married clients

[Guest ShoeDog]

But...isn't it immoral?

[Guest ShoeDog]

No, you make a good point. Actually, I agree with Rick about that. My situation is not the ideal, and I wish it were.

[Guest regulation]

>But...isn't it immoral?

 

I guess that depends on whether you think it's immoral to deceive someone to whom you have pledged to be faithful and loyal. Obviously, Rick and some other escorts and clients don't have a problem with it.

 

The married clients who have posted in this thread are lucky to have found this message board. Where else could they find a bunch of people who will actually applaud them for cheating on their wives? Right, Jizz?

[+ Axiom2001]

Damn, is this 'Straight Men's Month"? All of the threads related to marriage, bi-- are really, really long-assed! What's the fixation all about! (And what I wrote is not indicative of my admiring "cute" and "hot" straight men at times!)

[Guest regulation]

>I can certainly empathize, although holding a cock to a

>married mans' ass is a far cry from holding a gun to any

>mans' head.

 

I'm glad to say that your head seems to be fine. :-)

 

Let's not be too hard on your robber. No doubt he felt it was in his best interest to rob you. Looking at a lot of the posts in this thread, I really don't see how many of the people posting here can argue with that reasoning. It's the same reasoning they use to justify what they do, after all.

[Guest Charon]

My wife thinks this thread is very funny.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Damn, is this 'Straight Men's Month"? ...What's the fixation all about<

 

I think it's more than a fixation. Marriage isn't just a phase a person goes through (well, I guess it can be for some). It's more like a way of life (even when the missus is a beard.) So's bisexuality. People want to talk about it. Or at least speculate.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>I'm glad to say that your head seems to be fine.<

 

Thank you for noticing, but before this turns into a mut-ad-soc, we must remember our standing in the community.

 

>Let's not be too hard on your robber. No doubt he felt it was in his best interest to rob you.<

 

But do we know that he really felt that way? Maybe society made him do it. Or perhaps he was just bored and I was an easy mark. Maybe he did it on a bet or a dare. Someone might have held a gun to his head. The air was thick with irony that night, so it wouldn't surprise me. Or maybe he didn't even think about it 'cause he's too fucking stupid to realize that he risked going to prison for a change of my clothes, some sex paraphenalia, and a credit card he couldn't use. But maybe you're right. He may have weighed the risks and decided that getting caught and sent to prison would be more advantageous than his current life wielding a gun to get what he wants. In that light, doing hard time would be in any street thugs' best interest. Would it also be in the cheating husband's best interest to do time in jail? I mean, if the mugger and the philanderer both employ the same reasoning, shouldn't they share the same cell if they're caught?

 

>Looking at a lot of the posts in this thread, I really don't see how many of the people posting here can argue with that reasoning. It's the same reasoning they use to justify what they do, after all.<

 

Maybe if we look deeper at the actions of the infidel, we'll see that his betrayal of vows does in fact serve the greater good of the holy institution. By seeking intimate physical, emotional, or sexual gratification beyond that promised by his good lady wife, the rogue husband has in effect made the admission that the marriage is less than satisfying as is. He's got a few options once that realization has been made:

 

a) He can get a divorce. Simple enough.

 

b) He can tough it out with the mrs, hoping that things will change for the better through counseling or whatever, knowing that if they don't he might be wasting the best years of his life, all the while suppressing profound feelings of personal desire, rendering him a lousy mate on many levels and leading him toward a deathbed full of regrets, or...

 

c) he can hire a no-strings-attached romp in the hay, wherein he will get some cuddling in, revel in a sense of sexual abandon with a pretty piece of humanity, experience a classic bit of "greekness" - just like the great heroes of myth he admires so, and basically get whatever jollies his curvacious yet steadfast counterpart somehow fails to provide. He then goes home to his blissfully unwitting wife, gets whatever emotional juice he can from her and the kids, and thus feels fulfilled and able to function as provider, co-provider, care-giver, emotional supporter, and even lover. He also feels better about his job, his endeavers. His confidence and esteem soar. He's the well rounded twenty-first century man and he's got it all. He may have vowed to love and cherish, but did he actually ever say he wouldn't diddle a cute guy from time to time, as the need arises? Especially if doing so means he'll be able to bear another twenty years of matrimonial bliss? Hell, shouldn't every wife march her man off - with joy and satisfaction - to the nearest and hottest male escort around, secure in the knowledge that hubby'll come home fulfilled, thankful, and sated, rather than repressed, vindictive, and sporting an angry boner? Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest?

 

I don't know. I guess it's all in the interpretation.

[Guest regulation]

>But maybe you're right. He may have weighed

>the risks and decided that getting caught and sent to prison

>would be more advantageous than his current life wielding a

>gun to get what he wants. In that light, doing hard time

>would be in any street thugs' best interest. Would it also

>be in the cheating husband's best interest to do time in

>jail? I mean, if the mugger and the philanderer both employ

>the same reasoning, shouldn't they share the same cell if

>they're caught?

 

But your robber wasn't caught, was he? If he decided that the risk of getting caught was small enough to justify his actions, he seems to have been right.

 

>b) He can tough it out with the mrs, hoping that things will

>change for the better through counseling or whatever,

>knowing that if they don't he might be wasting the best

>years of his life, all the while suppressing profound

>feelings of personal desire, rendering him a lousy mate on

>many levels and leading him toward a deathbed full of

>regrets, or...

 

Hold it. Why do you say that someone is wasting the best years of his life simply because he doesn't get all the sexual gratification he wants? Is scratching a sexual itch really as important as a relationship of love and trust with another person? I think the answer that each person gives to that question reveals a lot about his values.

 

>He then goes home to his blissfully unwitting wife,

>gets whatever emotional juice he can from her and the kids,

>and thus feels fulfilled and able to function as provider,

>co-provider, care-giver, emotional supporter, and even

>lover. He also feels better about his job, his endeavers.

>His confidence and esteem soar. He's the well rounded

>twenty-first century man and he's got it all.

 

That's assuming he has absolutely no conscience. Is that a realistic assumption?

 

>He may have

>vowed to love and cherish, but did he actually ever say he

>wouldn't diddle a cute guy from time to time, as the need

>arises?

 

For any husband who feels he's not doing anything wrong, as you suggest, it's very easy to test that theory. All he has to do is tell his wife. Any takers?

 

 

>Hell, shouldn't

>every wife march her man off - with joy and satisfaction -

>to the nearest and hottest male escort around, secure in the

>knowledge that hubby'll come home fulfilled, thankful, and

>sated, rather than repressed, vindictive, and sporting an

>angry boner? Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest?

 

If so, then there's no reason to keep it a secret. So why do they do it?

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>But your robber wasn't caught, was he? If he decided that the risk of getting caught was small enough to justify his actions, he seems to have been right.<

 

He may have thought the risk was small, but so was the pay-off. The pay-off would not have have increased upon his capture. It would never balance the punishment. It was a stupid risk, but like I suggested, I doubt if he even thought about it.

 

>Hold it. Why do you say that someone is wasting the best years of his life simply because he doesn't get all the sexual gratification he wants?<

 

Well I didn't say exactly that now, did I? I said a man who seeks emotional, physical, OR sexual gratification outside of his marriage "might" feel as if he's wasting some of the best years of his life. But no matter what the reasons, an unfulfilling marriage is bound to be an empty one, for both parties. Furthermore, my hypothetical man is seeing a marriage counsellor. He wants it to work, but has fears, like any man. Besides all that, the picture I so quickly painted with such a broad brush was done so in the interest of my larger concern, addressed in section c) of my previous post, which is getting married men who may be thinking about hiring an escort to do so with a minimum amount of mental strife. My hope was that the absurd scenario presented would endear me to a few of the encumbered gentlemen out there. Why are you bursting the balloons I blow up with such glee.?

 

>Is scratching a sexual itch really as important as a relationship of love and trust with another person? I think the answer that each person gives to that question reveals a lot about his values.<

 

If it's more than just a sexual itch, those answers are cast in grey, blurring all values.

 

>>He then goes home to his blissfully unwitting wife,

>>gets whatever emotional juice he can from her and the kids,

>>and thus feels fulfilled and able to function as provider,

>>co-provider, care-giver, emotional supporter, and even

>>lover. He also feels better about his job, his endeavers.

>>His confidence and esteem soar. He's the well rounded

>>twenty-first century man and he's got it all.

 

>That's assuming he has absolutely no conscience. Is that a realistic assumption?<

 

Future man transcends conscience, much less reality. But seriously, you mean you'd rather see a dysfunctional unhappy family whose miserable figurehead has a conscience, than a happily adjusted (if unwitting) family whose pater screws an occassional escort but keeps mum about it?

 

>For any husband who feels he's not doing anything wrong, as you suggest, it's very easy to test that theory. All he has to do is tell his wife. Any takers?<

 

Of course not. They may be unfaithful, but they're not idiots. Right or wrong, never tell the little lady. But I didn't suggest it wasn't wrong. I've merely pre-rationalized future encounters for any potential clients. If spun just right, any "sin" is commitable. Don't forget, as a whore, I wallow in sin.

 

>>Hell, shouldn't

>>every wife march her man off - with joy and satisfaction -

>>to the nearest and hottest male escort around, secure in the

>>knowledge that hubby'll come home fulfilled, thankful, and

>>sated, rather than repressed, vindictive, and sporting an

>>angry boner? Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest?

 

>If so, then there's no reason to keep it a secret. So why do they do it?<

 

That's a good question. And ironically, chatting like this with you has opened my eyes to the real problem with this whole "married client" situation: it's the women. The wives are the damn problem. What can be done about the wives?

 

If only we all lived in Stepford.

[Bilbo]

Actually, I can see a lot of value in Joey's plan C. And, if the wife actually marched a man off in my direction, I would be more than pleased. (I have had some people hire me for their spouses, but, having been on both sides of surprises when they weren't entirely welcome, I make everyone make their own appointments, though perhaps with info gathered by their spouse - Has anyone noticed that I keep saying spouse and almost everyone else keeps assuming that they are talking about female spice? (spouses?))

 

As far as "wallowing in sin" just because I am an escort, that is exactly what (well, exactly one of the things) I am trying to avoid. My definition of the word "adultery" is doing it with a member of a closed relationship. If the relationship is an open one, or if I am lead to believe that it is an open one, then there is no sin involved.

 

If your spouse has said, as many evidently do, "I don't care if you have an affair, just don't rub my nose in it." the guess what? You have permission!! - Although I must admit my present lover and most of my past lovers have wanted to know all the details. More fodder for their jack off machines! Amongst other benefits.

[Bilbo]

Yay for Charon! Double yay for Charon's wife!!!

[Guest regulation]

>It was a

>stupid risk, but like I suggested, I doubt if he even

>thought about it.

 

We can't know that. All we know is that he got some free stuff by robbing you and didn't get caught.

 

>My hope was that the absurd scenario presented would

>endear me to a few of the encumbered gentlemen out there.

>Why are you bursting the balloons I blow up with such glee.?

 

There's no glee on my part. Personally, I think deceiving someone with whom you have entered into a relationship of trust is pretty disgusting, and pretending that you're doing it in the best interest of both of you makes it even worse. The phrase "adding insult to injury" comes to mind.

 

>If it's more than just a sexual itch, those answers are cast

>in grey, blurring all values.

 

I don't think sex is ever more than just an itch. Can you name anyone who died from a lack of sexual gratification? I can't.

 

>Future man transcends conscience, much less reality. But

>seriously, you mean you'd rather see a dysfunctional unhappy

>family whose miserable figurehead has a conscience, than a

>happily adjusted (if unwitting) family whose pater screws an

>occassional escort but keeps mum about it?

 

 

What I'd rather see is that someone who has desires that are not satisfied by his marital relationship and who is deeply troubled by it gets professional help, and not from someone in your profession but from someone who is actually qualified to deal with such problems.

 

>If spun just

>right, any "sin" is commitable. Don't forget, as a whore, I

>wallow in sin.

 

So you don't have a problem with robbery either, right?

 

>That's a good question. And ironically, chatting like this

>with you has opened my eyes to the real problem with this

>whole "married client" situation: it's the women. The wives

>are the damn problem. What can be done about the wives?

 

The whole problem, Joey, is men who feel that their personal desires are more important than anything or anyone else. People like that are capable of anything.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>>It was a stupid risk, but like I suggested,

>>I doubt if he even thought about it.

 

>We can't know that. All we know is that he got some free stuff by robbing you and didn't get caught.<

 

Well you don't have to sound so happy about it. Anyway, the kid is ultimately doomed. He's robbing stragglers in the middle of the night for whatever's in their gym bag, for chrissake. I'm sure he was either dead or in jail by the end of that week. I'm not sure I care which.

 

>>My hope was that the absurd scenario presented would

>>endear me to a few of the encumbered gentlemen out there.

>>Why are you bursting the balloons I blow up with such glee.?

 

>There's no glee on my part.<

 

Actually, I was referring to my glee. Sorry for the mix up.

 

>I don't think sex is ever more than just an itch.<

 

Tell that to the thousands of babies baptised every year, seeds of their devoted catholic parents whose faith only allows sexual intercourse in pursuit of procreation - a sacred task. And again you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say sex was more than an itch, although I'll say it now. What I said was that most men who stray probably do so for more than the sake of an orgasm, making their values less easily judged. As if anyone can stand in judgement of anothers' personal value system.

 

>Can you name anyone who died from a lack of sexual gratification? I can't.<

 

I could probably name a former loving couple or two (whose names would mean nothing to you) whose marriages ended in ruins from problems that may have stemmed from sexual differences or desires. I would think that certain issues in the bedroom could lead to issues elsewhere in the household and eventually suck the life out of a marriage. And although I can't name anyone who's dead as a direct cause of a lack of sex, I can certainly name a few who are quite miserable and as good as dead due to an absence of the proper gratification.

 

>What I'd rather see is that someone who has desires that are not satisfied by his marital relationship and who is deeply troubled by it gets professional help, and not from someone in your profession but from someone who is actually qualified to deal with such problems.<

 

I never claimed to be qualified at anything other than providing temporary respite from the tribulations of matrimony. And I'll point out, for the second time, the fact that my second option for the rogue husband was counselling. To put it all quite bluntly, I could give a shit if a client is married or not, nor do I really care what makes a married man stray. I'm interested if he wants to talk about it, otherwise it's none of my business. I would never judge because I know that everyone's got their reasons.

 

>So you don't have a problem with robbery either, right?<

 

Well, sure I do. But more interesting questions to me are why you keep dwelling upon the fact that someone put a gun in my face and stole my shit (can't you see my jugular bulge and my eyes pop every time you bring it up?), and how you could possibly think that mugging someone at gunpoint is the same as cheating on your wife? You really don't have to answer. I'm just curious.

 

>The whole problem, Joey, is men who feel that their personal desires are more important than anything or anyone else. People like that are capable of anything.<

 

Even murder? I know you're going for shock value here, but that is one tragic leap of logic. If I understand you correctly, we can safely assume that those here in the studio audience who are guilty of an infidelity, are in all likelihood also guilty of countless other "crimes", right? If not guilty, then certainly capable of rape and mass murder. Hmmm... So if I feel that you have somehow misrepresented or misquoted me, deliberately or otherwise, to further the strength of your standpoint (i.e. to serve your interests), I can in effect no longer trust you. And if I can't trust you, then you must be capable of murder. If you can misconstrue with such recklessness, you can easily kill, right?

 

Reg, in spite of my flippancy, I've not taken up a position contrary to your own (of course you're right - honesty is always the best policy), but I do believe we are on very different wavelengths when it comes to degrees of moral transgressions. At any rate it's been fun talking with you, but I think I'm done with this topic.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Half and half

 

For statistical purposes only, I offer the following: approximately 20 - 30 percent of my clients are married men and within that group, a much smaller percentage self-identify as bisexual men. I believe the percentage of my client base which is such versus that of Jeff or Small Town John or others is due to location, proximity, urban environment and other factors. The majority of the married men who come to me do so from AOL and they are often tourist from small-midwestern towns -- very few, if any Southerners and no Texans -- and they are often looking both male companionship and sex. I once had a client invite me over to watch Monday Night Football and to fuck him during the half-time show. He had consumed a six pack of beer by the time I showed up and drank another six for my two by half-time. I am not sure he enjoyed himself but he gave me one of the biggest tips I have received in the last ten months.

 

Another thing I have noted from my married clients is that they primarily want to be topped but are very insistent that I be as if not more masculine then them. Unlike some of my other clients, I never discuss cooking with them, clothes, age or beauty. It is all sports, almost all of the time, with some conversations on politics and automobiles. I happen to have no interest in baseball and in most professional sports and I would rather hike a mountain than drive a car, unless there are no cops and little traffic. '

 

The bisexual clients are far different. They want to be topped, yes, but they are the ones who more often ask me if I get topped, who want to get their cocks sucked and who want to eat my ass -- remember that Mr. Munroe. They also tend to be slightly younger than me or quite younger than me and find me on web sites or particularly come to me through a referral.

 

I am not certain what all this states but I think a more interesting thread would be to ask by geography, age and other variables for the escorts to describe their typical client base.

 

 

If you cannot be with the one you love, love the man who removes -- and hides -- the gold band around his finger.

[Guest regulation]

>Well you don't have to sound so happy about it. Anyway, the

>kid is ultimately doomed. He's robbing stragglers in the

>middle of the night for whatever's in their gym bag, for

>chrissake. I'm sure he was either dead or in jail by the end

>of that week. I'm not sure I care which.

 

Once again, we don't know that. His robbery of you may have been an initiation ritual admitting him to a gang in which he will commit far more serious (and more lucrative) crimes. That is just as plausible as the situation you describe.

 

>Tell that to the thousands of babies baptised every year,

>seeds of their devoted catholic parents whose faith only

>allows sexual intercourse in pursuit of procreation - a

>sacred task.

 

Fair enough.

 

>What I said was that most men who stray probably do so

>for more than the sake of an orgasm, making their values

>less easily judged. As if anyone can stand in judgement of

>anothers' personal value system.

 

Nonsense. We all judge the values of others. You have been extremely judgmental in talking about your robber, for example. If you want to see some very judgmental behavior from others who post here, look at the thread entitled "Reality Check." You will see that some of the same people who have warned us not to be judgmental in other threads are doing exactly that.

 

 

>To put it all quite bluntly, I could give a shit if a client

>is married or not, nor do I really care what makes a married

>man stray. I'm interested if he wants to talk about it,

>otherwise it's none of my business. I would never judge

>because I know that everyone's got their reasons.

>

>>So you don't have a problem with robbery either, right?<

>

>Well, sure I do. But more interesting questions to me are

>why you keep dwelling upon the fact that someone put a gun

>in my face and stole my shit >

 

I keep dwelling on it because it involves the sort of contradiction I find so amusing. You don't care about the fact that you are helping other people deceive and betray those who trust them. Although you've tried to come up with some rationalizations for it, the reason you keep doing it is that it benefits YOU. That is no doubt the same reason that young fellow robbed you. And yet you are obviously angry at him for behaving in the same manner as you behave. Most amusing.

 

>Even murder? I know you're going for shock value here, but

>that is one tragic leap of logic. If I understand you

>correctly, we can safely assume that those here in the

>studio audience who are guilty of an infidelity, are in all

>likelihood also guilty of countless other "crimes", right?

>If not guilty, then certainly capable of rape and mass

>murder.

 

I never suggested that people who cheat on their wives are guilty of anything but cheating. But ask yourself this. If you assemble a group of people whose one common characteristic is a proven history of ignoring moral and legal boundaries in order to satisfy their own personal appetites, what sort of people do you think they are likely to be?

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>>the kid is ultimately doomed...I'm sure he was either dead or in jail by the end of that week. I'm not sure I care which.<<

 

>Once again, we don't know that. His robbery of you may have been an initiation ritual admitting him to a gang in which he will commit far more serious (and more lucrative) crimes. That is just as plausible as the situation you describe.<

 

My point was that the kid is doomed living that kind of life, but if it makes you happy to think that he's still out there waving guns at people, then be happy.

 

>>What I said was that most men who stray probably do so

>>for more than the sake of an orgasm, making their values

>>less easily judged. As if anyone can stand in judgement of

>>anothers' personal value system.

 

>Nonsense. We all judge the values of others.<

 

And that makes it, or your position, correct? No, I think you confuse observation and discussion with judgement. In this whole thread I believe you're the only one to actually pass judgement on the cheaters.

 

>>>So you don't have a problem with robbery either, right?<<<

 

>>Well, sure I do. But more interesting questions to me are

>>why you keep dwelling upon the fact that someone put a gun

>>in my face and stole my shit

 

>I keep dwelling on it because it involves the sort of contradiction I find so amusing.<

 

Recalling a violent crime wherin my life was threatened amuses you because it involves a percieved contradiction? What do you do for real laffs? And you've ignored yet another one of my questions, how can you possibly equate armed robbery with cheating on your wife? Again, I expect no answer.

 

>You don't care about the fact that you are helping other people deceive and betray those who trust them.<

 

I hate to spring your own logic on you, but we don't know that I've helped anyone do anything other than blow a load, do we? If I sleep with a married man, how am I supposed to know who trusts him or not? Can I be sure that his wife isn't off at that same moment fucking the milkman? How do I know if he's lying about being married in the first place? If I don't know the myriad details of a man's life that make him want to hire someone like me, then you sure as hell don't and are in no position to judge. When I said I didn't care if a client is married or not, I meant I didn't care to know, because it's nobody's business but his.

 

>Although you've tried to come up with some rationalizations for it, the reason you keep doing it is that it benefits YOU.<

 

I've done more than just try to rationalize, I've actually done it. And I do it as much for my clients as I do for me, as often as I can. We all benefit by it, and that makes you upset somehow. Meanwhile, you seem to think it's fine to twist words and misquote people in order to benefit any position you may take up. You're serving your own interests and are therefore capable of, in your own words, anything.

 

>That is no doubt the same reason that young fellow robbed you. And yet you are obviously angry at him for behaving in the same manner as you behave. Most amusing.<

 

So I'm a gun toting mugger now, eh? Desperate and full of rage? Truly twisted reasoning, not to mention a pile of steaming crap. I'm losing respect for your powers of debate, reg. This is kid stuff. And again, is that a smile playing about your lips as your mind's eye pictures some punk pointing a gun in my face? Does he pull the trigger in your fantasy? Yes, most amusing.

 

>I never suggested that people who cheat on their wives are guilty of anything but cheating.<

 

But capable of mass murder. Such a rosey outlook.

 

>If you assemble a group of people whose one common characteristic is a proven history of ignoring moral and legal boundaries in order to satisfy their own personal appetites, what sort of people do you think they are likely to be?<

 

They're likely to be all manner of folk. Presidents and priests, sinners and saints, and they sure know how to have fun. I'm sorry you think we're all monsters.

 

Since you haunt these boards with such relish, I guess it's safe to assume you've hired escorts, hopefully for the purpose of getting laid. Now, I know this is gonna hurt my head, but if I use your reasoning, I can be sure that if you'll break one law to serve your own sexual interests, it's not unreasonable to assume that the neighbors children are not safe around you, right?

 

Can I also assume that you're the clown who mugged me? It would help explain your fascination with the crime.

[Guest regulation]

>My point was that the kid is doomed living that kind of

>life, but if it makes you happy to think that he's still out

>there waving guns at people, then be happy.

 

And my point is that you and I have no idea what kind of life he actually has lived, either before or since he mugged you. But it seems to make YOU happy to think of him as doomed. In fact, that's quite obvious.

 

>And that makes it, or your position, correct? No, I think

>you confuse observation and discussion with judgement. In

>this whole thread I believe you're the only one to actually

>pass judgement on the cheaters.

 

I think you're splitting hairs. My only "judgment" of them is that they are doing exactly what they tell us they are doing -- deceiving their spouses. Is there any reason for them or you to object to my saying about them the same thing they are saying about themselves?

 

If you want to see people passing judgment, read the "Reality Check" thread as I suggested. There you will see a number of posters telling the thread author that because he expressed certain views, that means he is a certain kind of person. Now that's passing judgment.

 

>Recalling a violent crime wherin my life was threatened

>amuses you because it involves a percieved contradiction?

>What do you do for real laffs?

 

Now you're misquoting me. I didn't say it was amusing that you were robbed. I said that I was amused by the contradiction in your censorious attitude toward the robber and your attitude toward certain actions of yours and others. See the difference?

 

>And you've ignored yet

>another one of my questions, how can you possibly equate

>armed robbery with cheating on your wife? Again, I expect no

>answer.

 

I am free to ignore any of your questions that I wish to ignore. And I'm especially likely to do so if, as you did in your previous post, you tell me that you are ending your participation in this discussion. You did say that, didn't you? I'm not "misquoting" you, am I?

 

But I'll answer you now. I think many people might regard the betrayal of marriage vows as far more serious than a mugging in which they lose possessions that are of little importance to them in the first place. Most people place more value on their marriages than on a few items of clothing and a credit card, right?

 

>When I said I didn't

>care if a client is married or not, I meant I didn't care to

>know, because it's nobody's business but his.

 

If that is what you mean, then that is what you should say. What you actually said is that you "could give a shit" if your clients are married. Am I to be criticized for thinking that means you don't care if you are helping someone betray his wife? I don't think so.

 

>I've done more than just try to rationalize, I've actually

>done it. And I do it as much for my clients as I do for me,

>as often as I can. We all benefit by it, and that makes you

>upset somehow.

 

Why would you think I'm upset? Have I said any such thing? What other reason could I have for engaging in these conversations than that I enjoy them? And if I enjoy them, how can I be upset? Do you enjoy things that upset you?

 

 

>Meanwhile, you seem to think it's fine to

>twist words and misquote people in order to benefit any

>position you may take up. You're serving your own interests

>and are therefore capable of, in your own words,

>anything.

 

I'd like you to show me some examples of my "misquoting" you or "twisting" your words, because I know of none. Speaking of "misquoting," I didn't say that anyone who serves his own interests is capable of anything. Should you criticize me for "misquoting" if you do it yourself? I think not.

 

>So I'm a gun toting mugger now, eh? Desperate and full of

>rage? Truly twisted reasoning, not to mention a pile of

>steaming crap. I'm losing respect for your powers of debate,

>reg. This is kid stuff. And again, is that a smile playing

>about your lips as your mind's eye pictures some punk

>pointing a gun in my face? Does he pull the trigger in your

>fantasy? Yes, most amusing.

 

Now, once again, it's you who are misquoting me. I've never accused you of mugging anyone, nor have I ever said I take any pleasure in thinking of what happened to you. What you are actually trying to do is to change the subject of this discussion, presumably because you don't want the subject to remain what it originally was -- escorts and their married clients. Why would that be?

 

>Since you haunt these boards with such relish, I guess it's

>safe to assume you've hired escorts, hopefully for the

>purpose of getting laid. Now, I know this is gonna hurt my

>head, but if I use your reasoning, I can be sure that if

>you'll break one law to serve your own sexual interests,

>it's not unreasonable to assume that the neighbors children

>are not safe around you, right?

>

>Can I also assume that you're the clown who mugged me? It

>would help explain your fascination with the crime.

 

Joey, a man of your age really ought to be mature enough to engage in a discussion of serious issues like this without lapsing into the kind of childish personal attacks I see above. Why is that so very hard for you?

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>I am free to ignore any of your questions that I wish to ignore. And I'm especially likely to do so if, as you did in your previous post, you tell me that you are ending your participation in this discussion. You did say that, didn't you? I'm not "misquoting" you, am I?<

 

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Show me where I said "I am ending my participation in this discussion."

 

>Most people place more value on their marriages than on a few items of clothing and a credit card, right?<

 

I hope so.

 

>>When I said I didn't

>>care if a client is married or not, I meant I didn't care to

>>know, because it's nobody's business but his.

 

>Am I to be criticized for thinking that means you don't care if you are helping someone betray his wife?<

 

Yes?

 

>>...that makes you upset somehow.<<

 

>Why would you think I'm upset?<

 

Sorry, I mistook your smile for a sourpuss.

 

>What other reason could I have for engaging in these conversations than that I enjoy them? And if I enjoy them, how can I be upset?<

 

Is this one of those zen riddles?

 

>I didn't say that anyone who serves his own interests is capable of anything. Should you criticize me for "misquoting" if you do it yourself?<

 

Now who's splitting hairs.

 

>What you are actually trying to do is to change the subject of this discussion, presumably because you don't want the subject to remain what it originally was -- escorts and their married clients. Why would that be?<

 

Because I'm really Satan, trying to seduce married men from honoring their vows, and you're blowing my gig.

 

>Joey, a man of your age really ought to be mature enough to engage in a discussion of serious issues like this without lapsing into the kind of childish personal attacks I see above. Why is that so very hard for you?<

 

I guess I'm still just a boy at heart. And really, personal attack? C'mon. A personal attack is having a gun placed on your forehead. An edifying thing to do, right?

[Guest 7Zach]

I am truly stumped over the comments made here about West Tx. The guy explained himself well, why he does what he does, and the choices he made. He agreed that it was not an ideal situation.

but like the rest of us here, he gets heat waves and acts upon them. I also sensed that he tried not to do so for certain periods of time. And as usual, this is a sex site, so why the fuck are people belittling him? Is it that slow in New Jersey?

[Flower]

RE: Rosie O'Donnell would be pissed

 

>[Well I guess it was sort of an odd statement and feel the

>need to apologize to Rosie since I adore her. But I am not

>apoligizing for the statement, but rather for not

>elaborating further.]

 

--And you shouldn't apologize for the statement. I have heard many of my gay friends say the same thing to me--about me--that they were envious in a way of me having a family (only the kids,not the wife LOL). Well, the grass is always greener isn't it?

 

>[True this is not the first time I've heard gay/lesbian

>families. And I think it's wonderful. However my clients

>didn't grow up during times like these where those types of

>situations are very common. So for my "Married Clients" it

>was not even an option. ]

 

Well, we sure didn't think it was an option back in the 70's but at some point coming out is the only way to freedom--I personally waited until my kids were out of college and out of the house--then told my wife and my kids not knowing what to expect and sorta thinking like West Tx that she'd never understand--well I was wrong and they all understood and gave me a lot of support--so I guess I'm pretty lucky.

 

But I'll tell you, it was only with the help and support of an escort that I have became very good friends with over the last year and a half that I was able to do it. But the free feeling I now have is worth it, but I'd never relive my life differently if it meant not having my great kids--despite the finger pointing here about broken vows and such.

 

As some of the more self-righteous and judgmental folks here have said, to be married and in the closet and hiring an escort (or having any affair, I guess) is imoral, an act of deceit and a breaking of vows--well, "duh!", but in my case, we were pregnant at the time and what vows or rules do you keep and which do you ignore when they conflict? Everyone here has circumstances that are different and therefore make some decisions right for one and not for all. Life is not a bunch of black and white rules that you follow like a "paint-by-the-numbers-canvas", but a weak attempt to play the cards you get dealt and hopefully, just break even, if you don't win.

 

Most of my gay friends are in there 20's and 30's--they are out and proud and to some extent I am envious of that life-long freedom they will experience--but Mr. Mike, you have every right and reason to be a little envious of the married client that has some great kids--but he's paid a dear price to have that family and the really sad part, is that in most cases the people that he loves the most and that love him, never really know who or what he is. I am just thankful I came out to my kids and know they still love me regardless. But that doesn't mean everyone should do what I did--it was just best for me, but I make no rules for anyone else. I mean, isn't that part of being gay? Diversity? Not black and white rules, but shades or gray or of a rainbow (hmm--like the one we stole from Jesse Jackson maybe)

 

<<Myself, I would NEVER marry a woman just to have a family. >>

 

I'm not sure that many of us made that conscious decision in such clear terms when we got married--it was more like we were expected to get married and at that time there was still some "thought'" lol that this mental anomaly could be corrected with an attitude adjustment Well, I don't think so! LOL

 

>But then again I came out when I was seventeen and the year

>was 1998. Even then I knrew that if i did ever have a family

>it would be through adoption. I hope I've cleared it up a

>little for you.

 

I think you will find that adoption is a great alternative and will truly let you have your cake and eat it too.

 

I've read these threads for a long time, but this topic motivated me to finally register and put in my 2 cents. So, let er rip }>

 

Flower

[Guest soccerstud]

RE: Rosie O'Donnell would be pissed

 

Flower--

Beautifully and articulated stated. Your priorities are right, and your judgments of others (or, much more appropriately, lack thereof) are what we all (particularly those of us in the gay community) should strive for. I've read this thread for several days now, and it amazes me how Reg and others can be so fucking self-righteous pretending to live, as you say, in a black-and-white world.

I always thought of "my situation" (described in the Message Center in detail several months ago) as totally unique. Back then, I also read West Texas and alansmith (what ever happened to alansmith? He had gotten divorced and was about to tell his kids...) and others and, although partly identifiying with them, was different. Then you come along, in virtually EXACTLY the same situation. I, too, was helped along by a caring escort a year and a half ago; came out to my wife who was--and continues to be--the most supportive person in the world and our marriage is (and I'm not exaggerating) better than it's ever been (and it's been great for over 30 years); came out to my kids about a year later and they too couldn't be any more loving and supportive. Amazing how completely parallel it seems we are.

But everyone is different. I'm tempted to urge W. Texas to sit down with his wife; but how could I possibly substitute my judgment or situation for his. Maybe, when his kids are grown and could handle it better, he will do as you and I have done. It feels so much better to be out to those you love and who love you. But, again, whoever we are, we've each created our own strictures that we must grapple with (including you, Reg, though you may choose to ignore or forget the choices you've been forced to make).

Thanks, Flower. Hang in there!

[Guest regulation]

>Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Show me where I said "I am

>ending my participation in this discussion."

 

 

I refer you to the last sentence in your post #63, in which you say "I think I'm done with this topic."

 

>>Am I to be criticized for thinking that means you don't care if you are helping someone betray his wife?<

>

>Yes?

 

Sorry, the correct answer is "No." When you write "I don't care if someone does X," I think it's reasonable for me to think that you don't care if someone does X, not that you don't know and don't want to know whether someone does X, which appears to be what you meant.

 

>Sorry, I mistook your smile for a sourpuss.

 

I get that a lot. :-)

 

 

>>What other reason could I have for engaging in these conversations than that I enjoy them? And if I enjoy them, how can I be upset?<

>

>Is this one of those zen riddles?

 

 

No. Unlike Devon, I don't participate in this board in order to promote my business. So what reason could I have other than enjoyment?

 

>Now who's splitting hairs.

 

You.

 

>Because I'm really Satan, trying to seduce married men from

>honoring their vows, and you're blowing my gig.

 

I had a notion it was something like that. :-)

 

>I guess I'm still just a boy at heart. And really, personal

>attack? C'mon. A personal attack is having a gun placed on

>your forehead. An edifying thing to do, right?

 

A personal attack is calling someone names because you don't agree with his opinion on some issue. What your robber did, on the other hand, seems to me quite IMpersonal. He didn't know you, did he? You just happened to be there, right?

[Rod Hagen]

Sir, Regulatiion Sir, what did you think of today's frontpage NYTIMES article re: gay married boys in China?

[Guest regulation]

>Sir, Regulatiion Sir, what did you think of today's

>frontpage NYTIMES article re: gay married boys in China?

 

Sorry, Rod, I didn't read it. Why don't you tell us about it?