Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[woodlawn]

> Part

>>of growing up is being able to focus on other things besides

>>the gratification of one's own immediate desires and look at

>>issues from points of view other than one's own. Try it

>>sometime.

 

>Thank you for your response.

 

Don't mention it.

 

> I'll try that focusing on things other than my own

>gratification that you suggested. I'll let you know how it

>goes. Does reading 90 some posts on the topic of barebacking

>(a practice in which I don't engage) qualify?.

 

Not really. Try this simple test: can you point to any post you've ever created on this message board that acknowledges there is some merit in a position on some issue that is different from your position? If the answer is "No," you might ask yourself why that is the case.

[woodlawn]

>Thank you, Woodlawn. Glad to see we agree on something.

 

I'm sure we agree about a lot of things. Who could possibly deny that barebacking poses a public health problem at a time when there is an STD that is deadly and incurable? And does it really make sense for any society to allow some of its members to try to make money by encouraging others to do things that exacerbate a serious public health problem? Those are valid points.

 

But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I and other johns do also poses a public health problem. To me, the argument that the problem we and escorts pose by our promiscuous behavior doesn't matter because there are other people whose behavior is even more problematic is ridiculous. How defensive does one have to be about one's involvement in prostitution to make such a silly argument? Pretty damn defensive.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>One would expect to find people here who believe that adults have >the right to gratify themselves however they see fit, and ought not >be constrained by things like moral condemnation or family and >health constraints when pursuing sexual gratification. That, after

>all, is what prostitution is all about.

 

Maybe in the past, but what you're missing is the fact that prostitution as you used to know it is changing, and this website is part of the sexual culture that is changing it -- for the better, in my opinion. This site is to a large degree predicated on the notion that there are ethical ways and unethical ways to conduct oneself as an escort. Indeed, the fact that we have a category of prostitution known as "escorting" is not strictly just to provide a shaky legal fig leaf or a euphemism to help people destigmatize their activities, though, to be sure, it does serve that function for many people. There are legitimate reasons beyond class and status issues why people now distinguish escorts from hustlers. We DON'T all have to become nihilists once we've participated in prostitutions; it DOES matter how people behave; there ARE right ways and wrong ways for escorts and clients to treat each other; there ARE honest escorts and dishonest escorts; there ARE good clients and bad clients; one SHOULD take health constraints into consideration; there ARE such things as reputations and an escort's CAN be damaged by allegations of barebacking, scamming, lying, even comparatively minor offenses like clockwatching. This transformation is flawed, far from complete and probably only in its infancy, but it is already the case that it doesn't make sense any more to speak in the kinds of broad, sweeping, relentlessly negative denunciations, even for the purpose of accusing someone of hypocrisy.

 

Think about it. Who NEEDS to have ethics pertaining to barebacking more than promiscuous people? It's not even an ISSUE for virgins and monogamous couples. Being promiscuous NECESSITATES responsible sexual behavior, and to speak as though responsibility has by definition already been abandoned is worse than idle.

 

>And yet, remarkably, and fascinatingly (it's why I find coming

>here so entertaining), one finds exactly the opposite.

>In this forum, one finds more frequent sermonizing, moral

>condemnation, and declarations of sinful behavior than one

>would find in a Baptist Church on Sunday morning.

 

Having been forced to attend a Baptist Church on many a Sunday morning by the people you think I should have consulted about my sex life when I was eighteen, I can assure you that's not the case. However, in any arena where ethical issues come up you're going to see allegations of unethical conduct.

 

>The people here have created an incredibly complex and righteous >moral code surrounding "proper behaviors" when it comes to

>prostitution and virtually every other sexual matter, and

>whenever sexual behavior which they don't like is discussed,

>you feel like you're in a room with a bunch of mini-Pat

>Robertson clones providing running commentary on an orgy. The

>fire and brimstone that pours down is a sight to behold.

 

I'll be the first to agree that some people get pretty shrill -- I'll even concede that I thought that some of NCM's posts about Aaron Lawrence were pretty shrill. But it's not hypocritical for people who participate in an industry to find fault with how some people in that industry behave. Aaron was probably ripe for a certain amount of target practice because he is, correctly, in my view, widely seen as one of the people who helped raise the bar and popularize notions of there being right ways and wrong ways to do escorting. One admirable example is his advocacy of escorts' reporting their income and paying their taxes, which I support and practice myself. So when he started making barebacking videos, it's not surprising, and probably not entirely inappropriate, that he was singled out for criticism; it was merely paralleling what you see in other business cultures -- when a "socially responsible" company is accused of any kind of misbehavior it pilloried twice as brutally. (That said, on the whole I still think he's done more good with his contributions to the changes in the profession than actual harm with his barebacking videos. But the real debate is about the effect of images on behavior -- not whether someone who hires escorts should be allowed to object to barebacking videos -- and there are valid points to be made on both sides.)

 

>At least insofar as I've seen, woodlawn's point is never that

>prostitution is bad and immoral and dirty and evil and should

>be banned. Rather, it's that the same things which these

>Lecturers say about whatever their target happens to be

>applies equally to prostitution.

>

>This is not a complex or difficult-to-understand distinction.

 

No, but it's a phony one. There are, however, genuine and meaningful distinctions between how people conduct themselves when participating in prostitution. That's what Woodlawn consistently ignores when he manages to bring practically every conversation around to his never-ending "critique" of prostitution. As have you, in this thread.

 

>And I've seen your diary and your postings here and know that

>you are not stupid. That is why I genuinely believe - and I

>say this not to be insulting or to degrade your contributions,

>but because I think it's the only thing that explains your

>refusal to acknowledge this distinction - that you are very

>sensitive, given what you do, to anything that smacks of

>condemnations of escorting, and so when woodlawn makes this

>argument, you only see one side of the equation ("Prostitution

>is x, y and z") and don't see the other side of it ("and so,

>too, is the activity you are relentlessly condemning, so how

>can you, as a prostitute or john, condemn it?").

 

Oh, I see his facile equation; I just don't buy into it. But thanks for that patronizing explanation of why I stubbornly persist in (gasp) having my own opinion! I know that you are not stupid either. I think you are the one who is failing to see distinctions, which is why is why you find something ironic that isn't: the fact that people on the message board of a website devoted to the idea that it DOES matter how you conduct yourself in the sex industry would criticize someone's behavior that they didn't approve of.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I'm sure we agree about a lot of things. Who could possibly

>deny that barebacking poses a public health problem at a time

>when there is an STD that is deadly and incurable? And does

>it really make sense for any society to allow some of its

>members to try to make money by encouraging others to do

>things that exacerbate a serious public health problem? Those

>are valid points.

 

Then why are you calling NCM a hypocrite for raising valid points because he hires escorts?

 

>But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I and

>other johns do also poses a public health problem. To me, the

>argument that the problem we and escorts pose by our

>promiscuous behavior doesn't matter because there are other

>people whose behavior is even more problematic is ridiculous.

 

NO ONE has made that argument. I'm saying that it DOES matter, that it's not hypocritical for promiscuous people who practice safer sex to criticize promiscuous people who don't --- because, after all, both groups are promiscuous -- anymore than it would be hypocritical for people who skydive with parachutes to criticize people who skydive without them.

[taylorky]

it's not hypocritical for promiscuous people who

>practice safer sex to criticize promiscuous people who don't

>--- because, after all, both groups are promiscuous -- anymore

>than it would be hypocritical for people who skydive with

>parachutes to criticize people who skydive without them.

 

 

the best so far.this is so simple even a dipshit should be able to understand it>>>not directed to woodlawn he is far from a dipshit<<<

 

anyway we do not buy/sell sex,are not promiscuous,do not perform anal sex in any of it's forms; and we believe that anyone that participates in unprotected sex with strangers is an idiot,furthermore anyone that causes another to have unprotected sex by force or reward ..........is a scumbag

[Doug69]

>NO ONE has made that argument. I'm saying that it DOES

>matter, that it's not hypocritical for promiscuous people who

>practice safer sex to criticize promiscuous people who don't

>--- because, after all, both groups are promiscuous -- anymore

>than it would be hypocritical for people who skydive with

>parachutes to criticize people who skydive without them.

 

But that WOULD be hypocritical - and totally incoherent. Many people, including me, believe that people who sky dive are taking stupid, inane risks - risks which are not only stupid and inane but also quite selfish if others (such as spouses or children) depend upon them for their well-being. And it's all for a moment's worth of a thrill.

 

I have had such discussions with these individuals before and their response is always the same: namely, they want to live a risk-seeking life and believe that part of the fun is the risk, and the more risk the better. How, then, could such individuals (those who sky dive with a parachute) possibly criticize others who think exactly the same way, but just want more risk? Those individuals (the parachute-free skydivers) also want to have a risk-seeking life and think the risk is worth it for the thrill.

 

For parachute-using sky divers to demand for themselves the right to take big risks for pleasure, but then demand that others give up that right simply because they exercise it differently, is the height of hypocrisy. There is no coherent way for parachute-using sky divers to morally condemn parachute-free skydivers. They can think doing so is stupid, but there's no way for such individuals to consistently morally criticize or condemn what they do.

 

Finally, if you check back 100 posts ago, you will see that this discussion actually began by its being pointed out that most of the people who are seeking bareback sex are already HIV-positive. I think it's far from clear that the risk of barebacking to people who are already HIV-positive is greater than the risk to HIV-negative people from having "condomed" sex with prostitutes.

 

Either you think it's fine to risk your health for promiscuous sexual gratification or you don't. If you do (as all prostitutes and those who use them presumably do), then you can't consistently criticize others who do the same thing.

[woodlawn]

>>I'm sure we agree about a lot of things. Who could

>possibly

>>deny that barebacking poses a public health problem at a

>time when there is an STD that is deadly and incurable? And does

>>it really make sense for any society to allow some of its

>>members to try to make money by encouraging others to do

>>things that exacerbate a serious public health problem?

>Those are valid points.

 

>Then why are you calling NCM a hypocrite for raising valid

>points because he hires escorts?

 

Ncm has repeatedly accused Aaron of contributing to a serious public health problem. Didn't he say in a recent post that Aaron has "put thousands at risk"? That makes Aaron sound like a war criminal rather than a porn producer. My comment is that there is a certain irony in such statements from someone who supports prostitution, a business that undeniably also contributes to the same public health problem. If ncm is truly concerned about this particular public health problem, why doesn't he cease those activites by which he himself contributes to it? The answer seems to be that he doesn't cease them because he enjoys them, nothing more than that. It's hard to take seriously the concern he expresses when there is something he could do to improve the situation but that he refuses to do. The same is true of anyone who adopts a promiscuous lifestyle in this day and age.

 

> To me, the argument that the problem we and escorts pose by our

>>promiscuous behavior doesn't matter because there are other

>>people whose behavior is even more problematic is ridiculous.

 

>NO ONE has made that argument. I'm saying that it DOES

>matter,

 

If "it" -- the word refers to "the problem we and escorts pose by our promiscuous behavior" -- DOES matter, then what are you doing about it?

 

>anymore

>than it would be hypocritical for people who skydive with

>parachutes to criticize people who skydive without them.

 

If skydiving with or without a chute contributed to a major public health problem -- for example, if broken bones or back injuries were contagious -- then if I heard someone who dives with a chute criticize those who dive without one, I would ask why HE doesn't stop diving. If you really care about a public health problem why is it that you do not do what you can to avoid making it worse?

[Doug69]

>the best so far.this is so simple even a dipshit should be

>able to understand it

 

You are such a good little cheerleader, Taylor - you look so pretty with your pom-poms, standing on the sidelines cheering for your favorite players.

 

>anyway we do not buy/sell sex,are not promiscuous,do not

>perform anal sex in any of it's forms;

 

Who is the "we" here? I'm certain that the individual on whose behalf you are currently cheering, Devon, would admit that none of these statements is applicable to him.

 

and we believe that

>anyone that participates in unprotected sex with strangers is

>an idiot,furthermore anyone that causes another to have

>unprotected sex by force or reward ..........is a scumbag

 

LOL - - Hey moron, you can't "cause" someone to do something "by reward." To believe that the actors in bareback videos are being "forced" to bareback or that the "cause" of it is the one paying them rather than they thesmelves who choose to do it, is too stupid even for you to say.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>

>If my recollection serves me well, I believe that you have

>discussed quite publicly on this Board some pretty severe

>personal problems you have had and are having in your life.

>It appears that the trauma from these problems is causing you

>to hallucinate, because nothing I said is even arguably

>inconsistent on that issue.

>

 

Excuse me, hon, but I promise to get around here more often and answer you more promptly, but first, pray tell, what personal problems am I having? I'm unaware of them. And, there is nothing consistent in any of your statements, other than your consistent desire to feel good about yourself at the expense of others. Sad, really.

 

As far as woodlawn goes, I sort of think he has me mixed up with regulation. We look a lot alike.

[Guest Bitchboy]

Dear, you have become such a mess.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>If "it" -- the word refers to "the problem we and escorts pose

>by our promiscuous behavior" -- DOES matter, then what are you

>doing about it?

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but in twelve years of being sexually active, most of them promiscuous ones, I have remained HIV-negative and STD-free. My own experience supports my view that one CAN be sexually active and protect one's own health -- and by extension, that of one's partners. So does the fact that HIV and STD rates dramatically declined as a result of the gay community educating itself about safe sex. They started going up again when barebacking started going up again. I don't know why it's hypocritical to point that fact out.

 

I've said above that I thought some of NCM's attacks on Aaron and barebacking video producers were shrill and I indicated some reservations I had with his argument. But like you, I think he raises some valid points, and unlike you, I don't think he's obligated to suppress his opinions because he hires escorts. It is not hypocritical to want to curb the most dangerous behavior in an industry you are involved in.

[axebahia]

>Sorry to disappoint you, but in twelve years of being sexually

>active, most of them promiscuous ones, I have remained

>HIV-negative and STD-free. My own experience supports my view

>that one CAN be sexually active and protect one's own health

>-- and by extension, that of one's partners.

 

Yeah, but as I recall you don't take it up the butt any more, perhaps that's a factor too!?

[axebahia]

>But that WOULD be hypocritical - and totally incoherent. Many

>people, including me, believe that people who sky dive are

>taking stupid, inane risks - risks which are not only stupid

>and inane but also quite selfish if others (such as spouses or

>children) depend upon them for their well-being. And it's all

>for a moment's worth of a thrill.

 

 

Who gives a shit as long as I don't have to pay for scraping their sorry asses off the ground?

[axebahia]

>But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I and

>other johns do also poses a public health problem.

 

Alas, a crucial admission that should have been evident from reading your posts before now. Will you voluntarily submit to quarantine?

[Doug69]

>Who gives a shit as long as I don't have to pay for scraping

>their sorry asses off the ground?

 

Is that how you feel about barebackers, too?

 

According to the thinking that seems to prevail here, since we all have to pay higher insurance costs, health care costs, etc. whenever someone is injured or gets sick or killed, that means that what everyone does is everyone else's business. If a father of two children sky dives and is killed, there are all kinds of financial ramifacations for the society - insurance costs, kids without a father, a widow, etc.

 

If someone eats a poor diet and doesn't exercise (like so many fat pigs in this country do, including, I bet, many of those Preachers against barebackers), they will have debilitating strokes and heart attacks and other ailments, at a HUGE financial cost to the society. Does that mean that we can or should make other people's diets and exercise regiments all of our concern?

 

I don't care if people sky dive with or without a parachute - nor do I care if adults shove crap down their throats and get fat - nor do I care if they want to take cum up their ass. I think adults should be able to choose what they want to do as long as nobody is directly harmed. I just don't understand how you can preach against some of these activities while defending the right to do others (or, worse, engage in them).

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Sorry to disappoint you, but in twelve years of being

>sexually

>>active, most of them promiscuous ones, I have remained

>>HIV-negative and STD-free. My own experience supports my

>view

>>that one CAN be sexually active and protect one's own health

>>-- and by extension, that of one's partners.

>

>Yeah, but as I recall you don't take it up the butt any more,

>perhaps that's a factor too!?

 

I'm sure it IS a factor, as is the fact that I never did with any great frequency. Furthermore, in the turn-ons section of my website I tend to emphasize activities that carry an extremely low risk -- things like nipple play and the like. This underscores my point that you can't tar everyone involved in prostitution with the same brush.

 

To take some other examples, if someone who is HIV-negative starts escorting and almost always works as a top who always wears a condom, he is at a very low risk of acquiring HIV and spreading it to others. If someone who is HIV-negative starts escorting and almost always works as a bottom who requires his partners to wear a condom, he is at a somewhat higher risk for acquiring HIV, but his risk for spreading it to others remains fairly low. You don't hear of too many cases of a condom-wearing top getting HIV from a bottom.

 

Now, a versatile escort who regularly fucks and regularly gets fucked, but who always uses protection, would be at somewhat higher risk both for acquiring and spreading HIV, but I would still maintain that his behavior is far less risky than that of someone who barebacks with someone he met in a chat room, and I would not fault someone who hires that escort for criticizing barebackers, because I think it's a good thing for people who live a promiscuous lifestyle to try and operate according to some ethical prinicples. There are such things as degrees of risk and just because we don't endorse the fundamentalists' ideas about what constitutes an acceptable risk doesn't mean that we can't endorse ANY idea about what consitutes an acceptable risk. As it happens, I am defending people who are taking greater risks than I personally choose to -- which tends to undermine woodlawn and doug's charge that my arguments are self-serving -- because I can see that by using protection they are doing something highly effective to reduce the likelihood of spreading HIV. No one seriously believes HIV rates started going up again due to an increase in condom failure.

[woodlawn]

>>If "it" -- the word refers to "the problem we and escorts

>pose

>>by our promiscuous behavior" -- DOES matter, then what are

>you

>>doing about it?

 

>Sorry to disappoint you, but in twelve years of being sexually

>active, most of them promiscuous ones, I have remained

>HIV-negative and STD-free. My own experience supports my view

>that one CAN be sexually active and protect one's own health

>-- and by extension, that of one's partners.

 

Now you are contradicting what you said earlier -- when you conceded that "the problem we and escorts pose by our promiscuous behavior" DOES matter. If you really believe your experience proves that using condoms is 100% effective, then why DOES it matter?

 

If you are tested at regular intervals and continue to have sex with many partners, you know about your status prior to the last test but not about your status at the present time. If your next test shows positive, what then? Will you be able to figure out who exposed you and how many people you may have exposed? Unless you are tested at very short intervals -- say, once a week or more often -- I would think that could be difficult. The fact is you can't be sure at any given moment of your own status or of the risk to which you will be exposing your next client. The same is true for all of us.

 

>They

>started going up again when barebacking started going up

>again. I don't know why it's hypocritical to point that fact

>out.

 

Some might say it is unless you assume that ALL new infections are the result of barebacking. I believe you said in an earlier post that you do NOT make that assumption.

 

>unlike you, I don't

>think he's obligated to suppress his opinions because he hires

>escorts. It is not hypocritical to want to curb the most

>dangerous behavior in an industry you are involved in.

 

I've never suggested ncm refrain from expressing any opinions, and I'll thank you not to pretend that I have simply because you find it easier to respond to that than to what I actually said. Ncm is free to say whatever he wishes about Aaron's activities, but he must also endure the opinions the rest of us express about what he says -- that's how it works.

 

Unless you contend that the use of condoms is 100% effective -- and you seem to be going back and forth on that issue --you can't deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay man does pose a risk to the public health. Therefore, when you criticize others whose behavior you say poses a similar risk, it's legitimate to ask why your concern about this health problem has not moved you to end your own risky behavior.

[woodlawn]

>Alas, a crucial admission that should have been evident from

>reading your posts before now. Will you voluntarily submit to

>quarantine?

 

I never have and never will "admit" any personal information to a Nazi like you. And I find it completely in character that when someone raises the issue of HIV infection the first thing that pops into your mind is building a concentration camp. Old habits die hard, eh?

[Guest ncm2169]

< I never have and never will "admit" any personal information to a Nazi like you >

 

Well, excuse me Woodlawn, but whether it's to Axe or anyone else on this Message Board, could you please tell us how we could interpret:

 

< But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I and

other johns do >

 

as anything OTHER than that you hire escorts?

 

P.S If I've missed this in your previous posts, I apologize. I can only follow so many posters' activities. :+

[Doug69]

>Unless you contend that the use of condoms is 100% effective

>-- and you seem to be going back and forth on that issue --you

>can't deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay

>man does pose a risk to the public health. Therefore, when

>you criticize others whose behavior you say poses a similar

>risk, it's legitimate to ask why your concern about this

>health problem has not moved you to end your own risky

>behavior.

 

There's a little cliche about driving which I think is applicable here: "everyone who drives faster than you is reckless and crazy; everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot."

 

Many people here seem to define "appropriate risk" as being precisely "the level of risk which they personally have chosen to assume." Thus, the health risk that comes from barebacking is unacceptable (because they (some of them) have chosen not to do it), but the health risk from prostitution and/or promiscuity generally is acceptable (becasue they do that and don't want to give it up).

 

Obviously, everyone has to choose what level of risk for one's own life one is willing to assume; that is to be expected. But themselves having chosen to assume health risks in pursuit of immediate sexual gratification, it will forever be a mystery that many here simultaneously lash out at others who have done the same thing, i.e. having assumed a substantively indistinguishable (albeit greater) risk in pursuit of sexual gratification.

 

I guess it's somehow okay to subject yourself to some health risks in pursuit of a few minutes of sexual pleasure, but not okay to subject yourself to other risks. I wonder how they drew that line - not just for themselves, but for everyone.

[Doug69]

>>Yeah, but as I recall you don't take it up the butt any

>more,

>>perhaps that's a factor too!?

>

>I'm sure it IS a factor, as is the fact that I never did with

>any great frequency.

 

Devon, are you confirming here, as it sure seems, Axe's statement that you never get fucked anymore? Because I recall reading quite recently some rather erotic entries in your diary where you described getting fucked quite hard and abusively.

 

That was by far the part of your diary I recall most vividly (and pleasurably), so I was quite suprised to read this post here suggesting that you don't - to use Axe's concice description - "take it up the butt any more."

[Doug69]

>>Yeah, but as I recall you don't take it up the butt any

>more,

>>perhaps that's a factor too!?

>

>I'm sure it IS a factor, as is the fact that I never did with

>any great frequency.

 

Devon, are you confirming here, as it sure seems, Axe's statement that you never get fucked anymore? Because I recall reading quite recently some rather erotic entries in your diary where you described getting fucked quite hard and abusively.

 

That was by far the part of your diary I recall most vividly (and pleasurably), so I was quite suprised to read this post here suggesting that you don't - to use Axe's concice description - "take it up the butt any more."

[woodlawn]

>Well, excuse me Woodlawn, but whether it's to Axe or anyone

>else on this Message Board, could you please tell us how we

>could interpret:

 

>< But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I

>and

>other johns do >

>

>as anything OTHER than that you hire escorts?

 

I think it is quite obvious that that is NOT the "admission" to which Ad rian (alias Axebahia) referred.

 

>

>P.S If I've missed this in your previous posts, I apologize.

>I can only follow so many posters' activities.

 

You have indeed missed this in my previous posts in this very thread. I confess to becoming a little weary of having to call your attention to something that you would already know if you had read the other posts in the discussion. This is the second time I've had to do that in this thread. If you're not going to make the effort to read the posts you're responding to, this will happen again and again.

 

Yes, I have hired escorts from time to time. And I recognize that this behavior makes me, like you and the others participating here, part of the problem we're discussing, not part of the solution.

 

You may recall that at the height of the Enron scandal Bush spoke out against self-dealing by officers and directors of corporations. And you may remember how disgusted many of us were when the media revealed that as an oil company director he had engaged in a form of self-dealing by accepting a personal loan from the corporation. The transaction he was involved in was not nearly as egregious as the ones by which Enron was looted and destroyed, but it was part of the very same problem he was condemning so righteously in his speeches, and many people thought it was highly inappropriate for him to pose as the scourge of corporate criminals under the circumstances.

 

I suppose some would say that the fact Bush's own record is not completely clean in this regard is no reason why he should not lecture others whose behavior is far more outrageous. But I think there are many who would agree that people whose own behavior is problematic are not the people who should be setting ethical standards and crying out against those who violate them.

[woodlawn]

>Well, excuse me Woodlawn, but whether it's to Axe or anyone

>else on this Message Board, could you please tell us how we

>could interpret:

 

>< But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I

>and

>other johns do >

>

>as anything OTHER than that you hire escorts?

 

I think it is quite obvious that that is NOT the "admission" to which Ad rian (alias Axebahia) referred.

 

>

>P.S If I've missed this in your previous posts, I apologize.

>I can only follow so many posters' activities.

 

You have indeed missed this in my previous posts in this very thread. I confess to becoming a little weary of having to call your attention to something that you would already know if you had read the other posts in the discussion. This is the second time I've had to do that in this thread. If you're not going to make the effort to read the posts you're responding to, this will happen again and again.

 

Yes, I have hired escorts from time to time. And I recognize that this behavior makes me, like you and the others participating here, part of the problem we're discussing, not part of the solution.

 

You may recall that at the height of the Enron scandal Bush spoke out against self-dealing by officers and directors of corporations. And you may remember how disgusted many of us were when the media revealed that as an oil company director he had engaged in a form of self-dealing by accepting a personal loan from the corporation. The transaction he was involved in was not nearly as egregious as the ones by which Enron was looted and destroyed, but it was part of the very same problem he was condemning so righteously in his speeches, and many people thought it was highly inappropriate for him to pose as the scourge of corporate criminals under the circumstances.

 

I suppose some would say that the fact Bush's own record is not completely clean in this regard is no reason why he should not lecture others whose behavior is far more outrageous. But I think there are many who would agree that people whose own behavior is problematic are not the people who should be setting ethical standards and crying out against those who violate them.

[axebahia]

>Devon, are you confirming here, as it sure seems, Axe's

>statement that you never get fucked anymore? Because I recall

>reading quite recently some rather erotic entries in your

>diary where you described getting fucked quite hard and

>abusively.

 

As I recall he stopped renting his rectum professionally, but continues to offer it up for free privately when the spirit moves him which apparently is not that often any more, if it ever was. Such a blooming pity, as the old Ad used to say!