Internet Identities

[Guest DCescortBOY]

you took the movie American Psycho a bit too much to heart, didn't you? :-)

at least you changed careers & sexual orientation.

[Guest WetDream]

"Fuck that. They're aging faster than Dorian Gray upon becoming moral. I'm the one staying young."

 

Moral? Traveller, be more careful or I will have to banish you to Ten Buck Two!

[bluenix]

I think it's totally fucked up to talk about expressing one's identity in an on-line posting.

 

(I'm being inflammatory for entertainment's sake; I promise you I'm a sweet, non-confrontational, non-inflammatory person.

 

How do you know? You don't.)

 

At best, you can express in writing only limited aspects of yourself, and in my book that means you can communicate a persona but not your identity. The minute you withhold something -- and postings in an on-line forum are exercises in withholding -- there is some part of your identity that is missing as well.

 

It isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing.

 

Maybe a better way to talk about it would be to say that we each employ varying degrees of artifice in our posts. Topping the list in artifice would have to be the ever-witty if unforthcoming Traveler. I recall, for example, that he has a co-worker, who, when horny, flies a basket of apples to the orphanage on his broomstick. And I'd say the least artifice is evident in those who, like Tampa Yankee, try to be honest and forthcoming.

 

In short, Traveler is clearly a persona because he withholds so much. Tampa Yankee seems less a persona and more like "himself," because he (claims he) withholds so little.

 

But it remains a total illusion to suppose that you "know" Tampa Yankee. You wouldn't recognize him if you passed him on the street. You wouldn't know him if he telephoned you and told you his actual name. You don't know his habits, his address, his family, his non-rhetorical faults. And, in fact, the best Internet trolls are posted by those who appear to be "themselves," rather than a construct.

 

I repeat. It's crazy to talk about identity in a forum such as this.

 

Interesting thread. That is all.

[Guest WetDream]

"Fuck that. They're aging faster than Dorian Gray upon becoming moral. I'm the one staying young."

 

Moral? Traveller, be more careful or I will have to banish you to Ten Buck Two!

[bluenix]

I think it's totally fucked up to talk about expressing one's identity in an on-line posting.

 

(I'm being inflammatory for entertainment's sake; I promise you I'm a sweet, non-confrontational, non-inflammatory person.

 

How do you know? You don't.)

 

At best, you can express in writing only limited aspects of yourself, and in my book that means you can communicate a persona but not your identity. The minute you withhold something -- and postings in an on-line forum are exercises in withholding -- there is some part of your identity that is missing as well.

 

It isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing.

 

Maybe a better way to talk about it would be to say that we each employ varying degrees of artifice in our posts. Topping the list in artifice would have to be the ever-witty if unforthcoming Traveler. I recall, for example, that he has a co-worker, who, when horny, flies a basket of apples to the orphanage on his broomstick. And I'd say the least artifice is evident in those who, like Tampa Yankee, try to be honest and forthcoming.

 

In short, Traveler is clearly a persona because he withholds so much. Tampa Yankee seems less a persona and more like "himself," because he (claims he) withholds so little.

 

But it remains a total illusion to suppose that you "know" Tampa Yankee. You wouldn't recognize him if you passed him on the street. You wouldn't know him if he telephoned you and told you his actual name. You don't know his habits, his address, his family, his non-rhetorical faults. And, in fact, the best Internet trolls are posted by those who appear to be "themselves," rather than a construct.

 

I repeat. It's crazy to talk about identity in a forum such as this.

 

Interesting thread. That is all.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

traveller uses two Ls in his name.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

traveller uses two Ls in his name.

[Will]

Bluenix, you made my very point, better than I did. And I fully agree with you about the two posters you cited. However, I don't think it's "crazy" to talk about this issue. Inasmuch as creating a public personality is something everybody does, as you yourself point out, I find it interesting to learn just how "life-like" the creator intends his self-portrait to be. This seems specially so on a site whose meat-and-potatoes fare is fantasy, and sexual fantasy at that, which has everything to do with perception.

 

Please, post more often. You write very well and I enjoy reading your ideas.

[Will]

Bluenix, you made my very point, better than I did. And I fully agree with you about the two posters you cited. However, I don't think it's "crazy" to talk about this issue. Inasmuch as creating a public personality is something everybody does, as you yourself point out, I find it interesting to learn just how "life-like" the creator intends his self-portrait to be. This seems specially so on a site whose meat-and-potatoes fare is fantasy, and sexual fantasy at that, which has everything to do with perception.

 

Please, post more often. You write very well and I enjoy reading your ideas.

[Traveller]

>I recall, for example,

>that he has a co-worker,

>who, when horny, flies a

>basket of apples to the

>orphanage on his broomstick.

 

That was a comment about a former poster, Skeptic, going on vaca, but your version ain't bad. I imagine Skeptic would be big fun as a co-worker.

 

Later.

 

PS. I give as much escort info as I can and I try and keep things fun and wacky. I'll leave the in depth discussions to the those who enjoy it. Remember, the site is all about fun, and to each his own. Ready, set, fuck.

[Traveller]

>I recall, for example,

>that he has a co-worker,

>who, when horny, flies a

>basket of apples to the

>orphanage on his broomstick.

 

That was a comment about a former poster, Skeptic, going on vaca, but your version ain't bad. I imagine Skeptic would be big fun as a co-worker.

 

Later.

 

PS. I give as much escort info as I can and I try and keep things fun and wacky. I'll leave the in depth discussions to the those who enjoy it. Remember, the site is all about fun, and to each his own. Ready, set, fuck.

[Talvin DeMachio]

>I think people are pretty much

>themselves... some who continue to

>embrace the practice of social

>etiquette and others who are

>quick to drop such trappings

>or are completely unfettered by

>them in this anonymous environment.

>

>

>Those B types that assume a

>completely different personality are the

>few, probably numbering way

>under 10%. (I suspect they

>are very disappointed with their

>lives and probably their personalities,

>though the converse does not

>follow.) My hunch... that's all.

>

I have no idea where I fall into. I am just a BIG OLD NERD that loves computers and love to have sex with me. :o

[Talvin DeMachio]

>I think people are pretty much

>themselves... some who continue to

>embrace the practice of social

>etiquette and others who are

>quick to drop such trappings

>or are completely unfettered by

>them in this anonymous environment.

>

>

>Those B types that assume a

>completely different personality are the

>few, probably numbering way

>under 10%. (I suspect they

>are very disappointed with their

>lives and probably their personalities,

>though the converse does not

>follow.) My hunch... that's all.

>

I have no idea where I fall into. I am just a BIG OLD NERD that loves computers and love to have sex with me. :o

[bluenix]

>PS. I give as much escort info as I can and I

>try and keep things fun and wacky. I'll leave the

>in depth discussions tothose who enjoy it.

>Remember, the site is all about fun, and to

>each his own.

 

Amen. When I said you employ more artifice in your posts than anyone else, I meant it as a compliment. The style you adopt is perfect for this site. I mean, isn't escorting all about artifice? And withholding of self?

[bluenix]

>PS. I give as much escort info as I can and I

>try and keep things fun and wacky. I'll leave the

>in depth discussions tothose who enjoy it.

>Remember, the site is all about fun, and to

>each his own.

 

Amen. When I said you employ more artifice in your posts than anyone else, I meant it as a compliment. The style you adopt is perfect for this site. I mean, isn't escorting all about artifice? And withholding of self?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I came to this post late, but better late than never...

 

I think there is much to what Will says:

 

Then there's Option C. No matter how "natural" or "artificial" we think we're being -- and we all construct a persona whether we're aware of it or not -- in cyberspace the personality behind the words is largely the creation of the reader not the writer. That is particularly so here. If you read the posts with the intention of finding biographical information, you'll notice how elusive most of us are.

 

Even when someone proffers factual information about himself, there isn't any guarantee that it's accurate.

 

True, but veracity is just as much an issue in face-to-face communications. If anything, we are probably more wary in the internet environment.

 

Bluenix,

 

You make some good points but perhaps your conclusions imply a reliability in face-to-face communications that may not be warranted always.

 

Because you chose me as an example we will continue with it, though as is clear from your post, I'm not the issue, only the example.

 

But it remains a total illusion to suppose that you "know" Tampa Yankee.

 

I disagree. I'll concede it to be an illusion if you think you know me completely. But I contend that you never know anyone completely.

The question does depend on what 'to know' means. In the biblical sense the meaning of 'to know' is definite, more or less. But IMHO in the context of this thread the meaning of 'to know' is minimally 'to recognize' and beyond that 'to predict'. But in what context? We as a species are multifaceted and operate on different levels during any day. But which facet or at what level do we recognize someone and predict their behavior? And what is the domain for recognition?

Physical attributes, vocal tone, inflection, accent; general demeanor; attitudes,

philosophy, politics... Are there people we ever completely know -- know all the

facets and all the levels they operate on? Many husbands and wives who have lived

intimately together for decades are abruptly surprised by their spouse -- it happens everyday everywhere. The same with parents and children. If these people cannot be know completely by their family, who can?

 

There is no doubt in my mind that many on this board know more of certain aspects

of me than people I've worked with for 20 years. Yet those colleagues know a

great deal about me: my appearance, my voice, some of my habits, some of my

attitudes. They know me with regard to those facets and levels that I have

permitted them exposure to. Do they know me any better than those on this board?

Yes and no -- it depends on which facet and what level we are discussing. But it is

no less an illusion that they know me completely.

 

You wouldn't recognize him if you passed him on the street. You wouldn't know him

if he telephoned you and told you his actual name.

 

To say that you can't know me if you wouldn't recognize me on the street or recognize my voice is to say that the blind or the deaf can never know me. Moreover, I think this presents a confusion between the ‘me’ to know, the ‘inner sanctum me’, and the conduits to that ‘inner sanctum me’. To know my face or voice is not really to know me. They may aid in knowing me in that they provide information conduits that reveal part of the real me -- facial expressions or vocal inflections that amplify what is going on in my inner self. Or they might have more direct impact on the inner me, as I had developed, if I were horribly disfigured or stunningly beautiful. These are usually no more than pathways or secondary instruments that may help shed some light to the ‘inner sanctum me’ behind the face, behind the voice, behind the keyboard. In fact sometimes these pathways can be distracting if not misleading. Consider the heightened senses of the blind, the enhanced hearing and spacial awareness to name a few. Working ‘blind’ on the internet may increase our sensitivity to peoples modes of expression, response patterns, etc. because we have a narrower range of information sources to use in our discourse.

 

I’m not advocating that working blind on the internet is a superior way to get to know another person, only that it is different and forces us to rely heavily on certain aspects of communication that we might not rely on as heavily in face-to-face communication. Probably the biggest deficiency of the internet is the lack of spontaneity that reveals aspects of ones personality. For example it is not conducive to exposing flashes of temper. Nevertheless, we can get to know someone within limits just as we do in our everyday world -- that is, if they are willing to let us know them. If they they are not willing then they can mislead us in face-to-face encounters as well as in internet encounters. I suspect that a willingness to do it in one venue indicates a willingness to do it in the other as well.

 

So I guess my point here is that I agree we cannot completely know anyone from the internet, where I differ is that I’m not sure face-to-face communication necessarily provides consistently better qualitatively knowledge about an individual. In both instances it depends on the individual.

 

And, in fact, the best Internet trolls are posted by those who appear to be "themselves," rather than a construct.

 

Hmmm... I still mulling this one over. :-)

 

FWIW

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

I came to this post late, but better late than never...

 

I think there is much to what Will says:

 

Then there's Option C. No matter how "natural" or "artificial" we think we're being -- and we all construct a persona whether we're aware of it or not -- in cyberspace the personality behind the words is largely the creation of the reader not the writer. That is particularly so here. If you read the posts with the intention of finding biographical information, you'll notice how elusive most of us are.

 

Even when someone proffers factual information about himself, there isn't any guarantee that it's accurate.

 

True, but veracity is just as much an issue in face-to-face communications. If anything, we are probably more wary in the internet environment.

 

Bluenix,

 

You make some good points but perhaps your conclusions imply a reliability in face-to-face communications that may not be warranted always.

 

Because you chose me as an example we will continue with it, though as is clear from your post, I'm not the issue, only the example.

 

But it remains a total illusion to suppose that you "know" Tampa Yankee.

 

I disagree. I'll concede it to be an illusion if you think you know me completely. But I contend that you never know anyone completely.

The question does depend on what 'to know' means. In the biblical sense the meaning of 'to know' is definite, more or less. But IMHO in the context of this thread the meaning of 'to know' is minimally 'to recognize' and beyond that 'to predict'. But in what context? We as a species are multifaceted and operate on different levels during any day. But which facet or at what level do we recognize someone and predict their behavior? And what is the domain for recognition?

Physical attributes, vocal tone, inflection, accent; general demeanor; attitudes,

philosophy, politics... Are there people we ever completely know -- know all the

facets and all the levels they operate on? Many husbands and wives who have lived

intimately together for decades are abruptly surprised by their spouse -- it happens everyday everywhere. The same with parents and children. If these people cannot be know completely by their family, who can?

 

There is no doubt in my mind that many on this board know more of certain aspects

of me than people I've worked with for 20 years. Yet those colleagues know a

great deal about me: my appearance, my voice, some of my habits, some of my

attitudes. They know me with regard to those facets and levels that I have

permitted them exposure to. Do they know me any better than those on this board?

Yes and no -- it depends on which facet and what level we are discussing. But it is

no less an illusion that they know me completely.

 

You wouldn't recognize him if you passed him on the street. You wouldn't know him

if he telephoned you and told you his actual name.

 

To say that you can't know me if you wouldn't recognize me on the street or recognize my voice is to say that the blind or the deaf can never know me. Moreover, I think this presents a confusion between the ‘me’ to know, the ‘inner sanctum me’, and the conduits to that ‘inner sanctum me’. To know my face or voice is not really to know me. They may aid in knowing me in that they provide information conduits that reveal part of the real me -- facial expressions or vocal inflections that amplify what is going on in my inner self. Or they might have more direct impact on the inner me, as I had developed, if I were horribly disfigured or stunningly beautiful. These are usually no more than pathways or secondary instruments that may help shed some light to the ‘inner sanctum me’ behind the face, behind the voice, behind the keyboard. In fact sometimes these pathways can be distracting if not misleading. Consider the heightened senses of the blind, the enhanced hearing and spacial awareness to name a few. Working ‘blind’ on the internet may increase our sensitivity to peoples modes of expression, response patterns, etc. because we have a narrower range of information sources to use in our discourse.

 

I’m not advocating that working blind on the internet is a superior way to get to know another person, only that it is different and forces us to rely heavily on certain aspects of communication that we might not rely on as heavily in face-to-face communication. Probably the biggest deficiency of the internet is the lack of spontaneity that reveals aspects of ones personality. For example it is not conducive to exposing flashes of temper. Nevertheless, we can get to know someone within limits just as we do in our everyday world -- that is, if they are willing to let us know them. If they they are not willing then they can mislead us in face-to-face encounters as well as in internet encounters. I suspect that a willingness to do it in one venue indicates a willingness to do it in the other as well.

 

So I guess my point here is that I agree we cannot completely know anyone from the internet, where I differ is that I’m not sure face-to-face communication necessarily provides consistently better qualitatively knowledge about an individual. In both instances it depends on the individual.

 

And, in fact, the best Internet trolls are posted by those who appear to be "themselves," rather than a construct.

 

Hmmm... I still mulling this one over. :-)

 

FWIW

[bluenix]

Hi, TY. You're right, I chose you for my example because I think you come across as being "yourself" -- whoever that may be ;-). Thanks for being a good sport.

 

While I get the drift of your argument, I claim it's a non-starter to imply that people you've worked with for 20 years might know you less well than people on this board, simply because you have withheld from them what you have not withheld from us. You seem to be saying that, because your sexuality is so much a part of who you are, your colleagues don't know you very well. But a co-worker could just as validly assert that your sexuality and its economics are mere details, of no consequence in the larger picture you've been painting of yourself for two decades.

 

Still, I'm prepared to modify my position, because you're right that physical attributes are just as subject to illusion as posts on a bulletin board. Not to put too dull a point on it, the smart can be ugly and the beautiful can be stupid. Neither looks nor smarts speaks to who we actually are.

 

So, taking my cue from your insights, I'm going to say that what is revealed is, in fact, just as important as what is withheld. Earlier I emphasized the primacy of what is withheld, but now I'm persuaded, by you, that the issue is more correctly considered in light of what we each choose to reveal, more or less, of ourselves.

 

In practical terms, then, I grant that one can reveal oneself more than I was willing to allow. But it also remains true that some of the most effective scams on the Internet are accomplished by those who have been able to disarm their readers by revealing what happens not to be true. So -- and I don't mean to be a one-note nelly here -- I do come back to the propostion that your colleagues, and others who have developed face-to-face relationship with you, know you better than we do.

[bluenix]

Hi, TY. You're right, I chose you for my example because I think you come across as being "yourself" -- whoever that may be ;-). Thanks for being a good sport.

 

While I get the drift of your argument, I claim it's a non-starter to imply that people you've worked with for 20 years might know you less well than people on this board, simply because you have withheld from them what you have not withheld from us. You seem to be saying that, because your sexuality is so much a part of who you are, your colleagues don't know you very well. But a co-worker could just as validly assert that your sexuality and its economics are mere details, of no consequence in the larger picture you've been painting of yourself for two decades.

 

Still, I'm prepared to modify my position, because you're right that physical attributes are just as subject to illusion as posts on a bulletin board. Not to put too dull a point on it, the smart can be ugly and the beautiful can be stupid. Neither looks nor smarts speaks to who we actually are.

 

So, taking my cue from your insights, I'm going to say that what is revealed is, in fact, just as important as what is withheld. Earlier I emphasized the primacy of what is withheld, but now I'm persuaded, by you, that the issue is more correctly considered in light of what we each choose to reveal, more or less, of ourselves.

 

In practical terms, then, I grant that one can reveal oneself more than I was willing to allow. But it also remains true that some of the most effective scams on the Internet are accomplished by those who have been able to disarm their readers by revealing what happens not to be true. So -- and I don't mean to be a one-note nelly here -- I do come back to the propostion that your colleagues, and others who have developed face-to-face relationship with you, know you better than we do.

[Will]

This is not only the most interesting thread to have appeared for some time, it has elicited very cogent insights regarding some existential quandaries that accompany new forms of electronic communication. I can easily imagine how happy we've made the shades of those gay gurus of Post-Modernism, Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, as we go on here about what it means to know another person, about how we de-code the various signs and signals by which human beings communicate with each other. What's more, TY's and Bluenix's recent contributions strengthen my admiration and affection for both. If I could rely solely on what I'm able to discern here, they would be among my top candidates for life-boat companions.

 

Unlike some others, I do not think this subject is irrelevant to the purpose of M4M. On the contrary, "identity" has everything to do with male/male sexual behavior, and perhaps nowhere more poignantly than in the complex exchanges of escorts and clients. From the outset, the whole semiotics of the relationship relies on our belief in the inseparability of sexual orientation and personal identity. Thus it matters to us, for example, to ask whether the escort is straight, gay, or in-between. What is his real name? Why does he have to have a false one? Is the client's name "real?" What's the bond between these two men, apart from the swapping of one desired object for another?

 

It's my belief that what goes on here is far from trivial, even if it is fun and recreational. If someone else believes that the imagination has no role in an authentically personal erotic life, then what we talk about here may indeed be tossed off as illusion or fantasy, because illusion and fantasy are trivial themselves. It's my guess, however, that for many of us clients, life is more -- not less -- "real" when we're with an escort than when we're spending yet another evening at home with TV and ice cream.

[Will]

This is not only the most interesting thread to have appeared for some time, it has elicited very cogent insights regarding some existential quandaries that accompany new forms of electronic communication. I can easily imagine how happy we've made the shades of those gay gurus of Post-Modernism, Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, as we go on here about what it means to know another person, about how we de-code the various signs and signals by which human beings communicate with each other. What's more, TY's and Bluenix's recent contributions strengthen my admiration and affection for both. If I could rely solely on what I'm able to discern here, they would be among my top candidates for life-boat companions.

 

Unlike some others, I do not think this subject is irrelevant to the purpose of M4M. On the contrary, "identity" has everything to do with male/male sexual behavior, and perhaps nowhere more poignantly than in the complex exchanges of escorts and clients. From the outset, the whole semiotics of the relationship relies on our belief in the inseparability of sexual orientation and personal identity. Thus it matters to us, for example, to ask whether the escort is straight, gay, or in-between. What is his real name? Why does he have to have a false one? Is the client's name "real?" What's the bond between these two men, apart from the swapping of one desired object for another?

 

It's my belief that what goes on here is far from trivial, even if it is fun and recreational. If someone else believes that the imagination has no role in an authentically personal erotic life, then what we talk about here may indeed be tossed off as illusion or fantasy, because illusion and fantasy are trivial themselves. It's my guess, however, that for many of us clients, life is more -- not less -- "real" when we're with an escort than when we're spending yet another evening at home with TV and ice cream.

[Guest Viewmaster]

>It's my

>guess, however, that for many

>of us clients, life is

>more -- not less --

>"real" when we're with an

>escort than when we're spending

>yet another evening at home

>with TV and ice cream.

 

I don't find this surprising. Exploring and expressing sexuality is at the core of some our our most basic and profound characteristics as people. As good as Rocky Road may be while watching Will and Grace, it doesn't quite measure up. However, watching Andy Roddick at the US Open is another matter together..

[Guest Viewmaster]

>It's my

>guess, however, that for many

>of us clients, life is

>more -- not less --

>"real" when we're with an

>escort than when we're spending

>yet another evening at home

>with TV and ice cream.

 

I don't find this surprising. Exploring and expressing sexuality is at the core of some our our most basic and profound characteristics as people. As good as Rocky Road may be while watching Will and Grace, it doesn't quite measure up. However, watching Andy Roddick at the US Open is another matter together..

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>isn't escorting all about artifice? And withholding of self?<

 

This may be one of those 'glass half empty' deals, but from this side it's more about giving of self. Don't laugh. In conversations with those speaking frankly yet delicately, I've heard the question "How can you give yourself to a total stranger?" (as opposed to the indelicate "You stuck your tongue up some wierdos' butt?") There are other protests; "I could never give my body to someone I don't know.", and the classic, "How could you give up your self respect (by becoming a whore)."

Based on sentiments like these, which I'm certain are not uncommon, it would seem that becoming an escort would be an act of great sacrifice (of self esteem/respect), and surrendering to perhaps the ultimate sacrifice of having your body violated by a stranger. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that prohibitive moral and personal dogma and my self esteem is quite healthy, but I find myself laterally aligned with it's central tenet: What more could one offer another besides their very person, other than their heart and soul (and if that's what a client wants then he's looking in the wrong place)?

I would hope my own clients would be grateful for the parts of me I do withhold, and I suppose there's plenty. It would take forever to clean up after every facet of me if we all showed up at once. I guess I withhold certain things to keep sane and safe and to make sure everyone's happy, but no more than I would if I were reporting to some office every day. Who among us Ever gives their all at every moment? Something is always withheld on some level. As an escort, I think in the end what I give is more important to the client (and in spite of any witholdings, they ALWAYS get a good piece of me), and what has been withheld is more important to me, and frankly, nobody's elses business.

As for artiface, everyone employs it. "I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night" is not often heard 'round the water cooler. And what do the married clients tell their wives? Life is full of various illusions and lies. Put 'em all together and they make someones' reality.

I try not to use much artiface when posting. If someone thinks I'm funny, glib, intelligent, or dense based on my posts, that's pretty much what they're going to get in person at various points of our time spent together. But these are only individual perceptions, and in spite of them, when a client and I are together I'll always at least look like me, for better or worse.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>isn't escorting all about artifice? And withholding of self?<

 

This may be one of those 'glass half empty' deals, but from this side it's more about giving of self. Don't laugh. In conversations with those speaking frankly yet delicately, I've heard the question "How can you give yourself to a total stranger?" (as opposed to the indelicate "You stuck your tongue up some wierdos' butt?") There are other protests; "I could never give my body to someone I don't know.", and the classic, "How could you give up your self respect (by becoming a whore)."

Based on sentiments like these, which I'm certain are not uncommon, it would seem that becoming an escort would be an act of great sacrifice (of self esteem/respect), and surrendering to perhaps the ultimate sacrifice of having your body violated by a stranger. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that prohibitive moral and personal dogma and my self esteem is quite healthy, but I find myself laterally aligned with it's central tenet: What more could one offer another besides their very person, other than their heart and soul (and if that's what a client wants then he's looking in the wrong place)?

I would hope my own clients would be grateful for the parts of me I do withhold, and I suppose there's plenty. It would take forever to clean up after every facet of me if we all showed up at once. I guess I withhold certain things to keep sane and safe and to make sure everyone's happy, but no more than I would if I were reporting to some office every day. Who among us Ever gives their all at every moment? Something is always withheld on some level. As an escort, I think in the end what I give is more important to the client (and in spite of any witholdings, they ALWAYS get a good piece of me), and what has been withheld is more important to me, and frankly, nobody's elses business.

As for artiface, everyone employs it. "I paid some twink to let me fuck him 'til he cried last night" is not often heard 'round the water cooler. And what do the married clients tell their wives? Life is full of various illusions and lies. Put 'em all together and they make someones' reality.

I try not to use much artiface when posting. If someone thinks I'm funny, glib, intelligent, or dense based on my posts, that's pretty much what they're going to get in person at various points of our time spent together. But these are only individual perceptions, and in spite of them, when a client and I are together I'll always at least look like me, for better or worse.