Nervous Newbie of Jaded Superstar?

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>I hope those those illustrative examples, chosen randomly,

>help you not to forget that critical part of the

>grouchy-angry-hateful-preachy-niceness-enforcer-cop

>description the next time you recite it.

 

>Oh, that's easy - he lives in one where the level of respect

>and adulation you receive from others is directly proportional

>to the number of years between your age and the boys whom you

>pay to let you fuck them; where prostitutes are regarded as

>High Priests of Love and Intimacy whose contributions to

>society are to be honored and praised by any sane person; and

>where being nice to others is the paramount value, which you

>demonstrate by telling other people whom you don't like that

>they are "bitter queens" who are disgusting and evil.

>

>I hope that's all clear now.

 

Thanks once again, Doug, for elucidating those important points.

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>

>Huh? Last I checked, this message center (and particularly

>the deli) wasn't a place to discuss big trials or Nobel Peace

>Prizes. It's a place to discuss escorts.

 

The Deli is a place to discuss specific escorts, Guppie. And this thread, in which the thread author refuses to identify the escort he is going to see, doesn't really meet that standard. But my comments ARE about the subject of escorts in general. It isn't very honest of you to suggest otherwise.

 

>Additionally, what causes one person anxiety doesn't

>necessarily cause another person anxiety.

 

That's true. But there is such a thing as objective reality and there are people whose perceptions are so skewed that they have trouble perceiving objective reality. For people with OCD, making sure there are no hairs on their bathroom floor may seem so important that they check the floor a dozen times before leaving home in the morning. That sort of behavior is pathological, not the result of a mere difference of opinion. And I think the thread author's behavior is so extreme that it arguably falls in the same category.

 

>>Sex for its own sake is nothing but a meaningless pastime,

>>like a game of golf.

 

>That's a completely subjective statement and depends on the

>person and his or her beliefs.

 

Not really. If sex has nothing to do with procreation or with the expression of genuine feelings about the other person, I find it hard to see what significance it can have other than as recreation. Perhaps you could explain to me what the point is of an experience that is supposed to be recreational but that causes the person involved in it to be consumed with anxiety for weeks or months. Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?

 

 

>To me and a lot of people I think, sex is also a lot more

>personal than golf!

 

You obviously haven't spent much time playing golf!

 

 

>Again, subjective. No, for most of us, a bad session isn't

>earth-shattering.

 

Just a moment, please. Are you saying that there ARE people for whom a bad session is "earth-shattering"? And if so, would you call that reaction normal and healthy?

 

> Is it the end of the world? Probably

>not,

 

"Probably not"? You mean a disappointing session COULD be the end of the world? Again, would you call that an appropriate reaction?

 

>Again, just providing an alternate viewpoint. I just think

>it's important to understand what's a little, tiny detail to

>some people is a BIG SCARY MONSTER to other people. It all

>depends on the person. And there's nothing WRONG with that

>even though it might not be desirable.

 

I'm sorry, but I simply can't agree that there is "nothing wrong" with someone whose sexual development at an adult age is so retarded that he experiences the kinds of feelings the thread author described.

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>

>>What society do YOU live in?

>>

>>

>Presumably, we're in the same one you're in ... the USA where

>you're free to look around, gather facts, use your

>intelligence and judgment, and form opinions and express

>yourself without having those decisions made by someone else

>and forced down your throat. It's not unique to us, but it's

>far from universal, and it is a great thing about living

>here.

>

>Why do you ask? Do you live in a different society?

 

I live here in the USA, a country in which 50 different state legislatures have made it a crime for a gay man to pay another man money in return for sexual contact. That is why it seems so very, very odd to me when someone who routinely defies what is both a longstanding societal norm and a law carrying criminal penalties thinks it is appropriate for him to call someone else "antisocial." It makes me wonder what society he thinks he's living in. Does that clear it up for you?

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>I live here in the USA, a country in which 50 different state

>legislatures have made it a crime for a gay man to pay another

>man money in return for sexual contact.

 

Hey woodlawn, have you ever committed such a crime? :o

[+ Charlie]

RE: Ridiculous

 

Doug, I never said a word about woodlawn in my post--I wonder why you immediately identified him with the general characterization I made about a message board type? (By the way, in that post I inadvertently confused noviceny with Bosman, for which I apologize to both.)

[Doug69]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>Doug, I never said a word about woodlawn in my post--I wonder

>why you immediately identified him with the general

>characterization I made about a message board type? (

 

You wrote what you wrote in response to a post by Woodlawn. Generally, when we respond to someone, we address our remarks to them. That's why we respond to them. Since you responded to Woodlawn, it is rational to assume that you were addressing him.

 

I used to think that the worst kind of person was someone who runs around screaming out stupid opinions. But then I realized that there's something actually worse than that: someone who runs around screaming out stupid opinions but then cowardly pretends that they didn't actually express the opinion which they so obviously just expressed.

 

That transforms the person from just being merely stupid into someone who is both stupid and cowardly.

 

Wouldn't you agree that that's worse?

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>Generally, when we respond to someone, we address our remarks

>to them. That's why we respond to them.

 

Doug, you'd make an adorable schoolmarm. :*

[noviceny]

RE: Ridiculous

 

Wow...just read this post for the first time

 

Wonder what happened with Bosman

 

>(By the way, in that post I inadvertently confused noviceny with Bosman, for which I apologize to both.)<

 

No problem Charlie :-)

 

Gup,

 

Totally agree with everything you said about anxiety being subjective. Also, someone mentioned that Bosman was crazy to be so worried about "hiring a prostitute." I think we all realize he is primarily anxious about his first sexual experience.

 

Im so tired after reading all this that I dont feel like typing any more

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>Im so tired after reading all this that I dont feel like

>typing any more

 

The trick is to skim and skip! ;-)

[Doug69]

RE: Nervous Jaded Superstar?

 

>Coming back from

>Million Dollar Baby (which was great), I find that the

>ridiculousity factor has gone of the charts on this thread;

>and that momentary bout of kindness has subsided. Thus, fuck

>it.

 

Good choice. I hope you'll remember that the next time that the "kindess" bug tries to prevent you from saying something that causes great consternation among the paranoid set here.

 

This tidbit -- along with the "meet your maker before you meet the fockers" gem of yours from a couple of weeks ago - are 2 of the funniest things I've read here in some time (not including, of course, the post starting this thread, but it would be unfair not to exclude that since nothing could compete with it for entertainment value).

[PacNW]

RE: Ridiculous

 

Legislating morality is a misuse of government power and ultimately doomed to failure. It's a tool of the small-minded who fear thoughts and ideas outside their narrow spectrum of experience and seek to exclude or demonize those that are "different". Not unlike many religions. It's also an area frequently exploited by politicians to pander to the simple-minded.

 

Ignoring the legalities for a moment, sex and sexual relationships are a natural part of adult life. Hiring an escort is a reasonable way for someone who, for whatever reason, hasn't gone through a more standard progression - teenage fumblings, learning how to make yourself attractive to those who attract you, first loves, long-term relationships - to gain experience and self-confidence in that natural sexual expression. And it's particularly hypocritical for "society" to condemn that when more often than not it's been societal pressures behind that knowledge gap.

 

Taking the legalities into account, unjust laws don't get changed without people breaking them. The most obvious examples are the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow laws (and yes, I realize there is a substantial degree of difference in the injustice involved - I'm using this for easily understood illustrative purposes only). At some point it becomes objectively obvious that the welfare of more people is being harmed by enforcement of the laws than by the actions being legislated against. Then comes real reform.

 

And lastly, a lot of this would become moot (not trying to drive anyone out of business here), at least in the US, if people would stop obsessing over the sex lives of other people they're never going to even meet. Months-long worrying over a sexual liaison could be a thing of the past, and therefore much healthier for the guy involved, if sex were just seen as the natural action that it is and not overladen with absurd levels of moralizing hysteria from people uninvolved in the relationship.

[Epigonos]

RE: Ridiculous

 

I have to say that though I frequently disagree with the way Woodlawn states his position his 01/11/05 post seems to me to be right on. All of us have been in the position of the original poster at sometime in our lives. Some of us early in life and some of us much later in life. I had my first sexial experience with another man and an escort at age 62. NOW that is old to be getting started, however, even at that age I didn't experience all of this silly MELODRAMA. I used this site as a research tool and found an escort who seemed to fit my requirements. We set up an appointment, we got together, we had dinner, we had sex and it was fun. DESPITE WHAT SOME MAY THINK THIS IS NOT ONE OF LIFES GREAT DECISIONS. END OF DISCUSSION

[Guest alanm]

RE: Ridiculous

 

My experience falls somewhere in between yours and the OP. I hired my first "escort" in New York's famous hustler bar, Rounds, in 1991. To be more honest, I met my first escort that night (a 20 year old friendly college student who was a dead ringer for Scott Baio). It took me 24 hours to call him and invite him down to Philadelphia for a few days. I remember being very nervous, but everything turned out fine. But, I can totally relate to the OP. In those days, 'Scott Baio' charged about $200 a day for two days plus train fare. As I look back, a great bargain.

 

As for woodlawn, like always he has turned this thread into posting about his own agenda. Tells us about your first escort or hustler, woodie.

[Donnie]

RE: Nervous Jaded Superstar?

 

>Too bad

>I look like Brad Pitt.

 

Too bad that if you gotta keep telling everybody how attractive you and your bf are, chances are it ain't true.

[noviceny]

RE: Nervous Jaded Superstar?

 

I dont think I would be comfortable telling someone what is and what isnt an important decision in their life. However, most people would agree that your first sexual experience is important, at least psychologically. Women talk about it, obsess about it, worry about it and then complain about it :-)

 

Why should it be any different for us...

[Txpaytoplay]

RE: Ridiculous

 

After reading all this Drama!!!! I hope you at least got laid and had a good time!

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>Legislating morality is a misuse of government power and

>ultimately doomed to failure.

 

Almost all criminal laws fall within the definition of "legislating morality." And it can be said of almost all of them, as it is often said of prostitution, that passing a law against the practice hasn't ended the practice. Despite the laws against homicide, we continue to have thousands of homicides in this country every year. But I have never heard anyone argue that we should abandon the prohibition against homicide for that reason.

 

 

>It's a tool of the small-minded

>who fear thoughts and ideas outside their narrow spectrum of

>experience and seek to exclude or demonize those that are

>"different".

 

And so on, and so forth. We've heard it all before on this board time and time again. The only point I have tried to make, a much narrower one than you are addressing, is this: people come to this website because they are willing to ignore longstanding social norms in order to gratify their own desires. It is ridiculous, not to mention hypocritical, for such people to label others "antisocial."

[PacNW]

RE: Ridiculous

 

It's not uncommon to have crimes grouped into categories such as: crimes against the person, crimes against property, crimes against government, public nuisances, etc., in addition to crimes against morality. Prostitution, if not being prosecuted on the street level as a public nuisance, usually falls under the morals provisions.

 

You're refuting my arguments first by being overly broad, then by being overly narrow. Pick one and stick to it. Given my druthers, since this is the first time we've engaged on here, I'd actually like to read some of your broader points so as to know where you're coming from. (Trust me, I have a pretty good idea already, I'd just like to see it laid out in one place.)

 

Despite the above, I can't resist:

 

>And so on, and so forth. We've heard it all before on this

>board time and time again.

 

So how many times do you have to hear "it" before "it" starts to sink in and you think, "Hmmm, maybe they're onto something and I ought to reconsider my opinions"?

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>It's not uncommon to have crimes grouped into categories such

>as: crimes against the person, crimes against property, crimes

>against government, public nuisances, etc., in addition to

>crimes against morality. Prostitution, if not being prosecuted

>on the street level as a public nuisance, usually falls under

>the morals provisions.

 

So what? There are moral arguments as well as social arguments to be made in favor of almost every criminal prohibition. Polygamy, for example, would seem at first glance to be a purely "moral" issue since those involved in it get involved voluntarily. But the fact is that it has often been associated with the exploitation and abuse of women, a socially undesirable outcome.

 

>You're refuting my arguments first by being overly broad, then

>by being overly narrow. Pick one and stick to it.

 

I reject your characterization of my arguments as false and self-serving.

 

> Given my

>druthers, since this is the first time we've engaged on here,

>I'd actually like to read some of your broader points so as to

>know where you're coming from.

 

Your request is denied.

 

 

>So how many times do you have to hear "it" before "it" starts

>to sink in and you think, "Hmmm, maybe they're onto something

>and I ought to reconsider my opinions"?

 

I have never known weak and shallow arguments to be improved by mere repetition. And I have heard others make the same arguments you make over and over and over and over again. It is extremely unusual for me to read any argument on this or any other subject discussed on this board that I haven't heard before, since most people here simply repeat the conventional liberal or conventional conservative position on whatever is being discussed. In fact, the last time I can recall seeing here an argument I have never encountered before was many months ago in a post by Merlin, a poster whose positions I almost always violently oppose, during a discussion of gays in the military. He was against, I was in favor, but I must admit he made a point that I have not heard before and whose validity I can't dispute. Perhaps you will do the same thing one day. But I doubt it.

[FLJohn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>That's true. But there is such a thing as objective reality

>and there are people whose perceptions are so skewed that they

>have trouble perceiving objective reality. For people with

>OCD, making sure there are no hairs on their bathroom floor

>may seem so important that they check the floor a dozen times

>before leaving home in the morning. That sort of behavior is

>pathological, not the result of a mere difference of opinion.

>And I think the thread author's behavior is so extreme that it

>arguably falls in the same category.

>

I don't know but I have two cats. I must have OCD since I constantly vacuum up their hairs on the bathroom floor!>

[guptasa1]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>The Deli is a place to discuss specific escorts, Guppie. And

>this thread, in which the thread author refuses to identify

>the escort he is going to see, doesn't really meet that

>standard. But my comments ARE about the subject of escorts in

>general. It isn't very honest of you to suggest otherwise.

 

Point taken as to specific escorts, but at no point was I dishonest (nor trying to be). I simply meant that I think in a forum discussing escorts, trying to compare seeing one to Nobel Peace Prizes or big trials is sort of beside the point. I understand you're saying what you think should and shouldn't cause anxiety, but I think it might be valid to argue that there are different types of anxieties.

 

>>Additionally, what causes one person anxiety doesn't

>>necessarily cause another person anxiety.

>

>That's true. But there is such a thing as objective reality

>and there are people whose perceptions are so skewed that they

>have trouble perceiving objective reality. For people with

>OCD, making sure there are no hairs on their bathroom floor

>may seem so important that they check the floor a dozen times

>before leaving home in the morning. That sort of behavior is

>pathological, not the result of a mere difference of opinion.

>And I think the thread author's behavior is so extreme that it

>arguably falls in the same category.

 

Ahhh...philosophy. I believe, as human's go, it's pretty much all subjective. Yes, there is an objective reality, but I don't think human beings can approach it objectively even if that is so. (This is just my opinion - I don't have all the answers and don't want to come off like I do). There are norms and majorities and such that many people follow, but I personally feel it's impossible to say one person's perception of reality is right and another's wrong (and yes; this philosophy DOES have problems...there have to be lines somewhere). But in THIS case, it's just a matter, in my opinion, of different perceptions for different folks.

 

I have mild to the low end of moderate OCD, so I certainly can relate to that (fortunately, nothing nearly as severe as the above example, but still time-consuming and frustrating). However, I have to tell you that this thread doesn't at all come off as OCD-like to me. Maybe a person who tends to be nervous about doing something new for the first time, but that doesn't seem unusual to me.

 

>>That's a completely subjective statement and depends on the

>>person and his or her beliefs.

>

>Not really. If sex has nothing to do with procreation or with

>the expression of genuine feelings about the other person, I

>find it hard to see what significance it can have other than

>as recreation. Perhaps you could explain to me what the point

>is of an experience that is supposed to be recreational but

>that causes the person involved in it to be consumed with

>anxiety for weeks or months. Doesn't that kind of defeat the

>whole purpose?

 

Not really, again, in my opinion. Despite it not being used to procreate or to express love in the "marriage/lover" type sense, sex can still convey strong emotions. It does for me (while still being healthy as well) and just provides a personal touch when otherwise it might not be as accessible for one reason or another. Most worthwhile things have tradeoffs? Why have sex at all if there's a risk of STD's? Why watch a scary movie if you might not be able to sleep afterwards for a while? Etc. Just because one is anxious or nervous about sex for the first time doesn't mean they don't want to learn or explore it. On the contrary, I would think exploring it will help aleve those feelings.

 

>>To me and a lot of people I think, sex is also a lot more

>>personal than golf!

>

>You obviously haven't spent much time playing golf!

 

Very true. Not my game, so you can have this one. =oP

 

 

>>Again, subjective. No, for most of us, a bad session isn't

>>earth-shattering.

>

>Just a moment, please. Are you saying that there ARE people

>for whom a bad session is "earth-shattering"? And if so,

>would you call that reaction normal and healthy?

 

Probably, and no. If a bad experience shatters someone's world, they probably should not be engaging in it. BUT, that's not to say some people might not experience some pain from a bad experience that IS healthy, as long as it's kept in perspective.

 

>> Is it the end of the world? Probably

>>not,

>

>"Probably not"? You mean a disappointing session COULD be the

>end of the world? Again, would you call that an appropriate

>reaction?

 

Same answer as above. Probably, and no - not an appropriate reaction. But there are no indications, to me, that that would happen to this person. I just think it's important to be aware of - one needs to prepare himself in CASE of a bad experience, as they do happen.

 

>I'm sorry, but I simply can't agree that there is "nothing

>wrong" with someone whose sexual development at an adult age

>is so retarded that he experiences the kinds of feelings the

>thread author described.

 

*shrugs* I do respect your opinion, but I guess we just disagree. For someone who isn't experienced intimately, no matter the age (teen to adult), unexplored actions and feelings can be scary territory. First time I was intimate with someone, I was nervous as hell. First time I hired an escort, I was also very, very nervous - probably MORESO because you don't really know the person as well. I think I even thought about it probably a whole year before I did it because I wanted to make sure that *I* was sure. I'm glad I did, and it's benefitted me. But my point is it's more than a snap decision for some people.

[woodlawn]

RE: Ridiculous

 

>Point taken as to specific escorts, but at no point was I

>dishonest (nor trying to be). I simply meant that I think in

>a forum discussing escorts, trying to compare seeing one to

>Nobel Peace Prizes or big trials is sort of beside the point.

 

That may be what you meant, but it isn't what you said.

 

> There are

>norms and majorities and such that many people follow, but I

>personally feel it's impossible to say one person's perception

>of reality is right and another's wrong

 

I really don't know what you're talking about here, and I don't think you know what you're talking about either. The fact is that if this guy's session doesn't work out well, assuming it's not because the escort beats and robs him or he gets arrested, then what exactly is he going to lose except a little time and money? The correct answer is "Nothing." The fact that he becomes consumed with anxiety over an experience at which he has so little at stake shows that he has a serious problem.

 

 

>Not really, again, in my opinion. Despite it not being used

>to procreate or to express love in the "marriage/lover" type

>sense, sex can still convey strong emotions.

 

Emotions like what? What emotions can you feel for someone you've never even met and who is only going to spend time with you because you pay him?

 

> Why have sex at all if there's a risk of STD's?

 

Why go hang-gliding if there's a risk you may break your neck? Many recreational activities are risky, but if such an activity causes you to be beside yourself with anxiety it seems to me that it can no longer be recreative. So why do it?

 

>Probably, and no. If a bad experience shatters someone's

>world, they probably should not be engaging in it.

 

Exactly my point.

[+ Charlie]

Although I actually agree with woodlawn that in the larger picture of life, it makes more sense to be anxious about giving a Nobel Prize lecture than about having sex for the first time with an escort, human nature isn't always so rational. Most of us can't control our emotional reactions solely through the use of reason, even though we ought to try. For most people, having sex is not a cut and dried mechanical act, like eating when we are hungry. Part of the reason for the advice that several of us gave to Bosman, to relax and go with the flow of the experience with the escort, was intended to do just what woodlawn's first post pointed toward, which was a reorientation of priorities, but without his censorious tone. If Bosman can't eventually control his anxiety about sex with escorts (or anyone else), then he does have a problem that requires professional counseling.

 

It is natural to feel anxiety about many experiences when they are unfamiliar. The people who give Nobel Prize speeches are generally confident men and women who are accustomed to being recognized as experts in their fields; even so, their anxiety usually arises from the fact that they have never given a Nobel Prize lecture before. Once we have done something successfully, we are more likely to relax and react less emotionally to the situation. The first time I had to speak in public, my mouth was dry, my heart was pounding, and I was sweating despite the cold temperature of the room; now, I have just the slightest shot of adrenaline, but it's such a familiar routine that I never worry about my ability to handle it. The same was true of my early sexual experiences; now--alas!--they often are somewhat mechanical, and I sometimes wish that I could recapture that excitement about encountering something new.

 

Bosman's anxiety should not be construed as pathological, regardless of whether one approves of sex with escorts, or sees the act as fairly low in the scale of importance in an individual's life. I hope that it is a good learning experience for him, and that he is able to put the situation into proper perspective as he becomes more experienced. Then maybe he can focus on making that Nobel Prize speech.

[guptasa1]

RE: Ridiculous

 

(This'll probably be my last reply regarding this since I think I've said most of what I really wanted to and I think the rest is just a difference of opinion, but...)

 

>>Point taken as to specific escorts, but at no point was I

>>dishonest (nor trying to be). I simply meant that I think

>in

>>a forum discussing escorts, trying to compare seeing one to

>>Nobel Peace Prizes or big trials is sort of beside the point.

>

>

>That may be what you meant, but it isn't what you said.

 

It certainly is. I even reread my initial response to you, and I see nothing misleading or dishonest about it. Escorts is the topic of this forum, and people aren't going to be posting about anxiety dealing with other things. That's not to say those things shouldn't cause anxiety - you're absolutely right about that, but I personally don't think it's a fair comparison to say that a new sexual experience shouldn't. It seems like comparing apples and oranges to me a bit.

 

>I really don't know what you're talking about here, and I

>don't think you know what you're talking about either. The

>fact is that if this guy's session doesn't work out well,

>assuming it's not because the escort beats and robs him or he

>gets arrested, then what exactly is he going to lose except a

>little time and money? The correct answer is "Nothing." The

>fact that he becomes consumed with anxiety over an experience

>at which he has so little at stake shows that he has a serious

>problem.

 

I did know what I was talking about. I don't know if I'm right, but that's beside the point - I merely meant I think things all depend on the point of view of the person experiencing them. While we can agree the more concrete things are lost (time and money), I think different personality types can risk losing more. If it were my first time seeing an escort and it went badly, for example, I certainly could lose more than a little time and money. I'd be disappointed, lose some confidence, might be skeptical about seeing escorts again at all, etc. Just because you personally don't see anything more at stake doesn't mean that other people don't. And just because you wouldn't be nervous or anxious about this doesn't mean other people aren't. I'm simply saying not everybody's the same. (And no, this wouldn't have destroyed my world - I have had some bad experiences. But it's still not pleasant, and I feel pretty miserable for a day or two after them.)

 

>Emotions like what? What emotions can you feel for someone

>you've never even met and who is only going to spend time with

>you because you pay him?

 

I'm not talking about falling head over heals in love or anything. I can only speak for myself, but I like to learn about the person and develop some kind of friendship (if possible - I realize that's not always the case) with that person. When you're talking about human intimate contact and good physical feelings, to me emotions of warmth and fondness just come. I've had some pretty remarkable experiences with escorts before that are some of my favorite memories and do provoke a very real (and healthy IMO) emotional response.

 

>> Why have sex at all if there's a risk of STD's?

>

>Why go hang-gliding if there's a risk you may break your neck?

> Many recreational activities are risky, but if such an

>activity causes you to be beside yourself with anxiety it

>seems to me that it can no longer be recreative. So why do

>it?

 

I think you've made my point for me. Don't you think a first-time hang-glider might experience some anxiety regarding it? Sometimes, people do things outside their comfort zone that make them VERY nervous because they want to expand their horizons and learn to overcome obstacles like anxiety...and because they know in the long run they'll have fun even if it's nerve-wracking at the moment.

 

>>Probably, and no. If a bad experience shatters someone's

>>world, they probably should not be engaging in it.

>

>Exactly my point.

 

What I'm trying to say is I don't think there's any indication, even a remote one, that this is an instance where the person's world would be shattered. He just seems nervous/anxious about his first time. In my opinion, that's completely natural.

 

(And btw, I sincerely hope we hear a great report from him and he had a great time! =o) )