The Pretty Woman Syndrome

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Alex Lieberman

Otherwise you could fuck a knot in a tree.

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Sex can be a pain in the @ss.

Especially when fucking a knot in a tree.

Originally Posted by Camille

I avoid accro's altogether. Don't care for them anyway.... C xxx

Boy, my avatar really is at odds with you.

[TheDogger]

Following this thread...if you strip off the hobby component to the dynamic between the genders...what's really different?

In the civie world, we all know that, if the guy is a cheap skate, no dinners, no societal or recreational support, no showing of lifestyle support....relationship over. Period.

The act of P4P is there no matter what.

So, if two people click for whatever reason, people click. I can't tell you HOW many women in the civie world have looked at me like a long term ATM. My job is to figure out which one has the honest spiritual capacity to compliment my own.

Doesn't matter where or when or how....cuz it can happen anywhere with the same pitfalls, illusions and risks (as well has the happiness, sex and depth of relationship).

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

But what about those times, rare as they may be, when love does enter the equation? Too further complicate things, not only does love enter the equation but the gent is secure enough so that the lady not only continues as an escort but does so mostly on multi-day dates? While that scenario is one in a million it should not be discounted.

I'm not so sure it is a matter of the man's level of security so much as his personality type. Furthermore, I think the catch-all word we use for a variety of forms of affection (i.e. "love") can be construed to have so many meanings as to be very confusing. Some languages have many different words for expressing the nuances rather than just one catch-all word.

Especially within the escort community, and likely disproportionately within HDHs, you will find people who are polyamorous. These are people for whom, within human limits, romantic affection they may feel for one person doesn't necessarily or automatically diminish the romantic affection they feel for another. It completely turns the monogamous ideal of only being able to love one person on its head. I am not sure how widespread this capacity is.

To complicate matters, you'll find a goodly number of personality types who are capable of manifesting a form of romantic affection to which many cannot relate and some might even say is not love at all because they can't grasp it. I call it "love without possession." It is the ability to romantically love someone for who and what they are but with reduced (not entirely nonexistent, but greatly reduced) levels of jealousy and possessiveness. For SOME women, particularly very independent women, men with such a capacity may be ideal; but for other women, such men make them feel unloved because they see the man's possessiveness as evidence of affection. I think it is rare for a man to be utterly devoid of possessiveness; but for some it is diminished or very well controlled for the perceived benefit of the woman.

This is a long way of saying that, ideally, if a man decides to have a provider as his S.O. and she decides he would be a good match; if she is going to continue providing he would have to be one of the rare men with diminished or controlled possessiveness and she would have to be confident enough that his lack of expression of these traits didn't make her feel unloved.

In some rare cases, it can work.

With providers, I personally limit emotional connection to something I call "love as a response to values." This can encompass such concepts as admiration, appreciation, and adoration. Some might call it a form of spiritual, chivalric or even platonic love. It is something appropriate for a good and close friend about whom you care.

[TheDogger]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

I'm not so sure it is a matter of the man's level of security so much as his personality type. Furthermore, I think the catch-all word we use for a variety of forms of affection (i.e. "love") can be construed to have so many meanings as to be very confusing. Some languages have many different words for expressing the nuances rather than just one catch-all word.

Especially within the escort community, and likely disproportionately within HDHs, you will find people who are polyamorous. These are people for whom, within human limits, romantic affection they may feel for one person doesn't necessarily or automatically diminish the romantic affection they feel for another. It completely turns the monogamous ideal of only being able to love one person on its head. I am not sure how widespread this capacity is.

To complicate matters, you'll find a goodly number of personality types who are capable of manifesting a form of romantic affection to which many cannot relate and some might even say is not love at all because they can't grasp it. I call it "love without possession." It is the ability to romantically love someone for who and what they are but with reduced (not entirely nonexistent, but greatly reduced) levels of jealousy and possessiveness. For SOME women, particularly very independent women, men with such a capacity may be ideal; but for other women, such men make them feel unloved because they see the man's possessiveness as evidence of affection. I think it is rare for a man to be utterly devoid of possessiveness; but for some it is diminished or very well controlled for the perceived benefit of the woman.

This is a long way of saying that, ideally, if a man decides to have a provider as his S.O. and she decides he would be a good match; if she is going to continue providing he would have to be one of the rare men with diminished or controlled possessiveness and she would have to be confident enough that his lack of expression of these traits didn't make her feel unloved.

In some rare cases, it can work.

With providers, I personally limit emotional connection to something I call "love as a response to values." This can encompass such concepts as admiration, appreciation, and adoration. Some might call it a form of spiritual, chivalric or even platonic love. It is something appropriate for a good and close friend about whom you care.

Many a good thought friend....many a good thought.

[Alex Lieberman]

I have stated in my blog that I wouldn't want a man who would be ok with sharing me. I certainly would not be ok with sharing someone I was in love with or was in any kind of relationship with. I know some providers are married and it works for them. It would not work for me. I also would never fall for anyone who came to see me and don't want them for falling for me. It is a business transaction plain and simple.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Especially within the escort community, and likely disproportionately within HDHs, you will find people who are polyamorous. These are people for whom, within human limits, romantic affection they may feel for one person doesn't necessarily or automatically diminish the romantic affection they feel for another. It completely turns the monogamous ideal of only being able to love one person on its head. I am not sure how widespread this capacity is.

I call it "love without possession." It is the ability to romantically love someone for who and what they are but with reduced (not entirely nonexistent, but greatly reduced) levels of jealousy and possessiveness. For SOME women, particularly very independent women, men with such a capacity may be ideal; but for other women, such men make them feel unloved because they see the man's possessiveness as evidence of affection. I think it is rare for a man to be utterly devoid of possessiveness; but for some it is diminished or very well controlled for the perceived benefit of the woman.

Word!

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by TheDogger

Following this thread...if you strip off the hobby component to the dynamic between the genders...what's really different?

In the civie world, we all know that, if the guy is a cheap skate, no dinners, no societal or recreational support, no showing of lifestyle support....relationship over. Period.

The act of P4P is there no matter what.

So, if two people click for whatever reason, people click. I can't tell you HOW many women in the civie world have looked at me like a long term ATM. My job is to figure out which one has the honest spiritual capacity to compliment my own.

Doesn't matter where or when or how....cuz it can happen anywhere with the same pitfalls, illusions and risks (as well has the happiness, sex and depth of relationship).

Wise thoughts. I have experienced FAR more gold-digging, deception, manipulation and other crap like that in the civie world.

Here's the thing. Our evolution diverged from other primates about 2.5 million years ago. Only in the past 6000 years -- less than that in some populations -- has there been money. So the money does not change the fact that what occurs during an appointment is sex.

Sex is still sex. It doesn't become any less sex just because money changed hands. And it can still have all of the evolved effects.

You can still get an STD. Money doesn't magically make that go away.
The woman can still get pregnant. Money doesn't change that.
And either or both parties can still have an emotional response that is no less genuine just because money is involved.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The converse to this are all of the disclaimers to the extent of "all monies are for time and companionship only..." Like that really offers any protection from LE

Similarly I don't think offering "public date" option really puts you at any additional risk with LE. I would take caution to not word it as a "dinner date" as I think the widely held understanding of that is it includes BCD time after a meal.

Let's face it: LE trolling say EROS knows what is going on regardless of the text. IF LE is going to target you for a bust it will be on the basis of your words/actions at the time of the meeting (assuming you aren't just downright explicit in your ad text).

Agreed re:disclaimers.
With regards my comments about differentiating...I'm sorry I should have been more clear..I'm talking about LE threatening (and following through) on using reviews/accronymns/type of dates etc..as evidence in court. They seem to see thee things as an obstacle to getting charges either dismissed or reduced. They seem to be right...

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by Camille

Agreed re:disclaimers.
With regards my comments about differentiating...I'm sorry I should have been more clear..I'm talking about LE threatening (and following through) on using reviews/accronymns/type of dates etc..as evidence in court. They seem to see thee things as an obstacle to getting charges either dismissed or reduced. They seem to be right...

I agree in part. The typical location of escort malls on servers appearing to be outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. is generally sufficient to make them not criminal in and of themselves as solicitation; but they most certainly can be used as evidence to either support a warrant (i.e. wiretap) or keep charges from being dismissed. And I think this applies in spades to women who list services on their websites.

And the fact they use acronyms -- half of whose meanings I don't know -- does not protect them. If I threaten to blow something up with TNT the fact I didn't spell out trinitrotoluene doesn't change its meaning for LE purposes.

Where I disagree is on the differentiation between a public and private date being problematic.

Most certainly, a rate that explicitly spelled out "no sex" would be problematic because it means that the other rates include sex.

But differentiating between public and private could mean that the private date included any number of non-sexual services ranging from palm reading or massage to a perfectly legal lapdance.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Sex can be a pain in the @ss.

Even I am not going to touch this line.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by SR Only

Boy, my avatar really is at odds with you.

Just because you use them doesn't mean I don't like ya
Think of it like this..I don't like sushi but I wouldn't fall out with you if you did.I just wouldn't snog you

C x

[Camille]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Even I am not going to touch this line.

Party pooper

xxx

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by Camille

Just because you use them doesn't mean I don't like ya
Think of it like this..I don't like sushi but I wouldn't fall out with you if you did.I just wouldn't snog you

C x

Oops, I do really like sushi, too. "Snog?"

[discreetgent]

@Laurentius: Personality type may be a better way to describe it but it also has a lot to do with how a secure a gent feels. Being less possessive is clearly critical. Now, I don't think that anyone is truly immune to jealousy but jealousy can work in different ways. For example, a gent can be jealous that his lover, an escort, is with another guy; or he can be jealous that he is not getting as much time with her. Yes, there really is a difference there and it can make a world of difference.

Another thing to consider is that all relationships evolve and change. In a escort, polyamorous world there can be a lot more nuances then there generally is in the "civvie" world where often things tend to be much more black and white.

@Alex: Sounds exactly like the defintions of "other." Once a gent pays he is forever "other" and even if he might make a perfect match is now disqualified.

[Alex Lieberman]

"other" Exactly......