|
Not banned yet
Join Date: Dec 23, 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 538
|
I really liked both of those articles.
A couple of lines of thinking.
First, on the societal level, the rise of corporations and large government infrastructures are the biggest components of what Gibbons is calling his modernity.
The very essence of economic and political systems inevitably intertwine more trust and cooperation with systems, while simultaneously creating less trust and cooperation among individuals.
For example, in Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith makes it clear that one of the chief determinants of growth, is increased specialization.
An example of this in the provider industry, is the distinct market niches among streetwalkers, spas, strip clubs, BackPage providers, escort agencies, and independents, or high end providers. All of them have pros and cons, but because of their specialization, the idea is they can maximize their productivity (as measured in revenue) by either being able to a) service more clients for the same price, b) charge more for the same amount of clientele, or c) even service fewer clients, but at a premium. Any of those 3 will maximize output.
Since customers have their expectations in line as to what they'll receive depending on the provider type, they can be expected to consume more, and the provider can become more proficient at bringing in sustainable or increasing revenue within that specific service range.
As opposed to having one provider trying to provide to all of those customer ranges. It's unimaginable the same provider could be just as efficient as a streetwalker, massage specialist, stripper, and high end provider. They would do poorly in one or more categories, and possibly by trying to be a generalist, they'd do poorly in all of them.
What does this mean?
It means as society progresses, the very definition of that term is increasing specialization. So many products we take for granted literally have no single person on the face of this planet who could create them. The chain of obtaining natural resources, and then turning them into a TV, car, breakfast, condom, book, building, toilet, etc., are way too complex.
More and more, it's not even possible for one nation to create a product.
Therefore, trust and interdependency increases by necessity. We trust the farmer to tend to his wheat field, so that someday we can buy bread from the store. We trust the geologist to find more oil, so that we can fill up our car. And they trust us to provide some kind of useful service in exchange. But modernity means we have no connection to one another. We're not a tightly knit group of hunter/gatherers. We're not even some kind of agrarian society who can live off the land in case of economic disaster, helping our neighbors through some kind of informal barter and credit system.
So what we end up trusting is not individuals, but systems, organizations, and processes.
In fact, what happens is that the trust in individuals, and identification with others, lessens in modern society. We have no connection with the individual producing goods and services the way we did prior to the industrial revolution, and the growth of the modern corporation and massive state government.
We lock our doors, install alarm systems, live behind gated communities. In increasing numbers, we home school, or send our children to private schools (referring to the US).
We are insulated by demographic, and often by race. We terrify our children as to the dangers of having any interaction with someone unknown.
So we invest trust in the company, the brand, the position, the uniform, not necessarily because we want to, but because we have to, otherwise everything crumbles. But we withdraw trust from individuals, and create bigger barriers to entry for anyone new to enter our lives.
But that's on a societal level.
What about on an individual level? What about the intimate relationship, or the ideal pure relationship, as Gibbon, and Jamieson in his rebuttal, refer to? And how does this apply to the hobby?
I like the idea of mutual disclosure, but there are so many personality types to consider, it's impossible for me to think of it as anything other than an ideal. How do you have a pure relationship of equals with a narcissist? Or a sociopath? Regardless of how functional they are outside of that?
I think Jamieson is right on when he avers that disclosure "may ultimately only enhance the weaponry of the partner in conflict situations." We're all aware on a primal level within a relationship as to who needs whom more. In long term relationships, that shifts from one partner to the other on a regular basis, in ways that sometimes the partners don't even understand, but they feel it. Disclosure involves vulnerability, which involves power, which is then used or withheld, with varying consequences either way. We've all been around partnerships out of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", where each side is driven by insecurities and feelings of low self worth to destroy the other, in an effort to try to even the playing field in some way, with no regard as to the damage created.
What I've always counseled people on is the need for shared goals and systems outside of individual needs within the relationship, and on constant communication to do any necessary resets as we change and grow as individuals.
It's easy to say, but hard to do. However, if a partnership can agree on a shared vision of where the relationship is supposed to go in a year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, then things like leaving the toothpaste top off, or putting the roll of toilet paper on the wrong way, or tossing clothes to the ground, or leaving dishes in the sink, or not being ready on time, or not taking care of oneself physically, or bringing in less money than desired, or what have you, can be addressed within a greater context.
It's possible that this is the cynic's version of Jamieson's view of the "shared repertoire of cover stories, taboos, and self-dishonesty." Because relationships are not truly about accepting one another as we really are. It's constant compromise, sometimes painful compromise, as a tradeoff to remain in a relationship with another human being who has their own wants and needs entirely separate from our own. It's one of the hardest things any of us can ever do, because it never ends until the relationship ends. It can get easier as we fill roles, create identities within the relationship, and understand that going outside that identity is going to rock the boat in some way, and therefore not worth it, but that's a compromise in and of itself.
But what about the hobby? The hobby doesn't truly short circuit any of this. It simply adds a different element directly into the equation. The provider compromises herself/himself by agreeing to guide their behavior in return for money. This is no different than any other job. As a salesperson, there are plenty of days I have no desire to help anyone, but it's a part of my job. When I buy coffee in the morning, and I'm greeted with a beaming smile from my barista, there are plenty of times he'd rather punch me in the face, simply because his day is sucking. We all compromise ourselves every day to fill someone else's needs, in return for resources.
Mutual disclosure, trust, and mutual vulnerability is inherent in the hobby. From the need for anonymity on both sides, how to exchange cash in a way that's as risk free as possible, how physically attractive one or the other is, to performance issues on either side --- all the way to the review system, politics on these forums, and the need/desire to have some kind of minimum approval from our peers. All of these exchanges bleed disclosure, trust, and mutual vulnerability, and we constantly see their betrayal played out, whether from an outside party such as law enforcement, a rapist, or thieves --- or internally, due to failure on one side or the other, hurt feelings, or even a miscommunication.
Certainly Jamieson's view fits in nicely with how we approach one another in the hobby, much better than Gibbon's idealized view. Which is not to say either is right or wrong.
In any case, I enjoyed the read. My sincere apologies for the long missive, but that's how I roll. If you made it this far, I appreciate the time and effort you invested in reading my thoughts.
Thank you for this, and your other contributions, ninasastri. I enjoy reading your posts.
|
