TMBG, Jizzhead et al, these hustlers are prey, you are predators

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al,

 

Goosh, damn, this thread caused some venom to erupt! I'm not responding per se.

 

I "aint never" had a hustler. I turned one down in SF last year, for I WAS NOT INTERESTED. He was young and seemed to have been on some type of drug. He approached me and said he'd blow me for $10.00. I politely said-- no thank you and kept walking with my free gay rags in hand.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al,

 

>>Yes, there is, technically speaking. The moderators' forum

>>is off limits to you last time I checked. :*

>

>Yes yes of course, but that's not what he was refering to.

 

You got it all wrong kiddo - that's exactly the one I was referring to. And I would suppose there is good reason for your exclusion.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al,

 

>>I wonder why there is a forum you are denied access to?

>

>No there is not.

 

And you called ME stupid? Stupid I may be but not stupid enough to recognize a lie when I read one!

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

The Real Issue??????

 

I can only make a guess here, but the real problem lies in the simple fact of If you cant afford to play with the big boys, then dont. If all you can afford is a street hustler, Go for it. It makes no sense whatsover to stand in front of Macy's, Nordstroms, Saks Fifth Ave screeming and yelling you got a shirt for 5 bucks at KMart and that the clothes in their stores are a rip-off. Think they are going to change the prices on Versace, Armani shirts just because you protested? Highly doubtable. If you have a low income, best bet is to hit the local baths. Usually can get a locker for 12-15 bucks, much cheaper than an hour with an escort.

 

 

Michael Johnson :-)

[+ SundayZip]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

Maybe a street hustler will use the client's money for drugs. Or maybe he'll use it for food, or maybe for a cool pair of shoes, or a new CD, or even a new car. I have to admit that I have less experience with street hustlers than with escorts, but I believe the last hustler I hired used drugs -- but then so did my clean-cut, respectable nephew. The hustler before that was saving for a new car -- so was my nephew.

 

Maybe the next time I see a street hustler (let's say an attractive one), I'll stop and say, "Excuse me young man, I think you're very attractive and I'd like to have sex with you at a greatly discounted price, but I'm not going to hire you because there's a commonly held belief that a high percentage of hustlers are on drugs and you may spend my money on drugs instead of on items that are generally accepted as healthy and contribute to the general growth of our economy. But for you... I'll make an exception. Just promise to not use drugs during or after our fuck."

[Flower]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

(There are 2 parallel threads here and readers ought to read both to get the full flavor of the exploitation that the likes of Richie Rich are bragging about--I'm posting under the more recent thread started by Rod Hagen, but go back and read tmbg posting on april 14 topic # 2597, wherein Richie Rich brags at how very little he had to pay a very young homeless boi for sex; "Is it The Luck of The Draw?" )

 

I read with more than a little disgust Richie Rich's (tmbg)) bragging at how cheap he was able to do, or maybe just fuck over, a teenboi--excuse me, "street urchin." First it turned my stomach that some kid was so desperate for money and a shower that he sold himself so cheap to the likes of Richie Rich, but almost more than that, I was sickened that he was here bragging about it. This of course, isn't original thought, Rod Hagen expressed it well with the opening thread.

 

The issue isn't really about what turns you on or off, or having sex with young as opposed to older men. Or escort competition or territory or buying shoes at one store cheaper than another, standing in front of Macy's with a Kmart shirt, or whether you have been banned or not from a foruma And the issue here especially isn't at all about buying a piece of meat, er, steak at an expensive verses a cheap restaurant.

 

As I see it, and I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong the real issue is the EXPLOITATION of the human condition.

 

Exploitation exists on all levels and not confined to the gay or sexual arenas. It sickens me just as much to see a wealthy industrialist exploit non-organized workers, or the illegal alien working for unfair wages to avoid deportation; or any other situation where the economic or other disparity between two negotiating parties forces one to do something distasteful, demeaning or that he otherwise would not do but for the desperate condition and need of money, for the other -- or to do it at such a low, unfair compensation that all reasonable men would agree it is unfair.

 

But here, we seem to be preoccupied with gay sex for hire issues, so that is the level of exploitation I and others here are talking about. I for one have no problems with sex for hire IF both parties are on equal footing and in similar bargaining positions and adults in the true sense of the word--physically, mentally and emotionally.. That is rarely the case, but certainly more so with an established escort who "can afford a laptop and web site" and a client at a "fancy hotel" than picking up some dirty, down and out youngster on the street corner and bringing him back (long silent ride to your hotel) home to fuck him over figuratively and literally.

 

On the other hand, exploitation is a two way street, and as pointed out on other threads here, it can easily be the escort exploiting the client--that bothers me also, I think what bothers most of us who can put aside our own lust for either sex or money, however, is the exploitation of the very young and defenseless, and that is the point of this threat as I see it.

 

In my book, it is a crime against nature to pay some kid 10 cents for a 12 hour day to make shoes in Honduras, but it is still not the same type of greedy, personal exploitation and violation of the person for self-gratification that is evidenced by a grown man of at least some wealth and advantage bragging about paying a homeless, obviously under weight, unbathed teenager $40 (oops..forgot the generous tip) for personal sexual gratification without regard to the real reason he was able to get such a "bargain." in the first place.

 

It is the lopsidedness of that arrangement which so offends me and many other thinking people on this board with any type of social conscious--it is pure and simple EXPLOITATION. Desperate times make desperate measures, and this is a prime example of it.

It seems to me that it was Richie Rich that was whining on yet another thread about all the lies that escorts spout, including their AGE, bringing to mind the question: HOW DID YOU VERIFY THIS TEENAGER'S AGE RICHIE, OR DO YOU TAKE THEIR WORD WHEN IT PERSONALLY BENEFITS OR GRATIFIES YOU?

 

As Phage has pointed out, a dirty, wanting a shower, "street urchin" (your term) = homeless and disadvantaged in anyone's book, and you have the balls to brag about it here or anywhere--well actually, I doubt if you brag anywhere else, since you seem to need or want the anonymity despite your criticizing escorts for theirs, and I see why now.

 

But here is a thought, since the boi wanted a shower so bad--it would have been real cool on your part, and really proved your negotiation skills, if you could have just traded the poor kid a shower and a loaf of bread in exchange for all the fun he most certainly had with you and saved your money and generous tip for yet another street urchin -- and then another and just see how many hungry, dirty, underweight desperate kids (and not necessarily of legal age I gather) you could entice with as little of your precious money as possible--you and Jizz could have a contest--see who could get the most bang for the least buck out of these questionable aged, desperate, hungary and homeless young bois--Hold your head up High Richie and be proud, man--You're our hero man!:+

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

Flower......... give your friggin' head a shake. Then step down from you soap box!

 

The kid got $80. for not too much work, so where's the exploitation? I bet you don't make $80 an hour.

 

What was Ritchie to say? On no kid, $80 is way too little - here let me give you $250 'cause that's a fairer price?

 

Maybe $80 for an hour of sex is about all it's worth, ever think of that?

 

Maybe we are so used to the "Madison Avenue style" of self-promotion from all the so called "professional" escorts - read whores - that we've been brainwashed into thinking that $250 an hour - $1200 for an overnight - is the "going" rate. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.

 

So don't sit there at your keyboard and preach morality to me. I ain't buying your particular brand!

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: The Manchurian Candidate

 

>Maybe $80 for an hour of sex is about all it's worth, ever think of that?<

 

So if for some reason you found yourself escorting (purely hypothetical situation), you'd be okay charging only $40 bucks an hour and hoping for a tip of equal size?

 

>Maybe we are so used to the "Madison Avenue style" of self-promotion from all the so called "professional" escorts - read whores - that we've been brainwashed into thinking that $250 an hour - $1200 for an overnight - is the "going" rate.<

 

Interesting theory. And maybe a Mercedes Benz - read car - is only worth a couple hundred bucks, but an auto buying public have been brain-washed into paying tens of thousands more. I'll bet a gallon of milk - read "does a body good" - really only costs a few pennies, but an insidious international conspiracy - read marketing campaign - has jacked the price to three dollars a pop through a globalized brainwashing scheme. I wonder if the cows are in on it. I'm calling Ralph Nader.

 

>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.<

 

Because he's been brainwashed to accept less, or because in any given hour, not too many staffers will ask him to suck their ugly pink dicks?

 

Just kidding around, thunder. Hard for an escort to resist, what with a post so full of fodder.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

>I believe the last hustler I hired used drugs -- but then so did my clean-cut, respectable nephew. The hustler before that was saving for a new car -- so was my nephew.<

 

How old is your nephew and what are his rates?

[Flower]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

>So don't sit there at your keyboard and preach morality to

>me. I ain't buying your particular brand!

>

 

Thunderbuns--you help make my point--"you ain't buying" AND -- you are free not to buy and by not buying, you are NOT jeopardizing your well-being and you will still eat dinner tonight--you are not so desperate wherein I can say to you "accept my brand or don't eat!" That's the whole point--not whether it's $80 for an hour (probably more like 2 hrs with the bus ride back) or $40 hour or $250 hr--it is what is being given up for it--the exploitation is taking advantage of the human desperation that enables that cheap price. If the kid was well adjusted and lived in the burbs and wasn't hungry, homeless and so dirty he was craving a shower, then a different story--if he was doing this to get get some chrome wheels for his new X5--a different story. The relative bargaining power of the parties would be more equal.

 

But exploitation is not necessarily measured by the amount of money it takes to get sex from this young kid, but by the taking advantage of the desperation and age of the boi--for an example, let's say the kid was str8 and especially not wanting gay sex, but still hungary, dirty and desperate and young--add to that hypothetical, the fact that he was one of those up-tight religious rights and a homophobe and gay sex would literally blow his mind, but still very young, dirty, hungary and desperate--would you feel any better about getting him to have sex with you by paying him $250 or $1200 hr just so he could eat? Standing there upping the anti each time he says no until he can't resist? Come on--that's exploitation regardless of how much you pay him under those circumstances. IT'S THE DISPARITY OF THE POWER, THE LEVERAGE, THE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEGOTIATORS that create the exploitation--regardless of the price, the kid was very young, hungary, and homeless desperate = exploitation.

 

>Flower......... give your friggin' head a shake. Then step

>down from you soap box!

>

I am shaking my head in disbelief that you just don't have a clue!

 

>The kid got $80. for not too much work, so where's the

>exploitation? I bet you don't make $80 an hour.

>What was Ritchie to say? On no kid, $80 is way too little -

>here let me give you $250 'cause that's a fairer price?

>Maybe $80 for an hour of sex is about all it's worth, ever

>think of that?

>

Well it seemed to be worth a whole lot to Richie Rich--I assume you read his thread--but it's hard to tell whether it was the sex he was so elated with or getting it so cheap. BUT RICHIE RICH could just have given the kid a few bucks for a meal and pass on the sex or just pass altogether, so as not to exploit a bad situation. But I wouldn't expect Richie Rich to be so thinking or magnanimous, sad to say--he was obviously out for himself only.

 

>Maybe we are so used to the "Madison Avenue style" of

>self-promotion from all the so called "professional" escorts

>- read whores >

 

I'm again shaking my head here, TB x( I think it's safe to assume (gross over generalization, I know) that there are basically 3 kinds of people here--those that pay for sex, those that sell sex and those that wanna do one or the other. Yet I constantly read people of your ilk saying shit like "'so called "professional" escorts -- read whores ' "

 

It's like you have this compelling need to deprecate a person (that you obviously need and use and pay money to) for whatever reason -- possibly to make yourself feel better?? I have a couple of very good friends that are escorts and we banter back and forth in fun with terms like hoe, bitch, hooker etc. But it is all in the intent of the speaker--in the context YOU say it in, it is deprecating and I wonder why--really--WHY do you belittle an individual for what he does for a living, especially when you use his services? If you don't like the promoters, then don't pay the price--last I saw there was no monopoly on services and this is still a somewhat competitive area. There certainly is NO GUN at your head. BUT, I sure as hell bet that when you are in that hotel room popping a bone in anticipation, you don't call him a whore--so why here? But that is a whole different issue :*

 

>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.

>

Well maybe or maybe not--the Prez has lots of perks and advantages both in and after office, BUT THE POINT IS HE WANTED TO BE THERE AND WORKED A BIG PART OF HIS LIFE TO GET THERE--he wasn't down and out and just happen to be walking by 1600 Penn Ave and someone whispers, "Hey kid....wanna a candy bar?" So, bad example TB.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: The Manchurian Candidate

 

>So if for some reason you found yourself escorting (purely

>hypothetical situation), you'd be okay charging only $40

>bucks an hour and hoping for a tip of equal size?

 

Hell no. I'd ask for more. I may or may not get it. But as we live in a society that lauds the entrepreneur and the independant contractor, if the kid put his worth at $40, that's his decision. He must have done an OK job to get a $40 tip in addition!

 

>>Maybe we are so used to the "Madison Avenue style" of self-promotion from all the so called "professional" escorts - read whores - that we've been brainwashed into thinking that $250 an hour -$1200 for an overnight - is the "going" rate.<

 

>Interesting theory. And maybe a Mercedes Benz - read car -

>is only worth a couple hundred bucks, but an auto buying

>public have been brain-washed into paying tens of thousands

>more.

 

Well I think your estimate of $200 might be a tad low, but your premise is spot on. I'm sure MB could sell their cars for a good 10 to 15 thousand less and still make a respectable profit. Their clever marketing however has duped the public into think they are more special than they are.

 

I'll bet a gallon of milk - read "does a body good" -

>really only costs a few pennies, but an insidious

>international conspiracy - read marketing campaign - has

>jacked the price to three dollars a pop through a globalized

>brainwashing scheme. I wonder if the cows are in on it. I'm

>calling Ralph Nader.

 

I think the problem with milk is that too many people want a slice of the pie. Buy it directly from the farmer and you probably would get it a lot cheaper. Cut out a bunch of middlemen and you are the winner.

>

>>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.<

>

>Because he's been brainwashed to accept less, or because in

>any given hour, not too many staffers will ask him to suck

>their ugly pink dicks?

 

Well if Rob Lowe is an example of the staffers, I'd work for free!

Oops - sorry - I keep getting the West Wing confused with reality.

 

>Just kidding around, thunder. Hard for an escort to resist,

>what with a post so full of fodder.

 

I know you're just foolin me and I knew it would be hard to resist, given the temtation I put forth - but I still don't feel any different about it. :-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

>Yet I constantly read people of your ilk saying shit

>like "'so called "professional" escorts -- read whores ' "

>

>It's like you have this compelling need to deprecate a

>person (that you obviously need and use and pay money to)

>for whatever reason -- possibly to make yourself feel

>better?? I have a couple of very good friends that are

>escorts and we banter back and forth in fun with terms like

>hoe, bitch, hooker etc. But it is all in the intent of the

>speaker--in the context YOU say it in, it is deprecating

 

I wonder why you and others have this compelling need to call a whore or prostitute by some other name. It doesn't change what he does or what he is. On the one hand you insist that you have no problem with what he does, but on the other hand you insist that we not refer to it. Instead we must call him an "escort," though we all know the word "escort" does not describe what most "escorts" actually do.

 

I think Thunder used the word "whore" to point out that what separates many who are called "escorts" from many who are called "hustlers" or "whores" is not a real difference in the product but merely a difference in the packaging, and that that difference in packaging is often used to justify a big difference in price. Despite the often superficial differences, he is saying, both do the same thing -- they're whores. I think it's a valid point. If you disagree with it, you can say so. What you are doing instead is implying that the fact he makes that point means he is a bad person. That is supposed to be prohibited on this "new" message board, isn't it?

[Guest ChefsSaltyChocBalls]

If the purpose of this thread...

 

...is to make potential customers reconsider the idea of hiring an escort, then I would say it has been a success.

 

A while ago, there was a thread musing about a possible backlash towards escorts who post here. At the time, I thought it was largely an unwarranted fear. After reading some of this thread, I'm not so sure. I'd like to believe there are escorts who are really nice guys -- guys who actually enjoy their work and who truly like and respect their clients. However, reading this stuff is enough to make one wonder if all escorts are jerks who think their clients are pathetic losers, chicken hawks, etc, who couldn't get laid w/o paying for the privilege.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al

 

>>So don't sit there at your keyboard and preach morality to

>>me. I ain't buying your particular brand!

>>

>

>Thunderbuns--you help make my point--"you ain't buying" AND

>-- you are free not to buy and by not buying, you are NOT

>jeopardizing your well-being and you will still eat dinner

>tonight--you are not so desperate wherein I can say to you

>"accept my brand or don't eat!"

 

Huh???????

 

>That's the whole point--not whether it's $80 for an hour (probably >more like 2 hrs with the bus ride back)

 

The last time I checked, your average employer only starts paying the staff when they get there, not when they leave home. And they don't pay for their time to get home either.

 

 

>it is what is being given up for it--the exploitation is taking

>advantage of the human desperation that enables that cheap

>price.

 

Once again - it's is YOUR determination that $80 is a "cheap price"

As I have pointed out, and which you conveniently choose to overlook, $80 an hour is still more than most college graduates get. Based on a 35 hour week, it equates to $145,600 per year. And need I add - TAX FREE.

 

>for an example, let's say the kid was str8 and especially not

>wanting gay sex, but still hungary, dirty and desperate and

>young--add to that hypothetical, the fact that he was one of

>those up-tight religious rights and a homophobe and gay sex

>would literally blow his mind, but still very young, dirty,

>hungary and desperate

 

Flower - now your making up hypotheticals that clearly did not exist, just to suit your argument. The kid was quite assuredly NOT str8 as Richie told us he had a roaring hard on the moment they were naked. Str8s would not be that good at fakeing it.

 

>--would you feel any better about

>getting him to have sex with you by paying him $250 or $1200

>hr just so he could eat? Standing there upping the anti

>each time he says no until he can't resist?

 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE EVER SAID NO. And he enjoyed it enough to want to cuddle for 20 min after it was over.

 

IT'S THE DISPARITY OF THE POWER, THE

>LEVERAGE, THE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEGOTIATORS that create the

>exploitation

 

How many people work for minimum wages at a job they absolutely hate?

My guess would be millions.

 

And why do they do this?

To pay their bills for necessities such as rent & food.

 

Don't you think their legit employers are exploiting them, just because they were not fortunate/bright enough to get an education that would qualify them for something better?

 

The only differance here (if one was to accept your theory) is the kid was "exploited" for $80. an hour instead of $7.50 an hour.

 

 

>I am shaking my head in disbelief that you just don't have a

>clue!

 

I would argue that it is YOU that doesn't have a clue. The world is full of bleeding heart liberals. I'm not one of them - obviously you are, so no matter how much we debate this, we will never see eye to eye.

 

>>Maybe $80 for an hour of sex is about all it's worth, ever

>>think of that?

>>

>Well it seemed to be worth a whole lot to Richie Rich--I

>assume you read his thread--but it's hard to tell whether it

>was the sex he was so elated with or getting it so cheap.

 

It was very clear that it was the sex he was elated about. All he said re the pricing, was bring into question whether or not a "pro" is worth 4 times as much.

 

>BUT RICHIE RICH could just have given the kid a few bucks

>for a meal and pass on the sex or just pass altogether, so

>as not to exploit a bad situation. But I wouldn't expect

>Richie Rich to be so thinking or magnanimous, sad to say--he

>was obviously out for himself only.

 

Flower - give me a break. Get real. What do you think this kid would actually prefer? A few bucks for a meal i.e. $5 to $10, or the eighty bucks he ended up with? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, although it does seem to have eluded you.

>

>>Maybe we are so used to the "Madison Avenue style" of

>>self-promotion from all the so called "professional" escorts

>>- read whores >

>

>I'm again shaking my head here, TB x( I think it's safe to

>assume (gross over generalization, I know) that there are

>basically 3 kinds of people here--those that pay for sex,

>those that sell sex and those that wanna do one or the

>other. Yet I constantly read people of your ilk saying shit

>like "'so called "professional" escorts -- read whores ' "

>

>It's like you have this compelling need to deprecate a

>person (that you obviously need and use and pay money to)

>for whatever reason -- possibly to make yourself feel

>better??

 

Flower - I have no problem with men (or women for that matter) selling their sexual favours in echange for $$$. If I had my way it would be perfectly legal.

 

What does give me a problem (although perhaps it more a case of giving me amusement) is the respectabilty some guys try to attach to the profession by calling it "escorting". If that makes them feel better - fine - go for it. But let's call a spade, whether you classify your self as an escort, a hooker, a whore, a callboy, a prostitute - whatever - It's still the same thing. You are selling your body for money. And I repeat - there's nothing wrong with that!

 

>I wonder why--really--WHY do you belittle an individual for

>what he does for a living, especially when you use his

>services?

 

I don't belittle them. If they consider to be belittled because of the job description, that's their problem, not mine. How is it Rick Munroe, for example, can call him self a ho and everyone's fine about it? But let someone else call him a ho and the whole friggin board gets their knickers in a twist.

 

>>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.

 

>Well maybe or maybe not--the Prez has lots of perks and

>advantages both in and after office, BUT THE POINT IS HE

>WANTED TO BE THERE AND WORKED A BIG PART OF HIS LIFE TO GET

>THERE

 

Yah- so???? How does this have any bearing on the subject at hand?

 

 

--he wasn't down and out and just happen to be

>walking by 1600 Penn Ave and someone whispers, "Hey

>kid....wanna a candy bar?"

 

I very much doubt that this is what happened in Richie's scenario either.

 

>So, bad example TB.

 

In my opinion Flower, not nearly as bad an example as the ones you tried to make fit into the context of your rebuttal. But then as I have already said - I know we are not about to agree on very much, if anything ;-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: The Manchurian Candidate

 

>I think the problem with milk is that too many people want a slice of the pie.<

 

That's very good. Next to a cuppa coffee, nothing goes better with pie than milk!

 

>Buy it directly from the farmer and you probably would get it a lot cheaper. Cut out a bunch of middlemen and you are the winner.<

 

It's true. The same applies to the auto industry, or most products. No middleman for hustlers and independants, though. I think the kid in question undervalues his sexual worth. I think tmbg recognized that, hence the big tip.

 

>>>THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE $250 AN HOUR for Christ's sake.<<<

 

>>Because he's been brainwashed to accept less, or because in any given hour, not too many staffers will ask him to suck their ugly pink dicks?<<

 

>Well if Rob Lowe is an example of the staffers, I'd work for free! Oops - sorry - I keep getting the West Wing confused with reality.<

 

That is a good show. That and Great Blunders in Histoy are the only two programs I'll stop to watch. Oh, and Mystery Science Theater. Speaking of West Wing, I saw a humorous episode recently where one of the staff, Josh I believe, started posting on a message board in response to perceived fallacies regarding some policy or another. Once engaged, he couldn't get out. He became addicted to the cat n' mouse nature of the forums. I got the impression that the writers of the show think everyone who partakes in these things is a lonely maniac.

 

>I know you're just foolin me and I knew it would be hard to resist, given the temptation I put forth - but I still don't feel any different about it.<

 

That's cool. I wasn't really trying to persuade you one way or another. Just having a few yuks. Glad you're a sport.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: If the purpose of this thread...

 

>...is to make potential customers reconsider the idea of

>hiring an escort, then I would say it has been a success.

 

Well, I don't know about you but to me the primary purpose of this and every other thread I choose to chime in on - IS TO AMUSE MYSELF.

 

Oh yah, from time to time there is a subject that I feel strongly about (such as this one) and may wish to try and make a point (without a lot of success, I suspect) but the bottom line is always about amusement. If it was not for that, I could find a trillion other things I would rather do.

 

We all need to lighten up - just a little ;-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest ChefsSaltyChocBalls]

RE: If the purpose of this thread...

 

>Well, I don't know about you but to me the primary purpose

>of this and every other thread I choose to chime in on - IS

>TO AMUSE MYSELF.

>

 

Frankly, I can't say I found anything in this thread the least bit funny. No, what I read was a grim reminder that some, if not most, escorts have nothing but contempt for their clients.

[Flower]

RE: If the purpose of this thread...

 

>Oh yah, from time to time there is a subject that I feel

>strongly about (such as this one) and may wish to try and

>make a point (without a lot of success, I suspect) but the

>bottom line is always about amusement.

 

Yeah, TB, I guess you're right in a way--hopefully, we all have other things to do, but this board is interesting and does allow an expression of views that ought to be expressed (whether they agree with mine or no and while can be amusing, hopefully can be on a higher level occaissionally

 

>We all need to lighten up - just a little ;-)

 

Aaaaaayyyyymen :*

 

 

Flower :*

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: If the purpose of this thread...

 

>>Well, I don't know about you but to me the primary purpose

>>of this and every other thread I choose to chime in on - IS

>>TO AMUSE MYSELF.

>>

>

>Frankly, I can't say I found anything in this thread the

>least bit funny. No, what I read was a grim reminder that

>some, if not most, escorts have nothing but contempt for

>their clients.

 

Please re-read the last line of my previous post. What is it that you didn't understand?

 

Thunderbuns

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

In my little corner of the world

 

I must be reading a different thread. I believe Rod Hagen's point was sufficiently clear. It is essentially the same point made about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. It is the same point feminist make about female sex workers.

 

Free choice is a wonderous thing but I do not believe Saint Thomas conceived of free choice as being the choice one is forced to make between eating or shelter, McDonald's or sex work. Our culture and society has created a situation where the value is placed on paper and an individual's worth is based on their success. As it stands, I am in full agreement with the point that to remark upon one's good fortune and luck to find a young man, of clearly limited means, taking public transit over 30 minutes to get home, to use him and double his minor fee to assauge whatever moral qualms one might have about the situation AND then to remark upon it in public as a good thing is well within Rod's free speech perogative to question and critique. I join in that.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

RE: Rod's Post

 

Each and every relationship has a power dynamic. In every couple and in every friendship, there is generally always an instance where one party may have -- call it what you will -- power, leverage, what have you. How it is used is always the question. The impact on the other person is also at issue. It is not simply young hustlers and older men. It is ANY dynamic where the potential for abuse is there and that potential is either explored or exploited to the detriment of the other. It can happen to a $300 an hour escort as well as a $10 a blow job hustler.

 

I can make the choices that I make, with intelligence, a clear concious and an awareness of the consequences. No all of us can say that.

 

Finally, the age issue is a non-starter. Chris Sullivan is a good friend of mine, he is 21. He enjoys having sex with older men and he enjoys having sex with younger men. He enjoys getting paid for it and he enjoys sex period. We just had lunch today and discussed this very issue and we also discussed another friend, who is 27 and who is not happy, either having sex with clients or having sex at all. We have both advised this friend to stick to dancing and adult films and not to continue to escort.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Argumentative

 

>I don't think Rod is a malicious person. It does seem like

>his posts have become more argumentative in the past several

>months, though.

>

 

He is a man with strong opinions who apparently is not gouging his clients enough to afford a VCR or will not read the manual.

[Flower]

RE: TMBG, Jizzhead et al,

 

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

 

>>In reading this particular thread, I have one question to

>>ask -Rod Hagan, who the hell are you?Yes, I may be a

>>"chickenhawk" and a "predator" but you are a "whore" and a

>>"slut". There is no room here for name-calling and moral

>>judgements.You, however, are way off base.

>

>Yes, I am a whore. I've never claimed otherwise. And even

>though I am a whore, I can still offer reasonable opinions,

>regardless of wether or not they make you feel

>uncomfortable.

 

I am amazed at how people here can start calling names at the drop of a hat. I re-read this entire damn thread to see if RH had said anything bad to bmore and found nothing--#62 was Bmore's first note here, yet he comes in calling RH a "whore and a slut"--excuse me?? Where did that come from.

 

He obviously felt defensive and admitted as much concerning his own willingness to exploit the young and hungry--but in doing so, expressly identified him self as a "chickenhawk" and a "predator." Now, bmore, I don't know where you come from or the company you keep, but in my circles, I'd be proud as hell to be a "whore and slut" if my other choice was to be a "predator and chickenhawk!" And that's a fact. The former hurts no one but the latter hurts and takes advantage (YES, BMORE, EXPLOITS) of the young and disadvantaged--I mean, come on--that's a no brainer isn't it? And just so you know where I'm coming from, my 2 best friends are escorts and I love and am proud to hang with them. So call me prejudice if you will, but I'm also a client of others, so you be the judge (hmmm, maybe wrong choice of words for this board:).

 

But, what I also see as a little incredulous, is bmore's ( and other clients ) willingness to throw around inflammatory epitaphs like "whore" when they themselves are--you guessed it folks--"whore-mongers". And http://www.dictionary.com says: "Whore"mon`ger\, n. A whoremaster; a lecher; a man who frequents the society of whores."

 

So here we are, a society of fags, some selling and some buying sex, yet some of the buyers are apparently in such denial that they think that buying is better than selling--obviously the seller has something the buyer doesn't and would like to have--so, where does that put the buyer who's calling the names?

 

The difference between RH saying that Richie Rich was a chicken hawk and predator is that Richie Rich's own words condemned himself to that lowly and disparaging affliction--it had nothing to do with the escort-client relationship per se--it had to do with exploiting the very young and defenseless and therefore when RH calls him a chickenhawk and predator, it is no reflection on RH whatsoever or on any other escort on the board--unless they adopt and defend the behavior that was so criticized initially--like you just did bmore! :+

 

Something else that really bothers me here--that is RH's, SD4hire's, and other escorts' willingness to adopt the pejorative (thanks FrancoDiSantisxxx for the vocabulary lesson btw:) term "Whore" as defining themselves and what they do.

 

If whore just meant sex worker that would be one thing, but it has for a long time been encumbered with a lot of christian-judaic baggage and has definitely become a pejorative term taking on a much broader and more derogative meaning--sometimes not even associated with the selling of sex. So, are all escorts "whores" -- NOPE -- I've only met a very very few in many years of being a "whoremonger: So escorts, hold your head a little higher, wouldja? And btw, SD4hire, I don't consider myself a "troll" either LOL. We all have our own reasons for buying sex and companionship--whether it's convenience or 'cause we can get hotter guys with $$ -- we all have our own reasons, and calling us trolls is just stooping to bmore's level and you're better than that

 

Escorts provide a great service that clients use for all sorts of reasons, but clients only degrade themselves and not the escort when they angrily yell "whore" at the escort who has the audacity to say something they disagree with--especially on this board--kinda stupid if you ask me ( I know, no one did )--sorta like shooting yourself in the foot! :+

 

 

 

Flower :*

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Convulsion Junction What's Your Function

 

>>Well Sharon, I offer discounts to those 25 and under, and

>>almost always have. It's on my webpage, you should do some

>>research before you open your big blowjobGiving mouth, ok?

>

>I have never read your webpage and don't have the

>inclination to waste my time as it is probably as convoluted

>as your original post on this thread.

 

 

Two pictures. The one which appears throughout this thread and a similar one. Exceedingly low verbiage. The discount is advertised as plain as the nose on ones face. I went to see the site for the same reason I read these posts and go look at the profiles of the people. Curiosity. To find out more about the person before I comment.

 

 

>If you offer a discount to guys under 25 it's probably

>because as an "over the hill hooker" you get your rocks off

>with younger men. I'm sure it's not out of respect for their

>limited ability to pay.

 

Now, now children. Can't we all just get along?

 

:o

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Amusing but sadly true

 

>I can only make a guess here, but the real problem lies in

>the simple fact of If you cant afford to play with the big

>boys, then dont. If all you can afford is a street hustler,

>Go for it. It makes no sense whatsover to stand in front of

>Macy's, Nordstroms, Saks Fifth Ave screeming and yelling you

>got a shirt for 5 bucks at KMart and that the clothes in

>their stores are a rip-off.

 

And it can actually make both Rod Hagen point and that of those of you who are simply champing at the bait ... literally and figuratively.

 

For wont not to repeat myself please go back up and read my point towards the beginning about power dynamics in relationships. Money is a piece of paper (or metal) assigned a greater value than it deserves. This value has nothing to do with reality. How we treat one another as individuals in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in should be the true measure of reality but unfortunately is not.