NikoLeto

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm very good at hand to hand fighting. Something I refined in the Army, still, the specific encounter I'm recounting, the dude was able to elbow me in the eye and it left a noticeable bruise that I had to explain over and over. If he'd had a weapon of any kind, I could've gotten seriously hurt. Definitely not worth $50, $100, or even the whole amount. Better just to walk away. There'll always be another client eventually.
 
Generally speaking, any quirk of providing that I have (bringing my own lube, not counting the money, accepting payment after the fact, etc.), it's almost always strictly because I've had one super-bad experience that burned me enough that I make it my priority to never make that particular mistake again. Which is not to say that I've been hounded by consistently bad clients, quite the opposite. Probably 99% of the people I've seen have been amicable, even when we don't end up meeting for whatever reason.
 
It really just take one particularly bad experience to change your perspective on things.

I've been burned as recently as a month ago for my policy, but like @Armann, I ask for payment at the end. I think this allows everything to run similar to the kind of encounter a client would experience during a regular hookup, minus the obviously necessary business at the end.
 
I also avoid counting the money until I or the client has left. I once had a client get violent when I confronted him about the missing money. Not worth the scuffle. Even if you win, you're still likely to come out with a black eye or a bloody lip and that's not sexy.

You're absolutely right. I haven't had another violent encounter, though I have had a handful of bizarre experiences across the years (two that jump to mind: one spiked lube with a drug and another fell completely unconscious and unresponsive in the middle of the session), basically all of them circled around drugs. Now I have a hard-no policy on any client using meth or G. Originally, I viewed them as just "other drugs", but I've found that they're not conducive to a quality experience. Best to avoid them entirely, from my perspective.

I've been burned as recently as a month ago for my policy, but like @Armann, I ask for payment at the end. I think this allows everything to run similar to the kind of encounter a client would experience during a regular hookup, minus the obviously necessary business at the end.
 
I also avoid counting the money until I or the client has left. I once had a client get violent when I confronted him about the missing money. Not worth the scuffle. Even if you win, you're still likely to come out with a black eye or a bloody lip and that's not sexy.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

I think the onus is on the employed to determine where they will and will not labor for their money, regardless of whether they are destitute or not.
 
To suggest that sex work is exploitative by nature on a board dedicated to the act is ... willfully ignorant? Not in good taste?
 
Exploiting people by driving them to do anything when they would not otherwise do it is offensive. Sex work, by necessity, should be done only by the willing. Anything otherwise is a form of rape. The people being discussed at length don't meet my criteria for "coercion". They enter into the bargain willingly when other avenues exist. And as discussed in points across the thread, there's no way for you to verify "how" coerced they are in the matter. You don't live inside their head. The only thing you can do is enter honestly into the agreement.

Do we extend the argument to include, for example, all the guys on Seeking Arrangements who have variations of "straight but broke and desperate" in their ads?
 
I'm not trying to trivialize or dismiss the question. When you aren't creating the circumstances of their situation, and they are the ones who have taken that first step, at what point is it exploitation?

It’s called ‘reductio ad absurdem’.

so a friend of mine was out of work. i helped him get a job through a connection i have. is that considered preying on his misfortune of being broke? he was offered a job and he took it willingly since he needs money. for the men on this board to start such moralistic thinking and piousness... give me a break!

Is making an offer that helps them out financially considered coercing? I have helped many straight guys out and they return on their own so it must be ok with them. I've even had one baby momma call me asking if her baby daddy can come back over because he needs to pay the rent.
 
I see no problem with these arrangements. They are free to say no, I'm not threatening to beat them up if they don't comply.

Don’t fall getting off that high horse.
 
Nobody is coercing anyone into anything. If the guy advertises then, 1) He’s not 100% straight; 2) He made the offer.
If someone says “I’m down on my luck. I’ll suck your dick for $50” are we supposed to delve into whether he’s straight, gay, bi, why is he doing this? Does he have a family he’s trying to feed? A mortgage? Fuck all that, let me get my rocks off and here’s your 50 spot.

My view is that coercing straight men into homosexual intimacies in exchange for some funds necessary to feed/shelter/medically provide for their families is flat-out wrong.

I cancelled my SC subscription because I got sick of their bait-and-switch login that takes you to promos for other paid sites and a stray click trying to navigate signs you up for something else. Seems their new business model is defraud customers and hope they are too embarrassed to challenge the charge. It took a lot of haranguing them to get them to drop the charge for some other site that I know I did not sign up for.

I know what your saying, but I think there are preferences that are not learned. Following your line of reasoning, a person is attracted to a particular gender because that is what they learned? I think there may be some environmental factors to attraction but a lot may come from birth. My point is that being more attracted to a certain size, race, eye colour, etc., does not necessarily mean one is sizeist, racist, etc. There are those who definitely may be, but not everyone is. I think it may be more of an issue if someone is only attracted to their own race, age, size, etc., to the exclusion of anyone else. Or if they will only associate with a specific 'type'. Attraction is far more complex.

Being unhappy with oneself is a waste of time. Wanting to make changes and lose weight to improve your health is different than being unhappy. One could argue that you need to be unhappy to make changes to improve oneself, but I contend you can be happy and still wish to be even better and if that was the case with dbar123 then I misinterpreted his statement.