Make them believe, if not in magic, In money well spent.

[Laurentius]

Or however it is spelled.

Lauren and Becky -- we are in accord. We aren't disagreeing on anything of substance and are agreeing on the important stuff.

And if you see my post earlier in this thread; with only a couple of exceptions, I have zero regrets regarding money I have spent on women either in civie or hobby life. That likely means there is a lot of positive. :-)

[terbul]

Originally Posted by BammBamm

As noted - for $1000 women will tell you anything they can figure you want to hear even if it is a lie. For 99% of men that is enough or they don't care either way. Few genuinely want to hear they are not good lovers when they are footing the bill. But how many women asked you if she was a good lover (to you), listened and responded in earnest? Key word lover. Not porn star, girlfriend, handjob or blowjob expert, ABCD LMNOP expert or whatever the fuck those things mean.

As written, I have to disagree. My experience is that there are plenty of women who won’t tell you anything they can figure you want to hear even if it is a lie.
Are there some? Yes, but I’ve found very few.
Reading the discussion here my experience appears similar with many of the posters here. While there is a stereotype of women with hard edged personas lying there way through the business, it’s hard to find many that would support that they are anything but a small minority in this part of the business.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Becky

That's OK, at this point he could say we are all a bunch of sociopaths heading straight to hell.I am just grateful that his posts are getting shorter

Well Becky, that would be an incorrect use of sociopath. Typically speaking a sociopath lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience which is different than the definition used for years of anti social behavior. While both can lead to reactions like aggression the difference between them can be substantial. If we look at the typical threads here one could argue (RK just might ) that denizens on this board have too much social conscience. Furthermore it would seem that there is a sense of moral responsibility albeit one that might not be the norm but nonetheless more of an awareness of how our actions affect other people (doesn't mean we don't still do them).

So the question really becomes what might be a good term for us from a psychological perspective. One possibility is narcissist. However, that presents a significant issue as well. The classic definition is erotic gratification from admiring ones self. In demi-land erotic gratification is usually achieved by hiring a partner which upends that hypothesis. Of course there are people who are finding gratification by seeing how others agree with their self admiration; I would posit that since another party is involved that even that negates the possibility that narcissistic is a reasonable word to use to cover this world in general (individuals of course may be exceptions). Worth pointing out of course that some aspects of narcissism are exploitation, arrogance, and lack of boundaries, things that make you say hmmmmmmmmmm.

Another might be psychopath in the sense that psychopaths are deviant when it comes to interpersonal relationships often seeking control, engaging in anti-social behavior, and above all then rationalizing their behavior sometimes by blaming others for the causes that have led them to act in a certain way. I suppose one might argue that a rationalization of not getting sex elsewhere on one side and society failing to provide any other means of support on the other might fall into this schema as would the belief that they won't get caught. However, other behaviors such as complete lack of empathy, lack of remorse for any pain they might cause are things that we typically do not see in demi-land. Empathy can in fact be a rather important factor in this world and particularly in repeat engagements. On the whole it would seem that psychopath is too extreme a condition to define this world.

Onward in our quest could lead us to hedonism. The difficulty with hedonism is that it is generally though of as a philosophy or perhaps a school of ethics rather than a psychological condition (more on that in a moment or two). The most basic definition is that only pleasure or the pursuit of it has any intrinsic value. Certainly the pursuit of pleasure is high on the list in demi-land. For our sake lets stipulate that both men and women in this world find pleasure in these encounters; the question becomes is the money that is received simply an additional pursuit of pleasure or a separate economic need and boundary inducing barrier? I think the answer to that is mostly yes and so on either side it is not purely hedonistic. On one side there is economic benefit and on the other there is minimizing the cost of a breakup or divorce or other things that may be societally frowned upon. Nonetheless hedonist in a dictionary definition is seeker of pleasure without the rest of the philosophical baggage and might thus work best.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end; I was wondering if anyone would make it through some facts and a lot of BS. Becky, I hope this was long enough to satiate your cravings.

DG

ps For the record, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Well Becky, that would be an incorrect use of sociopath. Typically speaking a sociopath lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience which is different than the definition used for years of anti social behavior. While both can lead to reactions like aggression the difference between them can be substantial. If we look at the typical threads here one could argue (RK just might ) that denizens on this board have too much social conscience. Furthermore it would seem that there is a sense of moral responsibility albeit one that might not be the norm but nonetheless more of an awareness of how our actions affect other people (doesn't mean we don't still do them).

So the question really becomes what might be a good term for us from a psychological perspective. One possibility is narcissist. However, that presents a significant issue as well. The classic definition is erotic gratification from admiring ones self. In demi-land erotic gratification is usually achieved by hiring a partner which upends that hypothesis. Of course there are people who are finding gratification by seeing how others agree with their self admiration; I would posit that since another party is involved that even that negates the possibility that narcissistic is a reasonable word to use to cover this world in general (individuals of course may be exceptions). Worth pointing out of course that some aspects of narcissism are exploitation, arrogance, and lack of boundaries, things that make you say hmmmmmmmmmm.

Another might be psychopath in the sense that psychopaths are deviant when it comes to interpersonal relationships often seeking control, engaging in anti-social behavior, and above all then rationalizing their behavior sometimes by blaming others for the causes that have led them to act in a certain way. I suppose one might argue that a rationalization of not getting sex elsewhere on one side and society failing to provide any other means of support on the other might fall into this schema as would the belief that they won't get caught. However, other behaviors such as complete lack of empathy, lack of remorse for any pain they might cause are things that we typically do not see in demi-land. Empathy can in fact be a rather important factor in this world and particularly in repeat engagements. On the whole it would seem that psychopath is too extreme a condition to define this world.

Onward in our quest could lead us to hedonism. The difficulty with hedonism is that it is generally though of as a philosophy or perhaps a school of ethics rather than a psychological condition (more on that in a moment or two). The most basic definition is that only pleasure or the pursuit of it has any intrinsic value. Certainly the pursuit of pleasure is high on the list in demi-land. For our sake lets stipulate that both men and women in this world find pleasure in these encounters; the question becomes is the money that is received simply an additional pursuit of pleasure or a separate economic need and boundary inducing barrier? I think the answer to that is mostly yes and so on either side it is not purely hedonistic. On one side there is economic benefit and on the other there is minimizing the cost of a breakup or divorce or other things that may be societally frowned upon. Nonetheless hedonist in a dictionary definition is seeker of pleasure without the rest of the philosophical baggage and might thus work best.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end; I was wondering if anyone would make it through some facts and a lot of BS. Beck, I hope this was long enough to satiate your cravings.

DG

ps For the record, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

LMAO

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by [URL="http://eccie.net/member.php?u=5481"

"Sydneyb[/url]"]

To say you NEVER lie is a lie. Or an example of a cruel person because there ARE times that it is most kind to lie. Or someone so delusional that they convince themselves what they say is always true because not to be able to say the truth creates some kind of conflict internally.

That's taking things to the extreme of black and white. Have I told white lies because it's easer then the full explination or not the business of the other party? Yes. Have I lied to their detriment, or lead people to believe I have opinions of them I do not? No.

Of course I lie. I lead a double life - I lie to my family and work associates all the time. In fact, I hate how good I've become at it.

However, I will not grovel or suck up to a man so he'll keep seeing me. If that's what he expects we aren't getting passed the first date. Just because I'm available to be propositioned does not mean I don't get to have standards of myself, the quality of time spent together, and of my gentlemen caller. If the sex is bad, I'll refuse other dates. I have one case in which I've been seeing someone for 8 years, and I'm not thrilled by the sex, nor do I pretend to be. He is aware that when we're playing the focus is on his pleasure, and I'm satisfied with his pleasure and the fact that he's been a gentlemen and good friend to me.

If I don't think he's handsome, fantastic in bed, brilliant or talented, I don't say so. It's important to me that when I say those things I mean them. I spend a lot of time lieing in the name of self preservation, because I belong to a persecuted class. If my career could be accepted without my life being devstated I'd be loud and proud about what I do. I spend so much time being dishonest with people who matter to me that I can't stand the thought of lieing otherwise. I despise the fact that it's a necessary part of my life. I will not lie to the man in my bed - boyfriend, plaything or client.

Again, my time and talents are already available on the market, there are somethings I don't want to sell and my mind and personal set of beliefs makes that list. I rather like being sincere in my compliments and will often choose silence, change the subject, or find a real sincere compliment instead of telling him something I don't mean.

I have no desire to lead on a man, letting him believe I feel and think things I don't. Maybe my career has suffered for it, so be it. If your counting dollars as a measure of success, there are many women doing a lot better them me. However, my patrons treat me as an equal, and respect that I'm not an "actress" in when we're together - I consider that success even if I'm making less for it.

Personally, I have not found men particularly desire to be lied to or lead on. Particularly men who have achieved great success- I've found they have no patience for the games that fill the business world in their personal lives. I can make a guy feel good about himself without having to lie to his face. In fact, I have found the key to keeping long term regulars for years is being honest and upfront. Knowing they can trust me to be sincere. I'm much more a mistress then I am a "provider", and there's no chance they'd take me on in a long term arrangements where we spend weeks together, that last years, if they believed I was sincere. So I have to stay sincere from the moment I meet them, even if it means loosing a client in the interest of long term goals.

They would ask and they would want to be good. But typically only want to be good exactly how they already do it.

Which means they aren't looking to please you necessarily, they don't want to change, they're looking for someone who is compatible with who they already are. I may think XYZ is awesome in bed, you might find him god awful. There's nothing wrong with wanting to find the right lover for him, but that becomes hard when you can't tell who actually likes being with you and who doesn't.

Or maybe they just want to *be* pleased. That's no small demographic.

It is true I can't speak for other women, but I'm not going to have myself and others like me lumped into a whole. We're as unique and vastly different from each other as in every other walk of life. That statement is horrible in my eyes.

[Marcus Aurelius]

They would ask and they would want to be good. But typically only want to be good exactly how they already do it.

Which means they aren't looking to please you necessarily, they dont want to change, they're looking for someone who is compatible with who they already are. I may think XYZ is awesome in bed, you might find him god awful. There's nothing wrong with wanting to find the right lover, but that becomes hard when you can't tell who actually likes being with you and who doesn't.

What the hell is in this coffee? I usually have no problem understanding you.

[Sydneyb]

Fair "nuff: The term "Vile" just seemed a little over the top for an act (lying) that is regularly engaged in.

Because your line is lying to a lover and mine is lying to myself; lying is often nebulous (and frequent) enough among all sets of people that I would have a hard time calling "vile" he who who'd accuse me of it. Its true. I lie sometimes. We all have our line - family, lovers, clients, whomever. But we all have lines that we often cross, so I can't fault someone who calls me on it.

To point out that lying isn't exclusive to the women on this board or to those that take the money, but often by those who give it, would be a useful datapoint in the discussion, I would think. To deny any of us do it, not so useful.

[Sydneyb]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

What the hell is in this coffee? I usually have no problem understanding you.

I got what she said. That we all like different things in a lover. Her best may be my worst and vice versa.

And that men that indicate that they want to be good but don't want to change want someone who wants them the way they are. But if we aren't truthful about what we appretiate in a lover, he doesn't know that he isn't our ideal.

What I had told her earlier is that if he asked, I gave a man a chance to be a better lover for me; if he doesn't listen, I stop believing hes intersted in being a better lover for me and enjoy the other areas of interest (personal compatibiity and financial return are among those areas for me).

[Marcus Aurelius]

It just made me feel mortal for a brief moment.

[Guest053011]

Think of it in the same terms of dating. Do you want a woman who is going to change you in order to be happy, or be happy with you exactly as you are?

Same is true for people and sex.

I can't tell you how many times in my agency days I had a girl tell me: You'll love him, he's awesome in bed. And I left the date feeling it was hardly passably good.

The reverse is true, I'd tell a woman a certain fellow blew my mind between the sheets, and she didn't particularly enjoy the bedroom time together. It's an issue of compatibility.

Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Fair "nuff: The term "Vile" just seemed a little over the top for an act (lying) that is regularly engaged in.

It wasn't the suggestiong that people lie that I think so awful. It's the suggestion that escorts lie for money.

People are often frugal. That doesn't make the statement "Jews are cheap" socially acceptable. There are black men who have been charged and convicted of theft - it isn't acceptable to say "black people steal". There are mothers that believe in corporal punishment, that doesn't mean "Mothers beat their kids."

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

However, I will not grovel or suck up to a man so he'll keep seeing me. ... I will not lie to the man in my bed - boyfriend, plaything or client. ... there are somethings I don't want to sell and my mind and personal set of beliefs makes that list. ... I have no desire to lead on a man, letting him believe I feel and think things I don't. ...

Beautiful!

As a man of unbreached self-esteem; I can appreciate this sort of attitude a lot. Reasonable people will reasonably differ; of course. But I don't need someone telling me I look like (insert hot guy's name here) or am like (insert hot lover's name here) in bed.

Generally speaking, I have a desire to please whatever woman I am with. That means adapting and learning new things. When I meet a woman the first time, there is just no changing that fact that whatever the last lady liked is probably not the new lady's cup of tea.

In order for me to improve and be a better lover for her; she has to be unafraid of offending me by telling me I'm doing something wrong, need to do something else, etc. etc. etc.

In essence, I can only be a decent lover for an honest woman.

And I have been blessed throughout life to have had lovers, both civie and hobby, who have been happily honest -- which has resulted in vastly better sex for me as well.

Just one more reason I have few regrets regarding the $$$.

[Katy Alexander]

LOL I actually made it half way through before I felt another headache coming on

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Well Becky, that would be an incorrect use of sociopath. Typically speaking a sociopath lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience which is different than the definition used for years of anti social behavior. While both can lead to reactions like aggression the difference between them can be substantial. If we look at the typical threads here one could argue (RK just might ) that denizens on this board have too much social conscience. Furthermore it would seem that there is a sense of moral responsibility albeit one that might not be the norm but nonetheless more of an awareness of how our actions affect other people (doesn't mean we don't still do them).

So the question really becomes what might be a good term for us from a psychological perspective. One possibility is narcissist. However, that presents a significant issue as well. The classic definition is erotic gratification from admiring ones self. In demi-land erotic gratification is usually achieved by hiring a partner which upends that hypothesis. Of course there are people who are finding gratification by seeing how others agree with their self admiration; I would posit that since another party is involved that even that negates the possibility that narcissistic is a reasonable word to use to cover this world in general (individuals of course may be exceptions). Worth pointing out of course that some aspects of narcissism are exploitation, arrogance, and lack of boundaries, things that make you say hmmmmmmmmmm.

Another might be psychopath in the sense that psychopaths are deviant when it comes to interpersonal relationships often seeking control, engaging in anti-social behavior, and above all then rationalizing their behavior sometimes by blaming others for the causes that have led them to act in a certain way. I suppose one might argue that a rationalization of not getting sex elsewhere on one side and society failing to provide any other means of support on the other might fall into this schema as would the belief that they won't get caught. However, other behaviors such as complete lack of empathy, lack of remorse for any pain they might cause are things that we typically do not see in demi-land. Empathy can in fact be a rather important factor in this world and particularly in repeat engagements. On the whole it would seem that psychopath is too extreme a condition to define this world.

Onward in our quest could lead us to hedonism. The difficulty with hedonism is that it is generally though of as a philosophy or perhaps a school of ethics rather than a psychological condition (more on that in a moment or two). The most basic definition is that only pleasure or the pursuit of it has any intrinsic value. Certainly the pursuit of pleasure is high on the list in demi-land. For our sake lets stipulate that both men and women in this world find pleasure in these encounters; the question becomes is the money that is received simply an additional pursuit of pleasure or a separate economic need and boundary inducing barrier? I think the answer to that is mostly yes and so on either side it is not purely hedonistic. On one side there is economic benefit and on the other there is minimizing the cost of a breakup or divorce or other things that may be societally frowned upon. Nonetheless hedonist in a dictionary definition is seeker of pleasure without the rest of the philosophical baggage and might thus work best.

Thank you for reading all the way to the end; I was wondering if anyone would make it through some facts and a lot of BS. Becky, I hope this was long enough to satiate your cravings.

DG

ps For the record, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Sydneyb]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Think of it in the same terms of dating. Do you want a woman who is going to change you in order to be happy, or be happy with you exactly as you are?

Same is true for people and sex.

People are often frugal. That doesn't make the statement "Jews are cheap" socially acceptable.

Based on your sentence structure, this is true.

There are black men who have been charged and convicted of theft - it isn't acceptable to say "black people steal".

Actually, if people steal and some are black, it is a completely accurate statement that black people steal. However, given the prior premise, you cannot (conclusively) state that ALL black people steal.

There are mothers that believe in corporal punishment, that doesn't mean "Mothers beat their kids."

No. But if Some mothers beat their kids, than "mothers beat their kids" is accurate. All mothers beat thier kids is not.

Given your love of language and precision of words, you may find great pleasure in taking a class in Logic.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Perceived expectations vs nurtured anticipation.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Becky

LOL I actually made it half way through before I felt another headache coming on

Unfortunately, the SO doesn't need any such stimulus to get such a headache.