Introspective discussion about ourselves from within the hobby

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Oh come now RK. Considering your thoughtful (if politically misguided posts ) I hope you don't really believe that the growing divisions in the country is solely the responsibility of one side or the other. There are "elites" on both sides of the political fence and both have done their share of damage to the body politic.

Nope...don't think it is one side or the other. I simply said he is a liberal elite and the liberal elites montra is...if you disagree?...you're a fool. The religious right's montra?...if you disagree?...you're immoral.

I do believe though, there is a greater and greater surge of the sleeping giant...in other words those people who do not live in the heart of the beast (i.e. the cities) and the liberal elite is not used to having to deal with them...so they call them hicks, fools, hillbillys, racest (hell, I don't even know if that's how you spell that. ), ignorant, etc. The religious right doesn't call 'em as many names, because for the most part...these folks are fairly relgious themselves. This sleeping giant believes in their God, and put him more in tune with their life...but they don't really think it belongs as much in politics as the religious right fanatics.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Nope...don't think it is one side or the other. I simply said he is a liberal elite and the liberal elites montra is...if you disagree?...you're a fool. The religious right's montra?...if you disagree?...you're immoral.

.

Some may debate the adjectives, but anyone with any common sense and objectivity would agree with the senitment.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I do believe though, there is a greater and greater surge of the sleeping giant...in other words those people who do not live in the heart of the beast (i.e. the cities) and the liberal elite is not used to having to deal with them...so they call them hicks, fools, hillbillys, racest (hell, I don't even know if that's how you spell that. ), ignorant, etc. The religious right doesn't call 'em as many names, because for the most part...these folks are fairly relgious themselves. This sleeping giant believes in their God, and put him more in tune with their life...but they don't really think it belongs as much in politics as the religious right fanatics.

I agree with you. I remember in the Fall of 08 trying to explain folks that I categorize as part of the "sleeping giant" that, in the evening at a private fundraiser, despite what he said he said to the masses, Candidate Obama was sipping chardonnay and eating brie with his Stanford professor types and LAUGHING at you (the sleeping giant). Your lack of sophistication was the source of their humor.

At the time, they told me I was wrong. I wasn't being fair to Obama. These same people are now cursing 44.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Nope...don't think it is one side or the other. I simply said he is a liberal elite and the liberal elites montra is...if you disagree?...you're a fool. The religious right's montra?...if you disagree?...you're immoral.

What about the conservative elite montra (its not all religious right)? I think the .... if you disagree? .... you're a fool fits just as well.

I do believe though, there is a greater and greater surge of the sleeping giant...in other words those people who do not live in the heart of the beast (i.e. the cities) and the liberal elite is not used to having to deal with them...so they call them hicks, fools, hillbillys, racest (hell, I don't even know if that's how you spell that. ), ignorant, etc. The religious right doesn't call 'em as many names, because for the most part...these folks are fairly relgious themselves. This sleeping giant believes in their God, and put him more in tune with their life...but they don't really think it belongs as much in politics as the religious right fanatics.

Agreed about the sentiment that God does not belong in politics amongst the sleeping giant you suggest.

As far as the great surge itself? We are certainly seeing more political activisim then we have seen since the late 1960s-early 1970s. How that plays out is the great unanswered question. Is it a lasting movement? Will it eventually just vote Republican but mean more votes for Republican candidates? Will it split the party ala the Democrats from 1968 into the 1980s? Time will tell, I certainly wouldn't take any bets on it.

[pjorourke]

You all are missing the point of what is going on entirely. This is not a question of Liberal versus Religious Conservatives, city versus country, rich versus poor or Democrats versus Republicans. It’s a battle between people who want to control other people’s lives versus people who want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. And the flip side of that is that the latter have to take responsibility for their own behavior – whether it is getting heart disease for eating too much fatty foods or going to hell for fucking around on their spouse.
Michael Barone recently wrote a very clear and intelligent opinion piece on this subject and I encourage all of you to read it.
Government at all levels has been growing at an unsustainable rate and the bills are coming due. We either need to fundamentally change the direction we are going or be prepared to have ever more intrusive controls on our life. If you have any question what this is about, just try to flush a damn toilet after a big meal.
I don’t see either party as being the answer. And although this will shock DG, Bush 43 was as bad about growing the beast as Obama – the only difference is degree. Ron Paul was ahead of his time.
The people who are involved in this “movement” are not looking for a tax cut. They think the system is unfair, but they aren’t trying to cut their share of the bill. They see it as just as wrong that people can agitate for free healthcare on someone else’s nickel as it is for Goldman Sachs to get bailed out for lending AIG too much money. It is just as wrong that 50% of the country pays no federal income tax to feed this monster as it is when a billionaire buys a tax break from his Senator. Quit the fucking free riding. But the bigger issue is where these trends are taking us and the bill we are passing on to our children.
The only answer I see is finding individual candidates (no matter where they are running) who believe in limited government. People who believe that the key to this country’s continued well being is a Government that lives within limits. I’m looking for candidates who have had real jobs in a real economy. Not government employees or lawyers of politicians. Someone who knows what is involved in making real decisions.
I’ve railed about this trend here and elsewhere before, but I think I have found an idea that might work. I’m going to take a sum of money that is about equal to the cost of a date – in my case, that either a couple of hours or an overnight – call it $1,000. I’m going to put that money in a prepaid Visa that I can use to make anonymous* $50 donations to a number of Primary candidates that I think are promising. If these folks don’t get funding at this level, they never make it to the general election and we are stuck with the same old retreads we always get. I’d recommend that each of you reading this do the same (ladies, take your revenue from a typical date). Damn folks, if this group can’t believe and fight for limited government, who the hell can?

·*The reason for anonymous contributions is obvious – I’m tired of being hounded for more money every time I contribute. Political parties serve little real use. They spend everything I give them in asking for more.

[discreetgent]

Good post Pj (you must all be shocked). And yes I did know the Bush wasn't any better about growing government lol
But riddle me this: even candidates that have run on a limited government platform and won have gotten seduced by the ability to bring back the bacon and help get re-elected. In other words it will be the same battle every 2 years. I am not sure that that is sustainable as a strategy

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's too late.


The machine is entrenched. The cogs are greased with flesh and fueled with corruption, lies and IOU's. It's a system. Anyone that knows anything about DC knows it's a world unto itself that's based on it's own reality. The money on the right distanced itself from their power base because it was and is embarrassed with the perception of their inbred ignorance.

The right believed that Hispanics along with other minorities needed moderates and centrists in order for them to vote Republican. The Dems have been working on their current agenda since the early 60's. November will tell a lot as to where things will stand. However the Juggernaut cannot be stopped. Only slowed, in my humble opinion.

[pjorourke]

Thats why we have to change the players -- and regularly. If term limits aren't possible, we need to enforce our own.

[Marcus Aurelius]

True enough. However the couch potatoes will need to turn off The View and Jon Stewart for news. Or at least ad some other input.

[manfredmaggie]

Originally Posted by boredinbingo

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. Also, I originally posted this in the Upstate NY forums, but somebody suggested I respost it here, so I did.

This might be a bad idea so if it is, please feel free to tell me/shut down the post, but I'm really curious about the inner psychological lives of us in this community. I often wonder that I cannot be the only person who has grappled extensively with the different implications of being a 'hobbyist'. I'll be the first to admit that when I first started hobbying I was thrown into a deep, deep depression after every encounter because I found myself thinking that I couldn't possibly love my relationship partner while also participating in these acts. To be brief - I got over it and I'm still here. But I have some lingering questions about US as a group of people.

First - conventional wisdom would tell us that we are all 'deviants' of some kind, with the hobbyists being predatory exploiters and providers being unable to give consent because of a variety of reasons. For example, this taken from a wikipedia article on criminology and the hobby:

...[some] "argue that the act of prostitution is not by definition a fully consensual act, as the prostitutes are forced to sell sex, either by somebody else or by the unfortunate circumstances of their lives (such as poverty, lack of opportunity, drug addiction, a history of severe childhood abuse or neglect etc): "In the academic literature on prostitution there are very few authors who argue that valid consent to prostitution is possible. Most suggest that consent to prostitution is impossible or at least unlikely." [39]. "(...) most authors suggest that consent to prostitution is deeply problematic if not impossible (...) most authors have argued that consent to prostitution is impossible. For radical feminists this is because prostitution is always a coercive sexual practice. Others simply suggest that economic coercion makes the sexual consent of sex workers highly problematic if not impossible...""

I should state that I DO NOT agree with all of this- and I generally think a lot of the academic work about the hobby is under developed because it's from an outside perspective. Further, I do see that there are some more unsavory aspects of the hobby that do involve the sex trade and child prostitution - I, myself, find those to be wrong. That said, I am exceptionally curious about what patterns of experience or factors exist as commonalities between all of us.

Do you think we as a community on this forum can discuss this? How did we get here? Are we all just damaged goods by some sort of traumatic moment or abuse in our lives? Are all providers seeking to make up some deeply awful self-esteem deficiency? I realize this is a deeply personal question so I don't expect providers to share us their stories/conflicts, but I am curious about the true reasons we end up here - and if we are open to discussing this non judgmentally I think it would be amazing.

For me - I'll just say I got into the hobby because it was a lot less stressful and way more efficient to contact a provider and get that girlfriend experience than it was to put myself out there in the dating scene and expose myself to rejection or compete with other men. I think it is fair to say that the beauty and class of many of the women on this board put them in a category that some would say are 'out of our leagues' in the non-hobbying world. There is also deep, deep feelings of acceptance I get between provider and hobbyist in that it seems like we acknowledge that in some way we are both "social outcasts" and there is an intimacy and connection that is generated by a mutual acceptance of an aspect of ourselves that we keep hidden from most of the world. This is usually unsaid but I wonder if it's there, lurking under the surface for many of us.

On the flip side - I also enjoy the fantasy of being involved with a variety of beautiful and interesting women, so in some ways I like the aspect of making those fantasies into reality. There is also the excitement inherent in the fact that hobbying is somewhat taboo.

Lastly, I have found that the pragmatic reasons I argue to justify the legitimacy of the hobby (i.e. better than affairs, it's consensual, just meeting a need, mutual enjoyment of provider and hobbyist without commitment and etc) - are all things that occurred to me AFTER I began hobbying - I was drawn to it first, and rationalized it later. That's just me.

It's easy to oversimplify and say that we're all just horny dudes with crappy sex lives at home that want to meet young, attractive women - and that providers are all women who are seeking some sort of validation or affection. It's easy to say that we're all sex addicts and drug addicts who cyclically enable each other, but I find that those statements are a load of crap. The common narratives and generalizations I think we can agree are not adequate to describe our experiences as providers and hobbyists. What do you think?

I apologize for the length of this - it's quite a novel - but I was so excited by the idea of discussing this, I just had to get it all out. Also, I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone through PM as well. And if you think I suck then hey, you can post that too. I just thought I'd take a minute to be real about my questions and see if anyone else out there wondered them too.

You sound like an intelligent person. I was shy for most of my life. Now I look back and realize that if only I was more aggressive, and did not fear rejection, I would be a different person today. I taught my son ideals, and he is all that I could have been. I am age 60. He is 30, a soldier, married to a woman for her goodness not her fleeting sex appeal, although she is pretty. I did well in life. Too bad I didn't have the guts to do it for myself. You can find the right girl and get on with a normal life.
I visit these sites because of ED problems. If you're healthy, get on with real life.
MM

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The only answer I see is finding individual candidates (no matter where they are running) who believe in limited government. People who believe that the key to this country’s continued well being is a Government that lives within limits. I’m looking for candidates who have had real jobs in a real economy. Not government employees or lawyers of politicians. Someone who knows what is involved in making real decisions.


I’ve railed about this trend here and elsewhere before, but I think I have found an idea that might work. I’m going to take a sum of money that is about equal to the cost of a date – in my case, that either a couple of hours or an overnight – call it $1,000. I’m going to put that money in a prepaid Visa that I can use to make anonymous* $50 donations to a number of Primary candidates that I think are promising. If these folks don’t get funding at this level, they never make it to the general election and we are stuck with the same old retreads we always get. I’d recommend that each of you reading this do the same (ladies, take your revenue from a typical date). Damn folks, if this group can’t believe and fight for limited government, who the hell can?

·*The reason for anonymous contributions is obvious – I’m tired of being hounded for more money every time I contribute. Political parties serve little real use. They spend everything I give them in asking for more.

Agree. The problem is "serving" in government seems crazy to anyone with any common sense (that doesn't aspire to a career as a politician).

I think the only outcome of these $50 contributions is some nice provider loses out on a date.

I agree we need to get early money to candidates, but moreover do a better job in at a grassroots level recruiting candidates. Convincing good people to run requires visable, organized support even if it means getting harassed for more $.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

even candidates that have run on a limited government platform and won have gotten seduced by the ability to bring back the bacon and help get re-elected.

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

. November will tell a lot as to where things will stand. However the Juggernaut cannot be stopped. Only slowed, in my humble opinion.

Yeah November will be interesting...even if we throw the bastards out, will the new group be business as usual? It will take much longer to see if there is anything new

Interesting to note that the gang of GOP Freshman in '94 that promised reform (including Boehner) are sitting in the big offices now.

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

True enough. However the couch potatoes will need to turn off The View and Jon Stewart for news. Or at least ad some other input.

I'm sick of the so called "liberal media" and their bias but I no longer think it is as fair to use as a crutch. Online and social media has given everyone a chance to take their message directly to the people without a filter.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'm sick of the so called "liberal media" and their bias but I no longer think it is as fair to use as a crutch. Online and social media has given everyone a chance to take their message directly to the people without a filter.

Again one can say the same thing about FOX on the other side.

[charlestudor2005]

OK, PJ, now you're discriminating against the elderly by posting with this size font. I had to cut, paste and enlarge in order to read it. So, for those who also have trouble reading this, here it is in a readable format.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You all are missing the point of what is going on entirely. This is not a question of Liberal versus Religious Conservatives, city versus country, rich versus poor or Democrats versus Republicans. It’s a battle between people who want to control other people’s lives versus people who want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. And the flip side of that is that the latter have to take responsibility for their own behavior – whether it is getting heart disease for eating too much fatty foods or going to hell for fucking around on their spouse.
Michael Barone recently wrote a very clear and intelligent opinion piece on this subject and I encourage all of you to read it.
Government at all levels has been growing at an unsustainable rate and the bills are coming due. We either need to fundamentally change the direction we are going or be prepared to have ever more intrusive controls on our life. If you have any question what this is about, just try to flush a damn toilet after a big meal.
I don’t see either party as being the answer. And although this will shock DG, Bush 43 was as bad about growing the beast as Obama – the only difference is degree. Ron Paul was ahead of his time.
The people who are involved in this “movement” are not looking for a tax cut. They think the system is unfair, but they aren’t trying to cut their share of the bill. They see it as just as wrong that people can agitate for free healthcare on someone else’s nickel as it is for Goldman Sachs to get bailed out for lending AIG too much money. It is just as wrong that 50% of the country pays no federal income tax to feed this monster as it is when a billionaire buys a tax break from his Senator. Quit the fucking free riding. But the bigger issue is where these trends are taking us and the bill we are passing on to our children.
The only answer I see is finding individual candidates (no matter where they are running) who believe in limited government. People who believe that the key to this country’s continued well being is a Government that lives within limits. I’m looking for candidates who have had real jobs in a real economy. Not government employees or lawyers of politicians. Someone who knows what is involved in making real decisions.
I’ve railed about this trend here and elsewhere before, but I think I have found an idea that might work. I’m going to take a sum of money that is about equal to the cost of a date – in my case, that either a couple of hours or an overnight – call it $1,000. I’m going to put that money in a prepaid Visa that I can use to make anonymous* $50 donations to a number of Primary candidates that I think are promising. If these folks don’t get funding at this level, they never make it to the general election and we are stuck with the same old retreads we always get. I’d recommend that each of you reading this do the same (ladies, take your revenue from a typical date). Damn folks, if this group can’t believe and fight for limited government, who the hell can?

·*The reason for anonymous contributions is obvious – I’m tired of being hounded for more money every time I contribute. Political parties serve little real use. They spend everything I give them in asking for more.

[ANONONE]

Hmmmm. . .




As others have stated this topic, in various shapes and forums often pops up on boards like this. I am not sure such navel gazing in our hobby is a good idea. Why do we want to be picking at our collective belly button lint and evaluating the the feel, taste, and smell of it?

The foundation of our hobby is fantasy. Leave it be. I don't know about you, but I want to keep that illusion that the women I see are are confident and well-adjusted. I want to view them as women that are completely comfortable with their sexuality and have discovered they can also make an income off of an activity they enjoy, and that the cash is an extra aphrodisiac that kicks the encounter up a notch.

Sorry, I am going to go stick my head back in the ground and mumble to myself.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

OK, PJ, now you're discriminating against the elderly by posting with this size font. I had to cut, paste and enlarge in order to read it. So, for those who also have trouble reading this, here it is in a readable format.

Sorry guy. I wrote that in Word and pasted it. I have no idea why it got shifted into small type. I even tried to increase the size but couldn't. I plead computer gremlins. Either that or those f@#$%^& government control freaks.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

OK, PJ, now you're discriminating against the elderly by posting with this size font. I had to cut, paste and enlarge in order to read it. So, for those who also have trouble reading this, here it is in a readable format.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Sorry guy. I wrote that in Word and pasted it. I have no idea why it got shifted into small type. I even tried to increase the size but couldn't. I plead computer gremlins. Either that or those f@#$%^& government control freaks.

PJ's post appears to me to be the same size as everyone else typically writes here - Verdana 2 -but it was nice of PJ to apologize

If people started writing in say size 5 people would start bitching that it is obnoxious and takes up too much time to scroll down a thread