Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[Argos]

An eye opening article. Thanks for posting it Chrismac. Until I read it I never knew there were men who actually wanted to become infected.

[Argos]

Deleted message

 

No message

[Guest gentle guy]

Diving In

 

I am loath to descend into this particular snakepit, but what the hell.

 

When I first read Gio's post, I thought that Doug would respond within 12 hours, not only disagreeing with Gio, but also putting him down. My prediction was correct!

 

We all have the right to disagree with someone else's post. However, why does this disagreement have to be expressed in a disrespectful manner? You and VaHawk and Lucky (I have a long memory, lol) and many others here seem to expect ulterior motives from everyone (therefore, the ass-kissing interpretation). I am not that cynical. In my reading of Gio's comment, he is only reiterating what he has said in other posts: that escorts/companions, as the "professionals," bear the greater share of responsibility in the encounter. He did not deny that clients are responsible, nor did he say that clients have no choice. I, for one, see the logic in his opinion. (We could debate free will vs. determinism, but this seems an unlikely venue for that discussion. I suspect that we disagree on the issue, although perhaps not to the degree one might expect.) Gio stated his opinion, but your response to this opinion was largely a ridicule of the PERSON who wrote the post.

 

I do not quite understand your "cognitive dissonance" comment. There is no cognitive dissonance in people condemning barebacking on a site about escorts, nor is there any cognitive dissonance in escorts condemning barebacking--in fact, it makes sense that an escort would condemn such behavior, assuming they do not want a terminal disease. Perhaps you are referring to your own cognitive dissonance?

 

I regret your cynicism, because it makes it difficult for me to take your opinions seriously. (Of course, you may not want them to be taken seriously; you may only wish to inflame and insult.) Never forget that the nature of your posts, your extreme reaction to anyone attempting to be parental or nurturing, and your hatred of clients say much about you are and who you were.

 

I know I have left myself open to the inevitable paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal, but I have already lost that particular cherry. Sigh. :+

[chrismac]

Unbelievable, isn't it? Unfortunately, however, it isn't the first time I've heard or read about this sort of thing. What I used to pass off as nothing more than urban legend, so-called "Conversion Parties" actually exist (though not common) in some of the larger cities in this country.

 

Trixie mentioned in another post on this thread something to the effect that young men don't always operate with complete common sense, especially where sex is concerned. For all the reasons (s)he mentioned, young guys today, with the feelings of invincibility common among youth, combined with typical pressure to "fit in" - engage in such risky behavior. Certainly only a minority actively seek seroconversion, but many others are nonchalant about the risks, and see being ostracized or left out for being "too tight" as a greater risk. Stupid? Yes. Does it happen? Of course. That's what separates youth and inexperience from age and wisdom.

 

Otherwise intelligent young guys are giving in to the temptations of condomless sex as they would to drugs or alcohol. They understand that there are risks involved, they just don't think it will happen to them.

 

True, they are technically adults, and responsible for their own actions. But it would be neither realistic nor compassionate to dismiss all these gay men who err in judgment by stating they get what they deserve.

 

I believe the same holds true for older gay men who perhaps have been closeted and have never seen the horrors of the blackest days of the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. - or even those who have, but for reasons often unknown even to themselves, decide on the moment to make what could turn out to be a monumental mistake. But they don't deserve to die for it.

 

Woulda, shoulda, coulda - the point is - it happens. And the pressure for this type of activity is now on the increase.

 

The article I posted only represents the most extreme end of the spectrum.

[chrismac]

RE: Diving In

 

:*

 

Nicely put.

[Candyman]

Has everyone forgotten STD's. Not only do you need to worry about HIV but what about those nasty little germs that you'll be bringing home.

Ethan's right. Think with your big head not your little one or you'll be looking at in a jar from you hospital bed.

[giovoni]

>Very good point, Douglas. Both parties have to take

>responsibility for their actions, their safety and their

>health. I will never ever bareback (did I make that

>clear enough?), so this thread doesn't apply to me, but I

>agree that it's ridiculous for Gio to say that "escorts share

>most of the blame." Maybe if he had worded it as "escorts who

>tie up or otherwise overpower their clients and rape them

>bareback share most of the blame," then I'd have to agree.

>

 

As I mentioned I've made this opinion before.... I would expect more from you Rick then to not realize the power you have in an appointment when someone hires you. You may have even read this a couple months ago when it was first posted. Since people here have such short memories I'm going to copy it for all to read so they don't think my opinion is generated flippantly or without thought. Some here I expect to have insulting cynical ranting to anything that anyone says but calling something that I think should be obvious to any escort with any modicum of experience ridiculous is surprising coming from you.

 

Anyway here are my previous thoughts on the subject:

 

"I've wrestled with this post in my head for a while, and I know I'm going to take heat for this, but here's a different view then what I've seen so far. It's honestly a different view than I usually hold myself. However, thinking of this issue some has made me believe that there is another interpretation than to just glibly say that clients have to be responsible and throw escorts that want to bareback off them after it has been discussed or assumed that safe sex is the order of the day.

 

As escorts. I believe we have a power relationship over clients similar to priest/altar boy, doctor/patient, or even simply a guide leading hikers through the mountains. We are paid to "escort" men who may be unfamiliar with gay sex through the treacherous world of beginning intimate relationships with others of the same sex. In some instances, we are the only human intimacy our clients have. In such cases, and in the case illustrated here, I think, the client has little experience guiding a sexual encounter, may be naive about what happens, or may not even know how to talk about what he wants (and doesn't want) to happen once the appointment starts.

 

When someone sits on a client's dick bareback, it is an example in many cases of an escort taking advantage of the escort/client relationship, and not really ALL the client's fault. Am I saying it's all the escort's fault? Of course not. Am I saying all clients are naive children who are too stupid to fend for themselves? Of course not.

 

I AM saying that having a client be taken off guard and let the experience happen isn't all that surprising. In my opinion, the escort must shoulder most of the culpability in this sort of situation. I believe it's our responsibility to hold to stated practices of safe sex no matter what a client seems to think when the moment of penetration comes. Saying that you have a good feeling about a client, that you don't think he poses you a danger, even if you're sure he IS negative and not going to infect you as an escort, is no excuse to escort them through a sexual experience that leads to guilt, worry, uncertainty, and anxiety."

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[Doug69]

RE: Diving In

 

>I am loath to descend into this particular snakepit, but what

>the hell.

 

Right. Usually you confine yourself to the lofty, elevated heights of discussing prostitutes and how hot their cocks are. I'm sure it was painful for someone as pure and clean as you to have to lower yourself into this discussion.

 

>When I first read Gio's post, I thought that Doug would

>respond within 12 hours, not only disagreeing with Gio, but

>also putting him down. My prediction was correct!

 

Wow - congratulations! This was quite an achievement, and you seem appropriately excited about how clairvoyant you are!

 

>We all have the right to disagree with someone else's post.

>However, why does this disagreement have to be expressed in a

>disrespectful manner?

 

Oh, look what we have here - another person who writes a post attacking someone personally, speculating about their mental health, and chiding them for their bad motives - and then, IN THE VERY SAME POST, sermonizes against posts that contain speculations about motives and that are "expressed in a disrespectful manner".

 

I have never seen a forum with so many people who reek of such blatant, self-contradictory hypocrisy. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS SICKNESS IN YOURSELF????

 

You and VaHawk and Lucky (I have a long

>memory, lol) and many others here seem to expect ulterior

>motives from everyone (therefore, the ass-kissing

>interpretation). I am not that cynical.

 

Is that why you go on to speculate about my motives in what I post and suggest that my only intent is to inflame - i.e., is that why you go on to do exactly that which you claim you don't do?

 

And I think it's great that you keep a list of who is Naughty and who is Nice. What's your favorite color?

 

>Gio stated his opinion, but your response

>to this opinion was largely a ridicule of the PERSON who wrote

>the post.

 

Given that I have no idea who "Gio" is, and that the only post of his which I ever recall reading is the one in this thread to which I responded, the notion that I would "ridicule the PERSON" is really silly. I know this is difficult to understand for escort-worshippers, but I actually don't give a fuck about Gio, and have no interest in helping or harming him.

 

But the reason that I come to this Board and spend time posting here is becasue there are things here that are so extreme and twisted that you can't find them anywhere else and they are very interesting. I respond to the things that interest me.

 

The "idea" that an escort would come and say that it is HIS responsibility to protect the client and to make sure the client doesn't do harmful things - and even go so far as to BLAME ESCORTS when clients bareback - is such a stupid, ridiculous, inane idea that I would never spend time debating it. It's like debating whether the Earth is round. It's boring, pointless, and uninteresting.

 

But what IS interesting to me is the question of what could actually prompt a person to say something so inane in public. I am interested in understanding what would motivate a prostitute to make the painfully stupid and morally twisted claim that he has more responsibility for the actions of his adult clients than the adult client does.

 

And because THAT issue - the one of motive - is interesting to me, that's the one I wrote about. My belief was that the motive was likely a desire to sell himself by endearing himself to clients on the ground that he is so mature, responsible, caring - so that sappy idiots like you who want a Daddy in an escort, or who want to rent a "Gentleman" so that you can pretend that you're not actually engaged in a prostitution transaction, will think: "Hey, that Gio is a great guy - he takes responsibility for his clients."

 

Having read the post Gio just wrote in disagreement to Rick's brilliantly reasoned post, I actually now see that there is likely a different motive in play. I think that he is ashamed of being a prostitute, and so wants to see himself in a more elevated light. Hence, he is now not only a prostitute, but a Figure of High Moral Responsibility - who not only fucks his clients' assholes for $150, but also looks out for their moral well-being and health as well. Not just a prostitute, but a Priest, Doctor and Safe Sex Counselor all rolled into one elevated, impressive package.

 

That's why I wrote about his motives, because THAT is the issue that is interesting to me. The only one engaging in "personal attacks" or trying to "ridicule THE PERSON" is you - see your post that you wrote if you have any doubts.

[Doug69]

>As escorts. I believe we have a power relationship over

>clients similar to priest/altar boy, doctor/patient, or even

>simply a guide leading hikers through the mountains.

 

Oh, my God - he actually believes that being a prostitute is analgous to being a Priest or a Doctor, and that being a prostitute puts him in a superior position where he is responsible for the "client's" moral health, physical health, and spiritual well-being - all because he's a prostitute.

 

And the most amazing thing is that, in this forum, filled with people eager to pretend that prostitution is an Elevated High Art, this notion won't strike most people as odd or bizarre in any way, but rather, will be praised as a sensitive and insightful recognition of the Important, Elevated Role of Escorts in the Spiritual Gay Community.

 

GOD I LOVE THIS PLACE!!!!!!!!!!

 

We are

>paid to "escort" men who may be unfamiliar with gay sex

>through the treacherous world of beginning intimate

>relationships with others of the same sex.

 

No, actually, you are paid to get naked and to fuck asshole and to suck cock. Renting a prostitute's cock for an hour is not an "intimate relationship" - beginning or otherwise - and it's just fucking amazing how many people here take seriously the idea that it is.

[woodlawn]

>>That's why I find it odd that some of them think it's

>>appropriate for them to lecture others on the evils of

>>barebacking.

 

>True enough, Woodlawn! We all have our list of "Ifs, Ands and

>Butts" that we measure the potential risk of HIV infection.

>But it must be admitted that the surest, most well documented

>way to HIV infection is from one man's semen into another

>man's torn rectal lining.

 

And there is a risk of exposing someone to the virus that way even if the top uses a condom. You're not in the position of saying, "My way of doing things is quite safe, yours risks transmitting a deadly disease, so adopt my way." You're saying, "My way of doing things risks transmitting a deadly disease, yours is even more risky, so adopt my way; but even if you do, you'll still be risking transmission of a deadly disease in order to satisfy your physical urges." To someone who isn't taking any such risk there probably doesn't seem to be much difference between your position and that of the person who is barebacking.

[Uncle Bill]

Have you ever connected with an escort with anything other than your cock?

[Doug69]

>Have you ever connected with an escort with anything other

>than your cock?

 

Sure - There are a couple of escorts I've seen with whom I've ended up being friends, socializing, etc. But I don't pay them for any of that. I only pay them for use of their cocks, assholes, mouths, etc. That's what the transaction is about.

 

If you have doubts about that, check out the forms here that one fills out when reviewing escorts - lots of information about their cock size, sexual inclinations, bodies, etc. - nothing about their political views or spiritual maturity or the depth of their wisdom. Gee, why is that?

 

And why does it matter if escorts are "hot" - why would most people never hire an escort without seeing lots of pictures of them to make sure they are sexually arousing? Do you think it might be because they are hiring them to have sex with them and to get their cocks hard, rather than because - as Gio thinks - they are searching for Zen-like wisdom and guidance from superior beings who are responsible for our well-being?

 

Most people don't require multiple naked photographs before seeing a doctor or a priest or a spiritual counselor, but they do of an escort. How come that is?

 

One thing I certainly don't pay a prostitute for is to "guide" me in my spiritual growth, or to counsel me in my sexual evolution, OR TO BE MY PARENTAL GUARDIAN TO MAKE SURE I MAKE GOOD CHOICES IN MY LIFE. And I can't imagine that any functioning adult turns to an escort for such things.

 

Do you see an escort as performing that function for you?

Do you think that if you make bad choices during your "date" with an escort, that it's the escort's fault, because it's his responsibility, as the one with the Great Sexual Wisdom and Buddah-inspired Experience, to guide you and to protect you from yourself?

 

I mean, even to ask the question is to induce vomit, and yet that's actually how Gio - and how his pitiful admirers - see him and "escorting" generally.

[woodlawn]

>Oh, my God - he actually believes that being a

>prostitute is analgous to being a Priest or a Doctor, and that

>being a prostitute puts him in a superior position where he is

>responsible for the "client's" moral health, physical health,

>and spiritual well-being - all because he's a prostitute.

 

>And the most amazing thing is that, in this forum, filled with

>people eager to pretend that prostitution is an Elevated High

>Art, this notion won't strike most people as odd or bizarre in

>any way,

 

>it's just fucking amazing how many people here take seriously

>the idea that it is.

 

 

It seems to me you're making Gio's point for him. You think it's ridiculous that some take seriously the idea that a prostitute is in a power position (and therefore a position of responsibility) with respect to clients. And you're amazed at how many there are who take that idea seriously. But that is exactly the point. No matter how silly you (and I) think it is, it happens to be the case that there are clients who take seriously a prostitute's role in that regard, and the fact that they take it seriously gives the prostitute the power they believe he has.

 

Truly (and I think you know this), some percentage of a gay escort's clients are inexperienced at gay sex (or any sex), inexperienced in the ways of prostitution, or just so timorous in general that they are willing to let the other party take the lead. With that sort of client the escort really does have power. The only other question is whether you think having power gives a person the duty to use it responsibly.

[woodlawn]

RE: And another thing...

 

>Maybe if you concentrate really hard, you will see the rather

>obvious difference. If you smoke while you pump gas, an

>explosion may occur which may harm others. Therefore, it's

>other people's business if you do it.

 

>If you take cum in your ass, however, other people won't get

>HIV; only you will. Therefore, it's nobody's business if you

>do it.

 

That is utterly ridiculous, as I've explained in other threads. If you believe that the spread of HIV is no one's business but that of the people infected, you obviously have read nothing of the effects that the epidemic is having (and will eventually have) in countries like South Africa, Uganda and one or two others in which a double-digit percentage of the population may be infected. If the fear of HIV that caused the term "safe sex" to become an everyday part of the American vocabulary wanes, as it seems to be doing, the same thing could happen here.

 

>Generally, adults don't need to be told to refrain from

>sticking sharp objects into their eyes; only children do. One

>of the defining differences between adults and children is

>that only the latter need a Parental Figure telling them what

>risks to take and not to take; the former need no Parental

>Figure.

 

Actually, the defining difference between adults and children is a sense of responsibility for the effects of one's actions on oneself and others. "I'm going to do whatever I want whenever I want to and no one should ever say 'No' to me" is the attitude of a child. An adult understands the need to subdue his desires if acting on them would do harm to himself or other members of the community.

[Doug69]

>It seems to me you're making Gio's point for him. . . No matter >how silly you (and I) think it is, it happens to be the case that >there are clients who take seriously a prostitute's role in that >regard, and the fact that they take it seriously gives the >prostitute the power they believe he has.

 

In virtually every single interaction of any kind, there is some power dynamic. And I have no doubt that in some prostitution transactions, the prostitute has a degree of power over the client - perhaps because the client is intimidated, or scared, or a nervous or lacks confidence about sex, or is just generally a weak and impotent human being scared of his own shadow, especially where sex is involved.

 

I would say, though, that it's much more common that in prostitution, it's the client who has power over the prostitute, because - as is true for most transactions where one is paying for services and the other is being paid for services -- the prostitute needs and wants the money, and is eager to please the client and do what the client wants in order to get more money. That, after all, is the prostitute's job - to do what the client wants and to sexually please the client in order to get money.

 

If anything, the most analogous relationship is employer-employee, where the client is the employer and the prostitute the employee. And while it's true that there are occasions where an employee comes to have power over an employer (because, say, he's indispensable, or the employer otherwise fears the employee), far more often than not, it's the employer who has power over the employee.

 

So, are there times when a prostitute has some power over a client? Sure. But, given the above dynamic, it's far more often the case that the client has power over the prostitute. That is one reason why this notion that the Prostitute's role is as Doctor, Priest, Guardian and Spiritual Guide, and therefore, the Prostitute has primary responsibility for bad things that clients do during the prostitution visit is so absurd.

 

One last thing: although, as you point out, there are plenty of people in this forum who drool with agreement and swoon with worship any time a prostitute speaks here (they are the same people who, while trashing every public institution from churches to political leaders, express outrage that anyone would dare speak ill of a prostitute), I don't believe that they actually care what the prostitute is saying when they express agreement. They are just trying to please the prostitute in order to get sexual attention and in order to convince themselves that prostitutes are not merely whores, but are Saints Who Emanate Great Wisdom.

 

So the fact that they stick their tongues out and pant like dogs every time a prostitute graces this Board doesn't mean the prostitute has real power over them, and more to the point, it certainly would not absolve them of responsibility for things they do with prostitutes. It just means that they come to this Forum to feel good about themselves by idealizing prostitutes and getting them to pay attention to them by gooing reverence for them and throwing hissy fits whenever one speaks ill of a prostitute.

[Doug69]

RE: And another thing...

 

>That is utterly ridiculous, as I've explained in other

>threads. If you believe that the spread of HIV is no one's

>business but that of the people infected, you obviously have

>read nothing of the effects that the epidemic is having (and

>will eventually have) in countries like South Africa, Uganda

>and one or two others in which a double-digit percentage of

>the population may be infected.

 

And as I've explained in other threads, this thinking makes everything you do - from what you eat to where you go to what recreational activities you engage in - everyone else's business.

 

The fact is that poor diet and lack of exercise causes far more health problems, and far more health costs, than barebacking. If what you do in your bedroom is now everyone's business based on this "health" rationale, then even more so is what you eat and whether you exercise.

 

>If the fear of HIV that

>caused the term "safe sex" to become an everyday part of the

>American vocabulary wanes, as it seems to be doing, the same

>thing could happen here.

 

OK - then let's just make sodomy or homosexuality illegal. After all, everyone knows that if you banned sodomy or homosexuality, we'd have far less of an incidence of HIV transmission. Given that you believe that this is everyone's concern, how could you possibly argue that such laws are not just wrong, but illegitimate - or do you think so?

 

>Actually, the defining difference between adults and children

>is a sense of responsibility for the effects of one's actions

>on oneself and others. "I'm going to do whatever I want

>whenever I want to and no one should ever say 'No' to me" is

>the attitude of a child. An adult understands the need to

>subdue his desires if acting on them would do harm to himself

>or other members of the community.

 

You use a semantic sleight of hand to make this argument. An adult has every right to take whatever risks he wants if the risk is one which is to himself, as opposed to others.

 

That's why we don't throw skydivers in jail, or imprison those who shove junk food in their mouths and never exercise and then get strokes. Do you think we should?

[Guest ncm2169]

Hmmm -- no post yet from Aaron Lawrence. ;-)

 

If he thinks the lunatic fringe here is helping him defend his decision to include bare-backing scenes in his videos, he oughta think again. :* Especially since the lunatic fringe in this case seems to have a population of one. }(

[Doug69]

>Hmmm -- no post yet from Aaron Lawrence. ;-)

>

>If he thinks the lunatic fringe here is helping him defend his

>decision to include bare-backing scenes in his videos, he

>oughta think again. :* Especially since the lunatic fringe

>in this case seems to have a population of one. }(

 

You obviously haven't noticed this, but nobody in this thread is talking about Aaron Lawrence's videos except for you. You're obssessed with him, and constantly bring him up, because you need someone to make you feel better and less youth-corrupting since you pay 18 year-olds to have sex wtih you and because you promote 19 year-old prostitutes on the Internet (see e.g., JasoninMpls).

 

And it kills you that he recognizes that your irrelevance makes it dumb for him to respond to you. But you'll have to accept that, because it's reality.

 

One last thing - not responding to my posts as a means of proving that you're not affected by what I write isn't very convincing if, as is the case, you reference me in every post that you write here. I think it would be a lot healthier to just go ahead and admit how deeply entrenched I have become in your core rather than to expend so much energy pretending that you're not bothered.

[VaHawk]

Thank GOD!! I thought he had said Taylor had a wide empty space between his ears. I like taylorky and am glad I read the comment wrong.

 

I really don't understand ncm's obsession and outrage about Aaron Lawrence making barebacking porn flicks. Obviously a lot of people want to see it and a lot of people also engage in barebacking. IMO, this isn't any more morally reprehensible than providing and/or promoting 18 yo twinks to a market of 60 yo men.

 

Just because an adult sees an act depicted in film or on stage, does not imply that the person is going to go out and engage in such acts. It's not like these films are being shown in health class in high school.

 

Everyone involved, supposedly is an adult. I just don't understand those people who feel that adults need other adults to protect them from their decisions. ncm's obsession with this point is right up there with Flower's moralizing and preaching.

 

All of this moralizing on a board dedicated to the hiring of young men for the purpose of sex by men, mostly decades older than the escorts being hired is truly incomprehensible. Prostitution is illegal and immoral in most societies so why the morally superior attitude?

 

Why should Aaron Lawrence reply to ncm's posts? He isn't doing anything illegal and doesn't have to justify himself to anyone.

 

ncm's insistence that Aaron respond, reminds me of the pathetic person in one of today's reviews (forgot the escort) who wonders why the escort doesn't reply to his emails after he sent the escort an email after their encounter asking for proof that the escort is positive. People really need to start acting like adults which means that you need to take responsibilty for your decisions, acts and morals and STOP your damn moralizing against others because they do things you don't agree with and to realize that adults don't need you to supervise them.

[woodlawn]

RE: And another thing...

 

>The fact is that poor diet and lack of exercise causes far

>more health problems, and far more health costs, than

>barebacking. If what you do in your bedroom is now everyone's

>business based on this "health" rationale, then even more so

>is what you eat and whether you exercise.

 

Your argument is utterly fallacious. The fact is that the deleterious effects of poor diet and lack of exercise can be reversed by many different methods. The effects of HIV infection cannot. Once you've got it, you've got it.

 

 

>OK - then let's just make sodomy or homosexuality illegal.

>After all, everyone knows that if you banned sodomy or

>homosexuality, we'd have far less of an incidence of HIV

>transmission.

 

"Everyone knows" bullshit. The fact is that the vast majority of people in the world who are infected with HIV are heterosexual men and women who were exposed in a manner having nothing to do with homosexual intercourse. HIV positive gay American men are a small and atypical minority of a much larger group.

 

>You use a semantic sleight of hand to make this argument. An

>adult has every right to take whatever risks he wants if the

>risk is one which is to himself, as opposed to others.

 

Says who? Stating that someone "has a right" to do something is a conclusion, not an argument. A "right" is nothing more than an agreement that members of a given community make with each other about how they're going to treat each other in a certain situation. And our society has never embraced the kind of "right" you are proposing. If we had, laws banning the purchase of psychoactive drugs in most situations wouldn't exist.

 

>That's why we don't throw skydivers in jail, or imprison those

> who shove junk food in their mouths and never exercise and

>then get strokes. Do you think we should?

 

But why is it that most states still ban the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes? Why do many cities ban smoking in certain places even if the smoker is entirely alone? In what way do those actions pose a risk to someone other than the actor? Clearly you are not giving an accurate picture of our society's attitude toward public health issues.

[woodlawn]

>In virtually every single interaction of any kind, there is

>some power dynamic. And I have no doubt that in some

>prostitution transactions, the prostitute has a degree of

>power over the client - perhaps because the client is

>intimidated, or scared, or a nervous or lacks confidence about

>sex, or is just generally a weak and impotent human being

>scared of his own shadow, especially where sex is involved.

 

Agreed.

 

>I would say, though, that it's much more common that in

>prostitution, it's the client who has power over the

>prostitute, because - as is true for most transactions where

>one is paying for services and the other is being paid for

>services --

 

As I have pointed out many times on this board, there are no experts when it comes to prostitution of the kind discussed here. None of us has empirical data to support the kind of generalization you are making, so none of us can know whether it's accurate or not. Each of us can only rely on his own experience and the experiences he's been told about by others, meaning that each of us (or all of us on this board put together) has knowledge of only a small minority of transactions of this type. It's hardly an adequate foundation on which to make such a sweeping statement.

 

>If anything, the most analogous relationship is

>employer-employee, where the client is the employer and the

>prostitute the employee.

 

But prostitution is not an employer/employee relationship. It's a criminal conspiracy, in which two people engage in a business transaction that is prohibited by law. Each knows that the other is guilty of a crime, and neither wants his participation revealed. So the dynamic between the two is nothing like that in an employer/employee relationship.

 

>One last thing: although, as you point out, there are

>plenty of people in this forum who drool with agreement and

>swoon with worship any time a prostitute speaks here (they are

>the same people who, while trashing every public institution

>from churches to political leaders, express outrage that

>anyone would dare speak ill of a prostitute),

 

That's very well put.

 

>I don't believe

>that they actually care what the prostitute is saying when

>they express agreement. They are just trying to please the

>prostitute in order to get sexual attention and in order to

>convince themselves that prostitutes are not merely whores,

>but are Saints Who Emanate Great Wisdom.

 

Yes, that is true. Just look at the most recent thread by Dax what's-his-name in the Deli section. A bunch of the usual ass-kissers are falling all over themselves to express outrage at the way the poor kid was treated by his mean old client.

 

>So the fact that they stick their tongues out and pant like

>dogs every time a prostitute graces this Board

 

I have to compliment you here -- an excellent description.

 

>doesn't mean

>the prostitute has real power over them, and more to the

>point, it certainly would not absolve them of responsibility

>for things they do with prostitutes. It just means that they

>come to this Forum to feel good about themselves by idealizing

>prostitutes and getting them to pay attention to them by

>gooing reverence for them and throwing hissy fits whenever one

>speaks ill of a prostitute.

 

I have to admit you've got a point here, a definite point!

[giovoni]

>Oh, my God - he actually believes that being a

>prostitute is analgous to being a Priest or a Doctor, and that

>being a prostitute puts him in a superior position where he is

>responsible for the "client's" moral health, physical health,

>and spiritual well-being - all because he's a prostitute.

 

Actually I only mentioned and certainly clarified during the course of the post that we have a responsibility to practice safe sex with our clients, regardless of what they will go along with during the course of an appointment. This relates to preserving their physical health only, and a limited part of it at that. I make no claims regarding moral or spiritual superiority nor do I ever offer advice in this area. It occasionally happens that we are the only way our clients have sex and the only knowledge of sexual etiquette or practice that they have. In that way some of them trust us to guide the encounter. Because of this I believe we must be strict about safe sex and NEVER offer to bareback. You've read a great deal more into my post then I put there and I realize that if you quote certain phrases 5 or 6 words at a time you can probably make my post say whatever you want and that's fine. It shows you pay attention at church.

 

>And the most amazing thing is that, in this forum, filled with

>people eager to pretend that prostitution is an Elevated High

>Art, this notion won't strike most people as odd or bizarre in

>any way, but rather, will be praised as a sensitive and

>insightful recognition of the Important, Elevated Role of

>Escorts in the Spiritual Gay Community.

 

I'm not sure where this comes from. I have no role in the spiritual gay community and if I ever did I would probably by offended.

 

In architecture schools one of the greatest and most interesting arguments is whether something is an art or skill. I personally don't believe that escorting is an art but more of a skill. I certainly wouldn't call it an elevated high art, though anyone who needs to attach those adjectives to the word 'art' probably doesn't have much familiarity with art anyway. Another thread by more interested people would probably be facinating debating whether escorting is an art or skill. Regardless, my post wasn't intended to add anything to this debate and introducing spiritual leadership and elevated high art in relation to escorting from my post is tangential at best.

 

 

>GOD I LOVE THIS PLACE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Me too.

 

>No, actually, you are paid to get naked and to fuck asshole

>and to suck cock. Renting a prostitute's cock for an hour is

>not an "intimate relationship" - beginning or otherwise - and

>it's just fucking amazing how many people here take seriously

>the idea that it is.

 

You've never hired me, you never will, and you have no business extrapolating what I'm paid for. Sure there are clients who use my cock to get them off leave and think nothing more of the encounter until the next time, and they aren't disappointed. Others are exactly as I've described above. I'm certain that most escorts have a mix of these sorts of clients at some point in their careers.

 

In a later post you mention that you 'suspect' that escorts and me in particular say certain things to set ourselves apart.

Though the escorts that post here surely enjoy the forum and the opportunity to post we all know that clients are here as well. Any escort that claims otherwise is lying or being disingenuous at best. This forum offers escorts a venue of free advertising and in the course of posting I DO hope that I set myself apart somehow. Though this post was not, as you suggested, meant to make clients say 'that Gio is a great guy.' People on this board have had about 120 opportunities to make that deduction before. This post shows more that I realize what my responsibilities are, not that I'm a spiritual leader, or a moral authority, or in any way superior to (most) others on this board.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[Guest ncm2169]

Gio, you're preaching to the choir. }(

 

Ignore the tin-eared altar boy reject who only wants attention. :+

[axebahia]

RE: Barebacking trends from London

 

I posted this in the European section, but Glutes suggested re-posting this here.

 

Gay men in HIV concern

By Jonathan Amos

BBC News Online science staff, in Salford

 

Some disaffected gay men in London are deliberately exposing themselves to the HIV virus in the belief that it will give them a "badge" of belonging, a researcher has claimed.

 

The claim was made by researcher Dr Melissa Parker, a medical anthropologist at Brunel University.

 

Parker is studying sexual networks and HIV transmission in the capital and says anecdotal evidence from in-depth interviews is revealing deeply disturbing information about some individuals' behaviour.

 

She says traditional safe sex messages are failing to reach these vulnerable men and the authorities appear reluctant to address their problems head on.

 

Multiple partners

 

This could be because their sexual practices if discussed openly are likely to shock mainstream society and promote homophobia.

 

These activities involve visiting so-called backrooms in pubs and other venues where men can engage in unprotected sex with multiple partners.

 

Dr Parker told the British Association science festival that several hundred men could pass through these backrooms each day, with some individuals having sex with 30 to 40 partners on any one visit.

 

"The prevalence of HIV in the UK among men who have sex with other men continues to rise and, in part, this can be attributed to the fact that HIV is being transmitted with a deliberate recklessness in the backrooms of London's pubs, clubs and saunas."

 

Controversially, she claimed some men were deliberately trying to catch HIV in their search for identity.

 

Soft data

 

"There is a significant number of men who struggle with being gay," Dr Parker told the BBC. "They long to belong. They can't help putting themselves in vulnerable situations where they might acquire the virus.

 

"There is a tendency for some men to say 'now I'm HIV positive, I am truly gay'. They want to get into that caring more supportive world and the acquisition of a diagnosis is obviously going to help them do that."

 

Dr Parker conceded she had no solid data to back up this claim - only the comments of many gay men she had spoken to during long interviews conducted over a period of years.

 

She said there was an urgent need to develop an effective intervention strategy that made unsafe sex in backrooms unacceptable and unavailable.

 

Commenting, the Aids charity the Terrence Higgins Trust said it was deeply sceptical about Dr Parker's assertions.

 

It said the Brunel researcher had no real evidence to support her remarks and their only effect would be to increase prejudice against gay men.

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3095666.stm

 

Published: 2003/09/10 03:57:32 GMT

[Guest Bitchboy]

All of this would be sad if it weren't so damn funny. These two continue to battle as if anyone who regularly comes here actually believes either ever has had a caring thought about anyone other than themselves.