Playgirl Anniversary Man Comes Out in Advocate

[VaHawk]

>Well, you've done it again VaHawk. Your

>reply here was totally out of line and one of the most

>negative and demeaning posts I have seen since your mentor FFF

>stopped spewing his trash.

 

I really don't know why you keep saying that FFF is my mentor (I do believe you even accused me one time of being FFF). Pathetic, as I have no where near the panache of FFF nor his comedic style. But I will admit that the mc just hasn't been the same since he left and I do wish he would return.

>

>In fact yours is probably the worse yet. You have become

>personal, condescending and went way beyond the bounds of

>decency--you really went over the deep end on this one -- and

>all over what? Some very general, innocuous remark made to

>the board as a whole? I think your coments were very low rent

>and uncalled for. Shame on YOU.x(

 

Gee, as one of the regular posters here who were all branded as ladies, drunkards, medicated and bitchy old queens with no life I might take that a little bit personal. Seems as most others also were offended, but they're just not as in your face as I am. I bet my response got your attention, huh?, which was the whole point.

 

I really find it funny that you of all people accuse me of being condescending. Read any of your own replies to others that you don't care for?

 

But then again, I really am grateful to you for assuming the self-appointed post of Miss Manners of the message center. I mean, how could I possibly survive without your guidance of what is offensive, what is defensive, what is politically correct and what is allowed to be said and not said. Yet again, Hawk was a bad boy and needed another slap on the wrist and another "shame on you" from Flower doing his Church Lady act.

[Flower]

>Gee, as one of the regular posters here who were all branded

>as ladies, drunkards, medicated and bitchy old queens with no

>life I might take that a little bit personal. Seems as most

>others also were offended, but they're just not as in your

>face as I am. I bet my response got your attention, huh?,

>which was the whole point.

 

.....if the shoe fits, dud :+

[taylorky]

>> and that requires

>>more than the ability to get a hard dick or to spread the

>ass

>>cheeks. And you with your limited education and abilites

>earn

 

 

 

 

> Well, you've done it again VaHawk. Your

>reply here was totally out of line and one of the most

>negative and demeaning posts I have seen since your mentor FFF

>stopped spewing his trash.

>

 

damn flower i don't understand how you can criticize hawk!

 

y'all were insulted by a prostitute.....and that does'nt bother you!!!

 

but you rag on hawk because he lets this "person" know how he (hawk) feels.

 

damn i will never understand the dynamics in the hustler

/client relationship.;(

[Doug69]

>damn i will never understand the dynamics in the hustler

>/client relationship.

 

That's not the only thing you will never understand. In fact, I'd say that everything except the spelling of your name and the alphabet (maybe) belong on that list.

 

Do you at least admit that you are stupid?

[VaHawk]

Taylor, I appreciate your support. I have to agree with not understanding the dynamics of some escort/client relationships. But you know you will probably get flack for using the word hustler.

 

I do believe though, that some clients who post here are into escort worship and as such the escort can insult them, slam them and spit in their faces but God, don't say anything in response, as you may upset the self-deceiving illusion. As for me, to quote STJ "I'm not kissing anyone's ass", especially one who I'm paying 3 digits an hour to be with, but I only speak for myself not others.

 

I also absolutely refuse to delude myself that spending an hour or less engaged in only sex with someone constitutes anything other than prostitution. To whitewash such encounters as anything else is really illusionary and a pathetic attempt at self-denial to own up to the truth. In these situations how could the seller be anything more than a prostitue and the buyer anything more than a john? But as the old adage goes "the truth hurts" but it only hurts the ones who try to deny the absoulteness of it.

 

As for me personally, I face the facts and call them as I see them, always have and always will. I would rather offend your sensibilities than to be untrue to myself.

[VaHawk]

Well, keep voicing your opinion Doug69. But just what do you have against taylorky? I like his youthful zest, his curiousity, his questioning and value his input as a voice of gay youth. I don't always agree with what he says, but I still respect his right to voice his opinion. When I see a post by taylorky, I always click on it first to see what he's got to say. I'm glad he posts here and I hope he doesn't let all the negativity drive him away. Of all the guys who post here, escort and client, he is the one I would most like to meet. I think he is a great kid (no offense intended taylor, but from my vantage point, you are a kid ).

[Flower]

>damn flower i don't understand how you can criticize hawk!

>

>y'all were insulted by a prostitute.....and that does'nt

>bother you!!!

>

>but you rag on hawk because he lets this "person" know how

>he (hawk) feels.

>

>damn i will never understand the dynamics in the hustler

>/client relationship.;(

 

First, I never felt insulted nor threatened by what STJ said AND certainly didn't feel his remarks were aimed at me, so I took NO offense. :+

 

Secondly, and in my opinion much more IMPORTANT, is the fact that if I was insulted, then it makes little difference WHO OR WHAT insulted me--an insult is an insult--from anyone. Your statement "y'all were insulted by a prostitute" is the very essence of what I was saying to Vahawk--you are judging a human being on status--not individual merit--much like saying "all gays are immoral." Whether STJ is a "prostitute" or not has nothing to do with the level of insult.

 

Thirdly, I guess I don't tend to look at human beings as being in "categories" or status or care what they do for a living--I really try to judge people on their individual merit--I've met some fine escorts and a few that I have had in my home and under different circumstances would introduce to friends and family--yet there are some of my clients--so-called "respectable" folk, I guess YOU might say, that I'd never invite to my home nor want to be friends with.

 

People are people no matter what they do for a living, educational background, sexuality, color, religion, etc., and they all have to be judged on individual merit, and Vahawk's trashing of John was just that--trash. If he wants to criticize him for saying something that was insulting to vahawk, then do so, but don't pull out all the stops and include in that trashing, demeaning and insulting epitaphs. If I was to get pissed at your post, it would be like me insulting possibly your race, religion, sexuality or whatever. Hawk went too far and I called him on it--as part of my rebuff, I didn't call him a fagot or dirty computer geek or whatever personal insults I could conger up--I criticized his POST and what he said and still think it was mean spirited.

 

And I think HE is mean spirited--a few weeks ago, in another post, someone was bitching about an escort wanting a picture--vahawk thought that was terrible and suggested making an appointment with the escort, whom he had had NO contact nor knew nor had any problems with personally, and give the guy a phony address or some such thing--and thought that was really funny. he seems to think escorts are second class citizens -- except when he has a hard on I guess--then you can see how he gushes over them on the board. So I guess he's a mean-spirited hypocrit

 

Lastly, I have neither an "escort/client" nor a "hustler/client" relationship with John--never met him, emailed nor talked to him. I've liked some of his posts and he seems like a nice guy--we both have daughters we love--so his post touched a spot for me--but I have no ulterior motive to kiss ass or whatever. i certainly don't have the impression that John is by any means a "hustler," nor have I ever heard anyone refer to him that way--and there is a BIG difference.

 

SO--I hope that answers your question (and that was the short answer) :+

[Doug69]

>Whether STJ is a "prostitute" or not has nothing to

>do with the level of insult.

 

Why do you put the word "prostitute" in quotation marks? That is a device used to indicate thate someone else believes this to be an accurate description, but you do not.

 

Do you doubt that this is what STJ is? It is rather astonishing that so many people here are so desperate to pretend that the very thing for which this forum exists is actually something completely different.

 

Are you really so ashamed of the "escorting" transactions in which you engage that you have to come up with other names for it just to whitewash it and allow yourself to pretend that what you are really doing is not what you are doing? Why are so many "escorts" so afraid of having their work described as what it is?

[Doug69]

>Well, keep voicing your opinion Doug69. But just what do you

>have against taylorky?

 

3 things: (1) the fact that he pathetically claims that any gay person whose political views are different than his, based on that fact and that alone, is necessarily sick and insane and viciously self-hating and must pay guys to shit and piss on him;

 

(2) he comes here and spits out fragmented but emphatic opinions about anything that beeps across his tiny, broken brain, but then refuses to answer questions or respond to any disagreement about what he "wrote"; and

 

(3) his illiteracy and gramatically spastic way of expressing his "thoughts" are irritating.

 

I realize that you like him; you 2 seem to have some sort of Southern bond going, which is fine. I do also think that those who are as young as he claims to be deserves a little more latitude.

 

That's why I'm not on any crusade against taylor or anything; he's way too insignificant for that. He's more like a mosquito to me - whenever I hear him buzzing near me and am annoyed by his noise I just swat at him so that he goes away. It's all in good fun.

[Flower]

lly so ashamed of the "escorting" transactions in

>which you engage that you have to come up with other names for

>it just to whitewash it and allow yourself to pretend that

>what you are really doing is not what you are doing? Why are

>so many "escorts" so afraid of having their work described as

>what it is?

Not at all ashamed nor do I feel prostitution in and of itself is immoral -- likewise, the use of prostitutes.

 

I put it in quotes since it was used by Taylorky in a demeaning manner--as if an insult from a prostitute was more offensive than an insult from a non-prostitute. That simple:+

[Doug69]

>Secondly, and in my opinion much more IMPORTANT, is the fact

>that if I was insulted, then it makes little difference WHO OR

>WHAT insulted me--an insult is an insult--from anyone. Your

>statement "y'all were insulted by a

>prostitute" is the very essence of what I

>was saying to Vahawk--you are judging a human being on

>status--not individual merit--much like saying "all gays are

>immoral."

 

This is a fundmaentally flawed and completely misguided thought.

 

To compare being gay to being a prostitute - on the ground that they are both merely reflective of the "status" of the human being -- is grotesquely convoluted.

 

To speak about attributes comprising a person's "status" is to speak about characteristics intrinsic to who they are, which cannot be readily changed, i.e., race, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. People generally believe it's wrong to "judge" someone based on a person's "status" for precisely this reason - because such attributes are immutable and not chosen and therefore are not fairly subject to attack.

 

Being a prostitute is the opposite of one's "status." It is exclusively about a person's conduct. There is no such thing as instrinsically being a "prostitute" or having the "status" of a prostitute. Prostitution is a behavior, a choice, not a status. One becomes a prostitute only if one chooses to.

 

Judging someone based on their conduct, on their choices, is not only the opposite of how you described it ("judging a human being on their status"); and is not only completely justified; but it is necessary and unavoidable.

 

The only relevant basis we can use for judging someone is their CONDUCT and CHOICES. Choosing to be a prostitute is thus a perfectly valid ground on which to judge someone. You or I or others may not think that it is worthy of condemnation, but others have the absolute right to believe that, as such judgments are based not upon the person's status but the person's behavior.

 

I think you owe little taylor an apology for your false lecture - not that he'll comprehend it, but it is the right thing to do.

[VaHawk]

Not that I could possibly add anything to Doug69's responses but I will respond to your personal attacks on me and I'm glad I can provide you an outlet for your self-moralizing bs.

 

> Vahawk's

>trashing of John was just that--trash.

 

Well I felt his comments were pure trash toward the regular poster of this board, of which I am one. I only trash those who trash me.

 

>but don't pull out all the stops and

>include in that trashing, demeaning and insulting epitaphs.

 

Unlike STJ huh? I do believe he is the one who started trashing first. If you personally did not feel insulted, that's fine, but just because I, and others did feel insulted, does not give you the right to berate us and tell us we are wrong to feel that way and then follow it up with another one of your sanctimonious lectures.

 

>If I was to get pissed at your post, it would be like me

>insulting possibly your race, religion, sexuality or whatever.

 

Well I could not possibly come up with a better response to this than Doug69 did, so I will not try.

>

>And I think HE is mean spirited--

 

Yep, that's me I suppose. Did you miss my big starring moment as one of the Big Blue Meanies in the Yellow Submarine?

 

a few weeks ago, in another

>post, someone was bitching about an escort wanting a

>picture--vahawk thought that was terrible and suggested making

>an appointment with the escort, whom he had had NO contact

>nor knew nor had any problems with personally, and give the

>guy a phony address or some such thing--and thought that was

>really funny.

 

Gee, you are so ready to attack anything that offends your little Miss Manners sensibilites that irony just goes right over your head doesn't it? Oh I forgot, you've already lectured me on that!

 

>he seems to think escorts are second class

>citizens -- except when he has a hard on I guess--then you can

>see how he gushes over them on the board. So I guess he's a

>mean-spirited hypocrit

 

And you seem to think escorts are ideals of virtue beyond reproach and that any nonescort who disagrees or takes offense at what an escort posts are vile creatures not even worthy of third class citizenship. You are totally FUBAR, as I have no disrespect whatsoever about escorts and I think that will bear out in the majority of my posts.

 

You however, have denigrated some escorts, who you have accused of having gotten too big of a head due to the fame they have encountered thru this board or other avenues, just because they were not at your beck and call to come and do you when you had a hard on (well, I suppose you hate to waste that viagra, huh?). How dare they make you, the GREAT Flower schedule in advance, as you knew them when they were nothing and damn it you helped make them. Gee and you accuse me of treating an escort like a piece of property.

 

And I gush over some of the escorts but YOU DON'T??? LOL! If you aren't the biggest HYPOCRITE on this board! x(

 

And I agree with Doug69, you should apologize to taylorky, as did he really deserve one your tiresome didactic posts in reply to his query?

[Flower]

Vahawk--the rest of your post was even more childish than what I cited here, so I omitted it and won't bother responding to it--Actually, I wasn't going to respond to any of it, but then you added exaggeration and untruthfulness to your sins, so thought I'd at least set the record straight, so to speak:+

 

>And you seem to think escorts are ideals of virtue beyond

>reproach and that any nonescort who disagrees or takes offense

>at what an escort posts are vile creatures not even worthy of

>third class citizenship.

 

See hawk--you just don't get it. I don't see any category of people as all this or that--that's not how I think--I form my opinions on an individual--not a class of people or the status of that individual. To say ALL escorts are "ideals of virtue" would be stupid--some may be and others may not be--but it has nothing to do with their status of being an escort!

 

You are totally FUBAR,

 

I had to use dictionary.com for that one--guess you're a lot older than I as that appears to be a W.W.II slang expression for fucked up--whatever dud

 

>as I have no disrespect whatsoever about escorts and I think that will bear

>out in the majority of my posts.

 

....and the minority of your posts where you are disrespectful and denigrating -- um...don't count? Hmmm--guess I didn't know how that worked :+

 

>You however, have denigrated some escorts, who you have

>accused of having gotten too big of a head due to the fame

>they have encountered thru this board or other avenues,

 

Simply not true. First, you don't understand the meaning of the word "denigrate" --i.e., to belittle, minimize or derogate--check dictionary.com at least. To "denigrate" is NOT the same as criticizing -- and I have criticized actions here, but not specific persons. Even harsh criticism of a specific action would NEVER be "denigrating" unless it was associated with a specific, identifiable individual and had the effect of degrading, belittling or defaming, etc., which I haven't done on this board AT ALL nor do I do such in my private or professional life--just not me--sorry!

 

>just because they were not at your beck and call

 

Can I assume you meant "beckon call?" If so, I have never expected anyone to be at my beckon call nor "at my beck and call" for that matter :+-- and it is really stupid of you to say such--anyone who has read my posts know you're off the deep end here and cannot substantiate any of it, and I really challenge you to produce such an inane post--enough said.

 

>to come and do you>when you had a hard on (well, I suppose you hate to >>>waste that viagra, huh?). How dare they make you, the GREAT Flower

>schedule in advance, as you knew them when they were nothing

>and damn it you helped make them. Gee and you accuse me of

>treating an escort like a piece of property.

 

This is so laughable--you can't be serious, right??--you are making a joke here trying to make us all think you suffer from dementia. If you are serious, then I'm embarrassed for you.

[Flower]

Let me say this about that

 

First, "status" does NOT just refer to a person's "characteristics intrinsic to who they are, which cannot be readily changed, race, gender, age,

national origin, sexual orientation, etc. While these things may all be considered "status" they are not exclusive to the definition.

 

Status can be earned, accumulated or stolen and can be constantly changing. Status can be dynamic or static; it can be something you are born with or inherit. Status can be situational. It can be many things, so for you to say my argument is "fundmaentally[sic] fundamentally flawed and completely misguided thought" is very short sighted and only based on your limited, too restrictive, and thus incorrect definition.

 

Being "gay" can be a status as well as being an "escort." you become an escort by doing ACTS, but once done, you have obtained the status of an escort. Status can refer to a condition or standing or relative position to others--it's a very broad term :+

 

But at least you think and articulate good reasoning, unlike your shadow who seems to have adopted you temporarily.

 

Secondly, we judge people all the time on more than actions and conduct--may not be right, but we do. However, my point is this: if you are going to criticize a person who happens to be an escort for an action or conduct unrelated to escorting, then his status as an escort is irrelevant and therefore why throw in the epitaphs of "whore" or "prostitute" as if that is the final nail in the coffin that solidifies your argument?

 

This all started when VAhawk got pissed at John (who I'm sure is sitting back laughing at all this BS from his simple post) and not only criticized his post, which could have been fair comment, but then made personal references to lack of education, prostitution, etc., that had nothing to do with the post.

 

Lastly, I have nothing to apologize to "little" Taylor about--you called him names and stupid--I merely explained my position. Actually, I like TalorKY's posts here as well as the individualistic way he expresses himself and challenges to the status quo--you call him stupid and a mosquito etc.,--who owes who the apology.