When Two Worlds Collide...

[Epigonos]

Cougar I really don’t mean to be cruel but statements like:

 

I have remained quiet when it comes to naming the three escorts-

it is my complete fault for not recognizing his callous attitude

toward me-

I am just naïve and just too much of a trusting guy-

 

all strike me as self-indulgent martyrdom.

Furthermore, you state that his (Aiden’s) sexiness, smile and infectious personality had a spell over you. Now you are, at least in my opinion, on dangerous grounds. In all of my dealings with escorts I have always understood that our relationship was business and in no way involved anything else. Spells have no place in business relationships. I am forced to wonder just exactly what are you really looking for in your dealings with escorts?

In spite of your experience with Aiden I must stand my mine and in ALL of his dealing with me he has been a great and honorable human being.

[+ cougar]

huh?

Okay, if you want to nit pick my choice of words, that is okay. Maybe I didn't pick the right word, but I was hoping my general point got across. What I was trying to convey, is that good feeling (spell, or any other word you would like) you get after a session with an escort and you say in your mind that this guy is one I would hire again. That is what I was trying to say!

[guyinsf]

Jay: You are funny, smart, and sexy. :-)

[woodlawn]

>It was an insult. I overestimated your intelligence.

 

It never fails. The gods of the Web always arrange that when someone boasts about his intelligence, he does so in a post that contains obvious errors of grammar or diction that most of us learned to avoid in elementary school.

[woodlawn]

>I understand the opposition to adultery. What makes it more

>objectionable if the man paid for it than if he got it for

>free?

 

The fact that prostitutes are more likely to carry STD's, for one.

[woodlawn]

>huh?

>Okay, if you want to nit pick my choice of words, that is

>okay. Maybe I didn't pick the right word, but I was hoping my

>general point got across.

 

It did get across. The person you are arguing with sounds like one of those weird characters we have here who will defend an escort no matter what because apart from hiring escorts he has no life.

 

I remember the thread you created telling us about the time Aiden was a no-show for a vacation trip you had booked. Am I to understand that after he ditched you on that occasion you actually hired him again, and even advanced him some money so that he could rent a car? That's amazing.

 

I don't know whether you should stop hiring, but I know that if you are going to continue hiring you need to reconcile yourself to the fact that you are going to encounter people who are deceitful and predatory. If you can't live with that, perhaps you should stop.

[Epigonos]

Hot damn Woodlawn I’ve been waiting for this. Now I’m perfectly aware that you are going to twist anything I say – after all you that is your modus operandi on this message board. I have been accused of many thing in my life, some accurate and some inaccurate, but the one thing I have NEVER been accused of, by intelligent people who know me, is not having a multitude of interests, thus a life.

 

YES - I am guilty of hiring escorts on a semi regular basis. NO - I am not guilty of defending escorts, or anybody else for that matter, who behaves in a reprehensible manner. YES - I am guilty of looking for the best in ALL people with whom I deal and believe it or not escorts are people. No -I am not guilty of dwelling only the negative side of life.

 

Now I assume that you will find this hard to believe but it is a FACT that the vast majority of my dealings with people during my 64 years of life have been positive and that includes my experiences with escorts. But just for the sake of argument let’s assume I had no life other than that of hiring escorts. At least I do not come across on this message board as you do -- a bitter, nasty, narrow minded curmudgeon who only derives pleasure from negativity.

[woodlawn]

>Hot damn Woodlawn I’ve been waiting for this.

 

That in itself suggests you don't have much going on in your life.

 

> I have been accused of many thing in my life, some

>accurate and some inaccurate, but the one thing I have NEVER

>been accused of, by intelligent people who know me, is not

>having a multitude of interests, thus a life.

 

Have you ever been accused of not knowing the difference between the singular form of a word and the plural? Because you seem to have a real problem with that.

 

 

>NO - I am not guilty of defending escorts, or anybody else for

>that matter, who behaves in a reprehensible manner.

 

But you just did defend an escort who behaved in a reprehensible manner. Either that, or you are saying that Cougar lied. Which is it?

 

> At least I do not come across on this message

>board as you do -- a bitter, nasty, narrow minded curmudgeon

>who only derives pleasure from negativity.

 

Certainly not. The fact that you showed up in this thread for no other reason than to post a plethora of hateful, vicious insults directed at Cougar and me proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what a sweet, sunny, positive nature you have, doesn't it? Of course it does.

[Epigonos]

Woodlawn thanks so VERY much for you most recent positing. It does a far better job of confirming the points I have made regarding your postings than ANYTHING I could possibly write.

I realize that you are not required to justify yourself to me or anybody else on the site but I do have a few sincere question. All of your postings lead one to the conclusion that you neither like nor respect escorts or their clients. If that is indeed the case just exactly why are you condescending and demeaning yourself by consorting with all of us weirdoes and criminals on this site? Are you trying to change our ways and reform us? If that is indeed the case wouldn’t you be better served issuing your sanctimonious sermons from a pulpit of an evangelical church. I for one like to think of myself as open minded but your caustic, stringent pontifications are for me a total turn off.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn thanks so VERY much for you most recent positing.

 

My 'positing' asked you a question that you did not answer. You claimed you would never defend an escort who had behaved reprehensibly. I pointed out that you have been defending an escort whom Cougar told us has behaved reprehensibly toward him. So either you contend that he is lying, or you aren't telling us the truth about your own behavior. Which is it?

 

 

>It does a far better job of confirming the points I have made

>regarding your postings than ANYTHING I could possibly write.

 

Considering your literary gifts, that isn't saying much.

 

 

>I realize that you are not required to justify yourself to me

>or anybody else on the site but I do have a few sincere

>question.

 

How many questions are in 'a few sincere question'?

 

 

> just exactly why are you

>condescending and demeaning yourself by consorting with all of

>us weirdoes and criminals on this site?

 

When you go to the zoo, do you feel that you are demeaning yourself by watching how the animals behave in their cages? I don't. I just enjoy watching them. Especially the monkeys.

 

> I for one

>like to think of myself as open minded but your caustic,

>stringent pontifications are for me a total turn off.

 

You are one of the least open-minded people I have encountered in several years of reading this board. As an example of your closed-mindedness, let me point out that you have a member of this board telling you that he was treated abominably by an escort, and yet you make it clear that you are not even prepared to consider the possibility that he may be telling the truth. I can think of several adjectives to describe you, but 'open-minded' certainly is not one of them.

[Traveller]

>>It does a far better job of confirming the points I have

>made

>>regarding your postings than ANYTHING I could possibly

>write.

>

>Considering your literary gifts, that isn't saying much.

>

>

>>I realize that you are not required to justify yourself to

>me

>>or anybody else on the site but I do have a few sincere

>>question.

>

>How many questions are in 'a few sincere question'?

>

>

>> just exactly why are you

>>condescending and demeaning yourself by consorting with all

>of

>>us weirdoes and criminals on this site?

>

>When you go to the zoo, do you feel that you are demeaning

>yourself by watching how the animals behave in their cages? I

>don't. I just enjoy watching them. Especially the monkeys.

>

 

Woody,

 

Thank God for this post. I thought you'd gone all wobbly on me. My faith is restored. The sun will rise tomorrow morning. Bush will make the tax cuts permanent. All is well with the world again. Phew.

 

Later.

[Epigonos]

Good god Woodlawn you are the most incredible pompous ass with whom I have ever communicated but you are correct about one thing. I haven't answered directly your question about whether or not I am calling cougar a liar. If you would care to read carefully my comment regarding Aiden (#50376) it makes it clear that I am NOT. I state there that I can only speak about Aiden with regards to his dealings with me. I reiterate that in all of those dealings he was always honest and honorable. I cannot and do not address the question about how he treated cougar. I don't know cougar and I don't know ALL of the circumstance regarding their relationship.

 

Now why don't you answer, at least one of, my questions? Why do you bother participating on this message board considering they way you feel about all of us (monkeys)who do.

[nice guy]

I just finished reading this entire thread and I feel as though I just watched "Schindler's List." I'm exhausted and stressed out! I have nothing to add to the content here as so many people have given extraordinarily insightful responses.

 

I'm just wondering why this thread brought out such a hostile set of responses in people. Was it because the initial posting was a bit unwieldy and confusing? It could have used some editing to get at the heart of the matter; he did restate it better later. Or maybe it was because many postings addressed the root needs inherent in hiring escorts (e.g., sex, companionship, "friendship," "love"). I put the last two in quotes because it seems that some clients, whether misplaced or not, do hire escorts as temporary proxies for friends/lovers.

 

The name-calling, personal attacks, sarcasm and arguing on this thread are unlike any I've ever seen here. Remember that old saying, "The first person to raise their voice loses the argument"? I'm not saying we can't "take the gloves off" if someone takes us to task over an issue. But I think we could do it in a more respectful manner.

 

When people attack someone's posting with inconsiderate and dismissive remarks such as saying the poster is full of "drama," it can be hurtful to the poster. It also dissuades others from posting to avoid the wrath of the most venomous among us. I've heard many people comment that they shy away from posting for the very reason that they feel as though they end up getting attacked. We would elicit responses from a more representative group of HooBoy members if we respected peoples' feelings here.

 

Back to those "drama" comments that a few people spewed forth -- consider how hurtful it was to the poster, after he obviously had just finished his "magnus opus" covering his most painful experiences associated with hiring escorts.

 

I'm one of those 0.00001% of people that found love through hiring an escort. Funny thing is that it wasn't even one of my top-rated sessions! (Sorry honey...but I've told you that before). The reason is that something was different about it -- we both instantly felt something that transcended pure sex -- but because we were both unsure what the other felt at the time, we continued along the path to having sex like "we're supposed to," even though we would have rather taken it more slowly.

 

Anyway, I now have a slightly different take on the postings on this site. Frankly, I think I saw some of myself in the original poster (although I never had any of those awful experiences he did). The way each client deals with his escort experiences is a function of a myriad things from his formative years, past sexual experiences and friendships and love relationships, not to mention his own self-image. Everyone has emotional baggage (okay, history), and some are not able to parse that out so easily when they begin hiring escorts.

 

Okay. I admit it -- MY response is in more desperate need of editing than the original poster! Thanks for (most of) the intelligent postings. And please don't attack my response or I'll never respond again!!!

[buckguy]

Woodie never reviews escorts, just harangues them. Kindof like a reverend who hangs around the street walkers' stroll telling the girls they're going to hell and coming back every night to see them.

[Txpaytoplay]

This has to be the longest farewell thread in HB history!!!!

 

Goodbye....farewell....so long....move on!!!

[woodlawn]

RE: Mr. Positive

 

>Good god Woodlawn you are the most incredible pompous ass

>with whom I have ever communicated

 

Here we have yet another example of what a sweet-natured, positive personality you have. I think posters who read your description of yourself as someone who always has positive relationships with others have to wonder where the anger and hate you've expressed toward me and Cougar is coming from.

 

> I cannot and do not address the question about how

>he treated cougar. I don't know cougar and I don't know ALL

>of the circumstance regarding their relationship.

 

On the one hand you state that you would never defend an escort who behaved reprehensibly. On the other hand you have defended an escort whom one of his clients tells us behaved reprehensibly. Your original post stated that you consider this escort an honorable person -- you didn't limit that by saying that he was only honorable in his dealings with you. There simply is no way to reconcile the contradictory things you've said here.

 

>Now why don't you answer, at least one of, my questions? Why

>do you bother participating on this message board considering

>they way you feel about all of us (monkeys)who do.

 

I already answered the question. I come here because I find the antics of people like you amusing. This message board is often like some bizarre, mirror-image world in which all the traditional mores of our society are reversed. I've never seen anything like it.

[noviceny]

RE: Mr. Positive

 

>But if no one is victimized by it, why is it that neighborhoods so often object to having their streets populated by streetwalkers or that hotels prefer not to have prostitutes operating on their premises?<

 

I guess that makes sense, however, I dont believe that people are criminally victimized by this problem, and the problem people have seems to be a moral issue. Also, I dont think escorts and street walkers are in that same category. For example, escorts do not do their thing in public. Secondly, they dont have pimps that will beat them down on the street and cause public scenes (that is left to the client:-)

[woodlawn]

RE: Mr. Positive

 

>I guess that makes sense, however, I dont believe that people

>are criminally victimized by this problem, and the problem

>people have seems to be a moral issue.

 

What do you mean when you say they are not "criminally" victimized by it? Do you have some private definition of "criminally" that is different from the dictionary definition? There is a federal criminal law against cross burning that dates from the Civil Rights Era -- I'm sure I don't have to explain the reason for it. Would you say that someone is "criminally" victimized by having to see a burning cross? So far as I know, no one is physically harmed by such a sight. The only harm done is that the people who see it experience revulsion, anger, fear, or other unpleasant emotions. It's the same sort of harm that people experience when they see streetwalkers in their neighborhood. Is one group of people "criminally" victimized and the other not? Why is that?

 

> Also, I dont think

>escorts and street walkers are in that same category. For

>example, escorts do not do their thing in public. Secondly,

>they dont have pimps that will beat them down on the street

>and cause public scenes

 

Do you think it would be okay with the people in your neighborhood to have streetwalkers plying their trade on your street provided that they dress tastefully and don't make a lot of noise or make a "public scene"?

[+ Lucky]

Hey traveller, how come woody is the only guy you rush to support in an argument? And it usually thirty or more posts into it, so I doubt that you have read your way through...oh, that's right! Speed bumps!

 

For all of you guys who think woodlawn is one-sided, just think about his pal traveller! I love them (both!) dearly!

[noviceny]

Woodlawn,

 

Again, I am not speaking about street walkers as the escorts that we are talking about are not these people. If you put them all in one category (i.e. streetwalkers) then I would agree...but I dont put them all in one category.

 

No doubt it breaks the law. When I mean "criminally victimized" i am speaking in the same way I was when I divided crime in to 1) crimes against laws and 2) crimes against individuals.

 

Not being "criminally victimized" is to say that others rights are not infringed on, by these acts. The rights of others are being infringed on by cross burning this is a public statement that infringes on anothers rights...it is threatening to a "logical and prudent person"

I use this phrase since many statements in law are qualified by this, and this also disallows just anyone to say, "Such and such bothers me, so you cant do it." If I knew the law as a professional, maybe I would be able to find some exact examples of what rights/laws this was breaking.

 

> Do you think it would be okay with the people in your neighborhood to have streetwalkers plying their trade on your street provided that they dress tastefully and don't make a lot of noise or make a "public scene"?<

 

No I do not. However, that is not what I am saying. If things are going on in someone's house (such as escorting) among two adults, I dont how this is a problem. I do see that it breaks a law, but it is much different than the people who have with streetwalkers...I believe people are "publically offended" by this, and I can understand this. I do not think the same applies for the privacy of a home.

[noviceny]

BTW, am I the only one who felt triumphant and hopeful at the end of Schindler's list. It really made me want to be a person who stands up for justice. It also made me aware that other people are commited to this goal. So many were killed because of evil, but so many were saved because of kindness...it gave me hope for us.

 

Yes, I cried throughout the whole thing

[woodlawn]

> If you put

>them all in one category (i.e. streetwalkers) then I would

>agree...but I dont put them all in one category.

 

That's your problem. When you talk about the legality of prostitution, you should try to keep in mind that the vast majority of prostitutes in the world are women and children who are being abused and exploited for the financial gain of others. To talk about legalizing prostitution but consider only the cirumstances of the tiny minority of prostitutes who are gay men makes no sense.

 

>No doubt it breaks the law. When I mean "criminally

>victimized" i am speaking in the same way I was when I divided

>crime in to 1) crimes against laws and 2) crimes against

>individuals.

 

Again, that's your problem. When you give a word a private definition that is not used in common parlance, you make communication with others impossible. Communication can't take place unless everyone assigns the same meaning to the same word.

 

 

>Not being "criminally victimized" is to say that others rights

>are not infringed on, by these acts. The rights of others are

>being infringed on by cross burning this is a public statement

>that infringes on anothers rights...it is threatening to a

>"logical and prudent person"

 

On what do you base your conclusion that street prostitutes would not be considered threatening to a logical and prudent person? Is it based on the assumption that everyone in the world sees things exactly the way you do?

 

>I use this phrase since many statements in law are qualified

>by this,

 

No, actually you're using the wrong words. "Logical and prudent person" is not a common legal standard.

 

>> Do you think it would be okay with the people in your

>neighborhood to have streetwalkers plying their trade on your

>street provided that they dress tastefully and don't make a

>lot of noise or make a "public scene"?<

>

>No I do not. However, that is not what I am saying. If

>things are going on in someone's house (such as escorting)

>among two adults, I dont how this is a problem.

 

Suppose someone connected to one of the adults has a problem with it -- like the wife of one of them.

[Traveller]

>Hey traveller, how come woody is the only guy you rush to

>support in an argument?

 

Wrong. Also Doug and F3. All three are the only ones that consistently post intelligent, funny and, most importantly, actually responsive posts.

 

And it usually thirty or more posts

>into it, so I doubt that you have read your way through...oh,

>that's right! Speed bumps!

 

Oh sure. I wade my way through the repetitive, self-congratulating, tome-like blather of most of the other posts............whoops. Pardon me. I nodded off for a moment.

 

>For all of you guys who think woodlawn is one-sided, just

>think about his pal traveller! I love them (both!) dearly!

 

I just have one side. My motto. Nothing succeeds like excess.

 

Later.

 

PS. Tonight I'm leading a group of friends on a field trip through the strip bars and East Village joints with go-go dancers. They've flown in for The Gates - which were definitely much cooler with the snow. Maybe we'll see you - although if we're edgy, which is even money, The Gaiety will certainly be deleted from the agenda.

[Guest alanm]

Good catch by Lucky.

 

Traveller shows up for support when woodlawn gets in even more trouble than usual.

 

In this case, woodlawn posted after realizing that new great friend, cougar, may have actually rehired the escort from Florida whom he had trashed in a previous thread a while back. There are few bigger

transgressions in in the wonderous land of woodlawnville.

[woodlawn]

>Good catch by Lucky.

>

>Traveller shows up for support when woodlawn gets in even more

>trouble than usual.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would think that being on the other side of an argument from you or the other weirdos who congregate here would constitute "trouble." What are the consequences of being in such a position -- that some anonymous old poof I'll never meet won't like me? Why would I or anyone give a shit about that?

 

 

>In this case, woodlawn posted after realizing that new great

>friend, cougar, may have actually rehired the escort from

>Florida whom he had trashed in a previous thread a while back.

>There are few bigger

>transgressions in in the wonderous land of woodlawnville.

 

I posted a good deal in this thread before learning that Cougar had made a fool of himself (by his own admission) by re-hiring someone who had ditched him on a previous occasion -- only to be ditched again. I don't know why you want to lie about something that is right on the board for everyone to see.

 

In previous threads you've said that I spend so much time posting here that it shows I have nothing to do while you, on the other hand, are a busy working man. It must now be obvious to everyone that you have plenty of spare time to read and respond to my posts, although you've also said that I always write about things that in your words, "bore us all." Your posts reveal nothing much about me, but they do reveal you to be a fantasist and hatemonger.