Demiland, love, and dating

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did we have a vote in the forum and I missed it?

You speaking for all of us now DG? LOL

Lauren had asked that I not ask her anymore about it. I respected that request. There have been others, including you that continue you to ask me about my feelings on the matter. Now Lauren has felt the need to insult and continue to insult.

Come now, do you now wish to insult various posters' intelligence? Taking you at your word you surely do not mean to do so. I believe if you look back to the start of this thread you did respond directly to Lauren. Inevitably we responded to your post (my mistake I suppose). You can respond indirectly by responding to others in the conversation. As you said its a free country but to pretend that you are not responding to Lauren is disingenuous.

I do rather like that you have moved the conversation in this direction it could mean nothing left to say on the topic at hand

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by Monsieur

How very Montaigne-esque.

Sir, you have managed to reveal the secret to living life well and happy.

I do try but they tend to get upset when I leave my padded room.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

So now we have WTF envy on this board? lol

Now that is twisted.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

So now we have WTF envy on this board? lol

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now that is twisted.

And more than just a little scary.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course, you can, anyone can sue another....does anyone think that any of this falls into that category?

I do not think anyone has questioned anyone elses character.

You asked for me to no longer question you on the matter. I respected that. Others have pursued the matter since then. I have answered their charges. You insult and now threaten.

Umm, no one thinks it falls into that category and while I suppose it could be viewed as a threat to quote someone here "does anyone think that any of this falls into that category? "

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I believe if you look back to the start of this thread you did respond directly to Lauren.

I have said that many times at various points. But YOU responded and from there I rersponded to YOU. Lauren jumped in and out of the conversation at one point thinking I was talking to her. I was discussing a concept. That is what we do. My god we have women in this country that think Muslim women that are taught that their way (subservant) is wrong. This is a discussion board of idea's. Competing/contrasting ideas. I was not rude towards Lauren. You addmitted as much. I do not think her selfish concept healthy. Yet I have no power (nor would I want it) to presuade her to think differently. She is a big girl.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

. Inevitably we responded to your post (my mistake I suppose). You can respond indirectly be responding to othersw in the conversation. As you said its a free country but to pretend that you are not responding to Lauren is disingenuous.

You make a mistake and it is MY fault? I was not pretending, I was not responding to Lauren when I asked you the question that you chose not to answer.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

.

I do rather like that you have mived the conversation in this direction it could mean nothing left to say on the topic at hand

You should know me better than that.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm actually not going to answer that question. Whether or not I would accept such a relationship has no relevance to this discussion. OTOH the fact that a gent does have a choice is relevant. By definition a relationship is defined by the individuals in it. If they are in agreement on what open means then bully for them, they are probably way ahead most of us.

They are free to their beliefs but not the facts....open is open, Free is Free. A relationship with Restrictions is neither of these, no matter what anyone thinks. Do you at least agree with that?

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Umm, no one thinks it falls into that category and while I suppose it could be viewed as a threat to quote someone here "does anyone think that any of this falls into that category? "

It depends if we are going to be linear or use a double standard.

So either No, No or Yes, Yes. If we use my fav, linear.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

WTF, my apologies. I guess I was just jealous Lauren was getting all of your attention. :P

Originally Posted by discreetgent

So now we have WTF envy on this board? lol

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now that is twisted.

Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

And more than just a little scary.

Thank you Nic....all the time I have wasted on this thread was worth it!

[discreetgent]

PJ,wow you managed to find that one line is the flurry of posts tonight lol

They are free to their beliefs but not the facts....open is open, Free is Free. A relationship with Restrictions is neither of these, no matter what anyone thinks.

Call it whatever you wish. As I recall we were discussing double standard. What is getting lost here is that if it applies to both equally then no double standard exists.

You should know me better than that

I do, the pitbull syndrome. Getting in the last post is all important; go ahead take it, I now defer to the sentiments of Justice Blackmun

[Katy Alexander]

Getting back to the original question .I can not see any reason to not date a client. If there is something genuine there , and you both want to attempt to take it out into the real world I see no reason to rule it out just because you met in an unusual way. I would imagine that many adults meet at their work place , so why should it be any different for escorts?

Here is where my problem begins, I have found that open relationships like communism sounds great in theory,but at least for me in practice it just does not work .I have attempted the open relationship route in the past , and I do have to say that while it sounds great on paper the first sighting of your boyfriend getting physical with another woman can actually be quite painful.It is just as bad , or maybe even worse when you realize that you are hurting someone who really cared about you not because you found the other person so irresistible , but more out of a need to prove just how free you can be at that time .I am not saying that an open relationship can not work for others , but my experience with it proved that it is just not for me.

Because of this I feel that I should only work as an escort if I remain single. Getting involved with anyone client, or other would create a large change in my lifestyle.It is a good thing that my dog will not let me date anyway because falling in love would just be too expensive for me at this time.

[atlcomedy]

It appears the Clampetts have officially entered eccie-land....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Call it whatever you wish. As I recall we were discussing double standard. What is getting lost here is that if it applies to both equally then no double standard exists.

DG a double standard is a double standard...agreeing to a double standard does not mean it is not a double standard. It does mean that they have agreed to it, I will readily agree to that point.

[terbul]

Originally Posted by WTF

They are free to their beliefs but not the facts....open is open, Free is Free. A relationship with Restrictions is neither of these, no matter what anyone thinks. Do you at least agree with that?

See wtf, this is a great example of where you just lose people.

The point being made is that if a couple agree on their (unique) definition of an open relationship; then it is open.

I haven’t read the whole thread but I think LS is the only one to put some detail into what open means to her (obviously Lauren feel free to correct where I screw it up).

What I get out of her posting, open; in this narrow aspect of open, means she meets with clients as long as they are outside their (her and her SO’s) sphere of friends/business associates/etc. Her SO is freely able to meet with anyone as long as they are outside the sphere of friends/business associates/etc. LS did, I think, express a preference that her SO stick to escorts rather than civies (note the word is preference). Their definition of open, presumably works for them, move on.

Now wtf, you jump on the mutual restrictions. To paraphrase “a relationship with restrictions, mutual or not, cannot be open, cannot be free.” Why do you think your view should be forced on others?

See, this is where you lose people, you get strident. You absolutely cannot mean “a relationship with restrictions, mutual or not, cannot be open, cannot be free” as an abstract principle. I’ll bet they have a mutual restriction that they will not physically harm each other, will not spend the mortgage money on lottery tickets, will not kill each other. Would any on these restrictions mean the relationship is not open?

Rather than attacking those willing to post their opinions, describe an open relationship that meets your criteria.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by terbul

Rather than attacking those willing to post their opinions, describe an open relationship that meets your criteria.

I did not attack her, first and foremost.

When speaking of an open relationship in this regard...that would be where one does not restrict who I choose to have a sexual relationship with. And I did not restrict who they choose to be with.

Originally Posted by terbul

will not kill each other.

.

If it we were discussing killing each other it would be where the first one who killed the other could then dictate the rules in just what was considered open

[Guest020510]

N/m, lol.

[Angel Cross]

True love has no boundaries. It is the most powerful thing in the world.