't catch you ! But i respect men like you...wish there were more men like that. You are the type of man that a woman could trust.

And i just want to add, that men that frequent prostitutes are scarey health risks to women....so women that look down upon men that do that probebly are thinking of that, and don't want to involve themselves with men they can't trust...for fear of getting HIV or other STD'S...as well as infidelity

my problem is... i fall in love so easily

Kunga wrote:i find it hard to believe that a woman has never fallen for you....

Well, my flatmate of 14 years seems to have, so...

you looked very attractive when you were young.

I have no idea how you could possibly know that. And, hey, I'm not that old.

Not only being attractive physically attracts but having a interesting and intelligent mind...and compassionate heart...and good sense of humor...it is strange someone didn't catch you !

I'm afraid this is all just women's magazine rhetoric. It is not reality, by and large. Most women, and by that I mean the clear majority, value being wanted over anything else, including being respected. This is an irrefutable fact for the honest and sane. It is despairingly true. Rare is the woman who requires respect in equal measure to desire. This is why men who are basically just lust-driven plebs are actually very successful with women and get as much sex - or thereabouts - as they want. They know how to behave in such a way as to make a woman feel she is wanted, without the encumbrance of somethings as silly as respect or anything in that general family of valuations. This is why women can turn their minds away from the inherent bullshit in manipulative flattery, in a man's personal history, in the transparency of his motives and goals - all he has to do is make her feel she is wanted and she is most likely his. Indeed, it is part of the process that the more a man is willing to bullshit and lose his integrity, the better his chances, because that indicates the degree of his desire - or appears to at any rate. A skilled seducer or player knows this either consciously or intuitively. And really, there's truth to it. Such men do desire sufficiently to abandon their integrity (yes, this does assume they possess some to begin with). It's just that what they desire is really banal and superficial, as they themselves are.

It's always struck me as a sad and pathetic dynamic and I have never felt envy for such men and their "triumphs".

But i respect men like you...wish there were more men like that. You are the type of man that a woman could trust.

For most women, trust seems to be an afterthought, when it really should be a forethought. But then, for many, if not most, women, trust is something they actually measure by way of a man's expression of desire for her. I'm not convinced most women know how to actually discern character outside of that framework.

And i just want to add, that men that frequent prostitutes are scarey health risks to women....so women that look down upon men that do that probebly are thinking of that, and don't want to involve themselves with men they can't trust...for fear of getting HIV or other STD'S...as well as infidelity

I doubt risk of sexually transmitted disease is really a potent psychological force in women's dislike for men who use sex workers. I think the truth of that lies predominantly in the realm of fear, insecurity, envy, vanity and such.

Edit: I think the point I was clumsily trying to make in much of the above, is that for many women, respect is wanting and desire.

I agree with most everything you say Dan because it's true.

Men know exactly how to play a woman, his charm and natural charisma is what captivates her. She feels insecure by his ability to charm, and is evident in her jealousy of him. She knows how charming he is and feels threatened by it. Learning to share him is a difficult task which is eventually overcome, and her jealousy decreases and she becomes secure with his ability to persuade her. A man can talk any woman into bed if he desired to do that.

A determined good man can deter a prostitute away from prostitution. His charm and determination can alter her low-life status, and she will become an upstanding good citizen because of his love for her. A man can easily forgive a woman for the worst of things, he pities her and feels empathy, and knows within himself that he possesses the power of dominance over her, without having to show it.

Dan's little anecdote had an interesting subtext. The feminine attitude to sex is to regard all women as goddesses and intrinsically alluring; Dan's anecdote revealed that a beautiful woman regards all men who don't desire her as pathetic. In other words, women want to be alluring; they want to be desired. If they meet men who are not driven by that desire for women, who in fact can lose all their libido even while lying next to a naked goddess, then those men must be truly pathetic and unmanly. That's the feminine mind: it doesn't see any other perspective of woman.

So women who need to be alluring, or loved, as goddesses, or in any way attractive to men, are actually the ones with serious issues. And men who feel unworthy of these creatures are beneath contempt.

It's a nice reflection on the trend in this thread. Namely, moralistic judgments of prostitutes as "poor women who are abused by men who don't really love them", and of the men as "pathetic bastards". What a small-minded attitude!

.

Kelly, there appears to be a way more straight-forward analysis possible here. Women are very sensitive to being shamed. By not appearing to acknowledge her line of work, the visceral, physical, non-sensible, low-brow dimension of it with some participation, Dan caused instead of some relief of not having to perform, a form of rejection. As if Dan felt "too good" and was judging her moral character by remaining in a more idealistic, ethical space when engaging with her, no matter his intention with it. Initially this ethical dimension was interpreted as some respect for her person but it turned into the opposite, as if her background made it into a "sin", she suddenly thought she was turning him off as if she did something wrong with being there, and feelings of guilt might have rushed in.

Carmel wrote:Dan "gets away with a lot" because he's not a bigot. He's easily one of the most fair minded men here with regard to women.

Dan wrote:For most women, trust seems to be an afterthought, when it really should be a forethought. But then, for many, if not most, women, trust is something they actually measure by way of a man's expression of desire for her. I'm not convinced most women know how to actually discern character outside of that framework.

LOL!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Kelly, there appears to be a way more straight-forward analysis possible here. Women are very sensitive to being shamed. By not appearing to acknowledge her line of work, the visceral, physical, non-sensible, low-brow dimension of it with some participation, Dan caused instead of some relief of not having to perform, a form of rejection. As if Dan felt "too good" and was judging her moral character by remaining in a more idealistic, ethical space when engaging with her, no matter his intention with it. Initially this ethical dimension was interpreted as some respect for her person but it turned into the opposite, as if her background made it into a "sin", she suddenly thought she was turning him off as if she did something wrong with being there, and feelings of guilt might have rushed in.

There is some of that, but I think one has to keep in mind that Dan said she was a "stunner". Now, I can only guess here, but in Dan's terms, that would probably mean mature (solid character, someone who can hold her own in almost any sphere of human life, and come up with a retort or a mild wisecrack - an important social trait in Australia), big breasts, medium hips and slim (neither maternal nor an athlete), toned but not muscled, long shimmery light-brown hair that has been styled, fairly large glowing blue eyes, oozing confidence, very healthy, and full expressive lips (not fat lips, but expressive). She brandishes her clothing like a wisecrack, which is designed to be a come-on, and something she performs in comfortably and assertively. That means, she would be sensitive to criticism, but I highly doubt she'd be an amateur. She'd have been worldly.

So why would an assertive woman get butterflies in the midst of her performance? As a mother, she would be used to chatter, and as a prostitute, would use chatter as a turn-on. So, my view is, calling his decision not to have sex, "pathetic", was a simple flip answer. It was a business matter. A kind of "what's wrong with you, kid? You've put all that money into the thing, so get it over with, you fool." I don't think it affected her self-pride much at all. The retort would have been a teasing dismissal, a little taunt to see if he could pull himself together.

And, well, I've met Dan in person. He's not a tall, handsome person who might cause a woman to suddenly feel abashed. Most women are abashed by tall handsome men. Even at the age of 23, I don't imagine he was one of those overbearing semi-stud slimeballs who talk down to women, repeatedly insisting with big sheep-eyes, "You've got to trust me. Do you trust me? If you don't trust me, you're lost. I've got what you need, and you've got no other options but to take it. So trust me. You'd be a fool not to. No questions asked." I think it's likely he was slim in an undernourished way, a bit "dreamy", a bit of a Peter Pan, and had the pocked skin of bad acne. In other words, a quiet, unassuming, observant young bloke, a shadowy kind of figure who is never at the front of the queue or eager to be the first to do anything or say anything; not terribly good-looking, and with nothing obvious to appeal to a beautiful whore's ego, except the possibility of scorn and pity. In other words, a pathetic nothing, a young bloke to tease.

Women are quick to look down on men for desiring them, you see. They know how easily they can torment men, and they take advantage of men's susceptibility.

.

I've actually thought about all of what Dan, Kelly and even mensa-maniac said on this page. Really moving at times, especially Kelly. I'll be rereading your posts. This is the most insightful discussion on the internet. Oh yeah: the whore is 22.

Dan Rowden wrote:

dejavu wrote:Dan, you curmudgeon, how much was your expensive prostitute?

If I recall correctly, $180 for an hour. But here's a funny anecdote relating to that that persons of more insight - and less of a desperate need to suck up to women as you display - might like to psychoanalyze: I was 23 at the time. After watching a local football match I went to a friend's place (actually, my brother's friend; I didn't really have any friends of my own - insert sad face). He was feeling what was euphemistically called "toey" so he suggested we get some girls in. I wasn't all that keen as I was never a causal, mechanical sex kind of guy, but he was pretty persuasive (and desperate) so I agreed. Two surprisingly attractive ladies showed up and even more surprisingly I got the more attractive of the two. She was 29 and seriously gorgeous. As I lay over her near perfect body I made the fatal mistake of asking her some personal questions; to, well, personalize things, as was my foolish wont it seems. I discovered she had two children etc etc etc. At that moment I was simply unable to continue. No idea why; I just couldn't go through with it. {see below}

That was interesting enough I suppose, but the really interesting thing was her reaction. Even though she'd been paid and had to do nothing to earn it, her response was: "You're pathetic". She literally said that to me. And I don't mind admitting that at the time it hurt somewhat.

Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain to me why she responded like that. If you give me trite bullshit, you will self destruct in 5 seconds.

I think i know why.

For one she felt uncomfortable, you made her feel uncomfortable, so she tried to flip it back onto you, with some measure of success.
You made her feel less attractive and less desirable than she was accustomed, so she punished you for it.
Doing so, plus your unspoken assent, confirmed that the problem was yours, which helped ease her minor distress, any sense of rejection or potential loss.
Further protecting herself from potentially hurtful ideas or suggestions on your part, such as blaming it on something about her body.
And perhaps most important of all-- you could no longer expect a refund, now not even request one, if such a thought was lingering in the back of your mind.

As for the John.... well, he only required the opportunity, the right, which for you was sufficient.
She however.... was actually pleased to be spared the experience, her behavior was careful and deliberate-- the less that she moved you the better. It worked!
Once again!
Just fantastic.

(can you blame them for feeling superior?:)
enuf ced

pierdog wrote:Oh yeah: the whore is 22.

Ah, crap. Dejavu was soooo wishing you'd have said 16! Now he'll have to come up with something else.

I just noticed Tomas' current signature:

Everyone likes to be wanted

Those with an ego, yes, but the issue is not that one likes to be wanted; it's that one needs to be wanted and the status that need has in one's psyche.

dejavu wrote:Dan must be loving this lol

Unless Dan is a total fake, I doubt my subjunctives would affect him. Only if he were actually keeping abuoy the possibility of women finding him physically attractive, even if he writes ostensibly without that hope, would he be deflated by them. I would hope he would no longer find it hurtful that women generally cannot identify his own concepts of beauty and dignity, but that's his own business. He's written about that several times in this thread, but I guess you missed that.

.

Dejavu is merely projecting his own ego. It's what he does best, it seems.