Is escorting an art?

[giovoni]

>the quality, production, or expression, according to aestetic

>principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than

>ordinary significance.

 

I think that definition is VERY broad. I originally thought the question of whether escorting was art was absurd. However, if you apply this definition then and escort MUST be an artist to be successful. Still, I don't think I would classify escorts as artists. I prefer saving this term for things which I feel are traditional realms such as music, painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. That doesn't mean that a good argument can't be made for both positions though.

 

In architecture there is a similar argument introduced in the first year of your training,(or before). The debate only makes you think more clearly about what you do and it crystallizes how you approach any project. If you believe you're an artist you begin something from a different perspective than if you believe you're a craftsman. Both approaches are valid and necessary in architecture just as they may be in escorting.

 

Btw similar to certain posts in this and other threads, the architecture debate is rife with those on both sides proclaiming the other as suffering from self hatred leading to their position. The implication is "agree with me and reclaim your dignity, respect and self esteem, don't agree with me and it's obvious that you hate yourself and everything that you do and that's the single plausible explanation for why you disagree with me" The reality is that neither side suffers from self loathing and both sides can be discussed productively until exhausted the ... uhm ... less intellectually endowed resort to this sort of transparent manipulation and accusation.

 

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Traveler North]

Hey Foxy - According to this definition, my guy is a superb artist both in bed and out.}( }(

[foxy]

>Hey Foxy - According to this definition, my guy is a superb

>artist both in bed and out.}( }(

 

I'm glad to hear that.

 

Why should art be something tucked away in museums that we might visit once in a while? Sort of like the good silver that only gets used on special occassions.

 

I know the term "artist" is totally mis-used today. Every pop star and Hollywood movie actor is called an artist. I don't think you can be taught to be an artist. Artisitic ability can be refined but a true artist is born with a spark that's very unique.

 

The consensus here seems to be that escorting is not an art. I think I mostly agree with that. When I posed the question it was simply that, a question and I found the answers very interesting.

However, there have been one or two escorts I've met over the years who seem to have that spark and it made me question my own definition of what is a true artist.

 

...and can I have the name of that escort??

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Whammers and Charmers Redux

 

Foxy’s choice of words added grist to the discussion or maybe just grit for our gizzards. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder. Some wouldn’t know art if Monet slapped them in the face and others see it in the splatter on men’s room floors. It all depends on what one is looking for and open to. Just like much of life, what one gets from an escort experience depends, in part, on what one puts into it – armchair psychoanalysts notwithstanding.

[woodlawn]

>Btw similar to certain posts in this and other threads, the

>architecture debate is rife with those on both sides

>proclaiming the other as suffering from self hatred leading to

>their position. The implication is "agree with me and reclaim

>your dignity, respect and self esteem, don't agree with me and

>it's obvious that you hate yourself and everything that you do

>and that's the single plausible explanation for why you

>disagree with me"

 

Very perceptive. I too have been struck by the frequency with which posters here state that anyone who disagrees with them must be suffering from "self-hatred." What do you think is the reason for that?

 

 

> The reality is that neither side suffers

>from self loathing

 

I'm not sure about that. I have seen posts here from both prostitutes and johns indicating in various ways that they are not entirely comfortable with what they do. I will never forget the escort who compared himself with a pair of bowling shoes that get rented out over and over again to customers at the bowling alley. Interesting analogy.

[Doug69]

>Very perceptive.

 

Please tell us this isn't going to lead to another round of lovebird chriping between the 2 of you. Because The last one was utterly unbearable.

 

I too have been struck by the frequency with

>which posters here state that anyone who disagrees with them

>must be suffering from "self-hatred."

 

Is this the same as, or different than, stating that anyone who disagrees with you must be a pathological liar, as in:

 

<<No one who is not a pathological liar denies that it has become harder and harder to afford a middle-class lifestyle in this country.>>

 

Is there a difference between: (a) stating that anyone who disagrees with you is suffering from self-hatred and (b) stating that anyone who disagrees with you is a pathological liar?

 

Thanks in advance for speaking as eloquently as I know you will to the distinction between these two statements.

[Bilbo]

From a private correspondence I received, it seems that there may be some who think that my list of escorts who are also active in other arts was meant to be exhaustive and definitive. Such was never in my mind. For one thing, though I would like to see such a list, I simply wouldn't have the time to make one. Neverending is the time commitment that comes to mind. For another, though I would like to see such a list, particularly if it made it possible for me to see/hear/read some of their other art works, I am afraid that it might be a bit bittersweet. You know, we like to think of ourselves as a bit unique, and then we find out over and over again that we are not. Some days the fact that I am one of only a dozen or so theatrical artistic directors in the fourth largest city in the USA, and that my theater looks like it is going to break even without any nonperformance source of funding, is simply not enough to help me think of myself as "A Success." Then, of course, merci a la bonne dieu, that the sheer fun and adventure of it all is quite enough for little me, thank you. But it is difficult to feel that way on those days when I am trying to cast the next play and having trouble finding, say, an Oberon who has daytime availability.

[giovoni]

>Very perceptive. I too have been struck by the frequency with

>which posters here state that anyone who disagrees with them

>must be suffering from "self-hatred." What do you think is

>the reason for that?

 

Not sure, as I said, I believe it may be a sign of laziness or of a dearth of logical or convincing arguments for whatever side is being argued. It's easy to resort to saying that someone hates themselves and somewhat harder to formulate and express whatever ideas, however valid they may be, you wish to summon to your side of an argument.

 

>I'm not sure about that. I have seen posts here from both

>prostitutes and johns indicating in various ways that they are

>not entirely comfortable with what they do. I will never

>forget the escort who compared himself with a pair of bowling

>shoes that get rented out over and over again to customers at

>the bowling alley. Interesting analogy.

 

Certainly neither side is bereft of individuals who have problems with what they do, or who suffer from frank self hatred. My point was only that neither side is inherently the result of self loathing.

 

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[giovoni]

>Please tell us this isn't going to lead to another round of

>lovebird chriping between the 2 of you. Because The last one

>was utterly unbearable.

 

Yet somehow you pulled yourself together like a trooper and are still here enlightening all of us. I'm a little perplexed here how much you pay attention here though. Woodlawn and I certainly have agreed for the last couple weeks but that's hardly the norm. I'm sure if you stick around you'll notice that we frequently disagree about a number of issues and aren't afraid to argue with each other. Sadly though since you've expressed a proclivity to orgasm while watching the suffering of others in books/movies mentioned on the board I doubt any argument between us will "satisfy" you.

 

Why exactly is it a love fest when two people agree anyway? Is agreement with something you've said as close to love as you've ever gotten?

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Doug69]

>Yet somehow you pulled yourself together like a trooper and

>are still here enlightening all of us.

 

Yes, I stayed strong. But it wasn't easy. That last little "you're-so-wonderful-and-mature-oh-that's-so-sweet-you're-so-enlightening" exchange almost caused me to vomit up my entire intestinal system. That's why I was hoping that we could avoid a repeat.

 

It was almost as saccharine as that time when, totally unprovoked, someone here (I don't recall who, and it would be uncivil to name them even if I could recall who it was) used every cliche imaginable straight out of a Harlequen romance novel (teen version) to try to flash for everyone's benefit here what a sweet loving relationship they had.

 

>Why exactly is it a love fest when two people agree anyway?

 

Agreements, by themselves, aren't lovefests. When the two people in agreement move beyond mere agreement and start falling all over themselves gooing with banal praise for one another, that's when it transforms into a lovefest.

 

>Is agreement with something you've said as close to love as

>you've ever gotten?

 

Here's something I've always believed:

 

When someone is truly rich and knows that they're rich and is comfortable with their wealth, they make no efforts to convince others of how rich they are. It's only those who aren't rich or feel insecure about their wealth who feel compelled to create public displays of wealth.

 

When someone is truly heterosexual and knows that they're heterosexual and is comfortable with their heterosexuality, they make no efforts to convince others of how heterosexual they are. It's only those who aren't heterosexual or those who feel insecure about their heterosexuality who feel compelled to create public displays of heterosexuality.

 

When someone is truly in love and knows that they're in a loving relationship and is comfortable with it, they make no efforts to convince others of how much in love they are. It's only those who aren't in love or who feel insecure about their relationship who feel compelled to create public displays of love.

 

I trust you see the applicability of this wisdom to our dialogue.

 

>"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the

>Difference"

 

Or - maybe there is no difference.

[Doug69]

>Why exactly is it a love fest when two people agree anyway?

>Is agreement with something you've said as close to love as

>you've ever gotten?

 

One other thing, Gio - while I have you.

 

Aren't you arguing in this thread against the practice of attributing hidden psychological motives to those who disagree with you? And isn't the above-excerpted passage from your posts a classic illustration of that which you are criticizing?

 

I'm just asking.

[VaHawk]

>Well, VA, I may come across as a judgemental effite snob, and

>I may be in some areas, but you come across as one who is more

>judgemental, and also one who jumps to conclusions based on no

>facts. You assume that I am extremely wealthy, and that I

>spend thousands of dollars and hire for dinner, theatre and

>companionship. None of that is true.

 

I don't assume anything at all about you or anyone else! I can only respond based upon what people post here, and as such, that is how I responded to the very words that you yourself posted. I'm judgemental but you aren't??? Aren't you the one that implied that escorts who book by the hour and clients that hire by the hour are johns and cheap whores, respectively?

 

>I'm sorry for those, like VA, who have never seemed to run

>into one of the artists. I find that treating escorts as

>humans rather than as meat makes a big difference. If you

>treat an escort badly, then the interaction will probably be

>bad. (Treating them well doesn't gaurantee a great

>experience, but increases the odds.)

 

PLEASE! Don't extend yourself in expressing sorrow for me, as you don't know a FUCKING thing about my escort experiences, and have no FACTS as such, to base your opinion about those experiences. FYI, I don't treat escorts as meat, but I also don't treat them as some kind of God that deserves to be put on a pedestal and worshipped.

 

I have had a lot of good escort experiences, but I have also had a lot of bad escort experiences, and I'm willing to bet that is the experience of most clients. You come across as someone who blames bad experiences on the client alone, as if the escort can do no wrong at all! WAKE THE FUCK UP, as there are a lot of clients who have been ripped off by so called "escorts" whether it is a 1 hr booking or an extended booking.

 

I really don't give a damn what your experiences have been, but I base my opinion on what my own experiences have been. I have had some great times with escorts who book by the hour and those who book by the weekend, and some bad experiences with both scenarios. But, unlike you, I don't ASSUME that those that book by the hour are hustlers and whores and those that book by the evening or longer are ARTISTS!

[giovoni]

>It was almost as saccharine as that time when, totally

>unprovoked, someone here (I don't recall who, and it would be

>incivil to name them even if I could recall who it was) used

>every cliche imaginable straight out of a Harlequen romance

>novel (teen version) to try to flash for everyone's benefit

>here what a sweet loving relationship they had.

 

Actually as is your wont, you're taking the events once again out of context. I quite accurately stated that I would not back down from defending TJ no matter how much he was capable or in need of the defense. When you care about someone and they are attacked that's what you do. Correction, that's what I do.. for all I know you kick them. I'd be curious, but I won't hold my breath, as to where your training actually lies. You seem to have a proclivity to infer compulsions and needs (and indeed a plethora of psychological motives) where they are absent. Indeed I haven't heard more unsubstantiated psychobabble since my mother subscribed to OMNI when I was a kid. I defend and love TJ.. that doesn't mean I have to and it certainly will never mean that I'll back down from defending him or showing affection for fear that your drooling anxious amateur psychology will nail me for it.

 

>When someone is truly rich and knows that they're rich and is

>comfortable with their wealth, they make no efforts to

>convince others of how rich they are. It's only those who

>aren't rich and feel insecure about it who feel compelled to

>create public displays of wealth.

 

This has no application here to anything we've ever discussed.. but I sense that you're trying to gain momentum.

>

>When someone is truly smart and knows that they're smart and

>is comfortable with their intellect, they make no efforts to

>convince others of how smart they are. It's only those who

>aren't smart and feel insecure about it who feel compelled to

>create public displays of intelligence.

 

OH here we go.. More and more ammunition. I can't possibly disagree with whatever you're going to say next because you've gotten a runaway trainload of truth behind you.. I can't possibly be ready for what you're going to hit me with next can I???

 

>When someone is truly in love and knows that they're in a

>loving relationship and is comfortable with it, they make no

>efforts to convince others of how much in love they are. It's

>only those who aren't in love or who feel insecure about their

>relationships who feel compelled to create public displays of

>love.

 

Oh no how do I deal with that.. the first two stanzas (and I use that on purpose.. your posts are truly poetry) are so right on that the third can't possibly be a fallacy in relation to your point can it?? Damn.. I guess from now on if anyone insults TJ I'll run away and say nothing. .I wouldn't want dear dear Doogie to analize my motives and find that my relationship is in trouble because I support TJ.

 

>I trust . . .

 

I can't imagine that's EVER been true. (See I can take things out of context too.. somtimes it's fun!)

 

Gio in Denver

[giovoni]

>Aren't you arguing in this thread against the practice of

>attributing hidden psychological motives to those who disagree

>with you? And isn't the above-excerpted passage from your

>posts a classic illustration of that which you are

>criticizing?

 

No not really.. I would actually like to know.. though I see you avoided the question. I suppose though that given your prior post that any admission of having ever felt love from someone would obligately be interpreted by me as not being true.

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Doug69]

>Actually as is your wont, you're taking the events once again

>out of context. I quite accurately stated that I would not

>back down from defending TJ no matter how much he was capable

>or in need of the defense.

 

Actually, it is you who is taking matters out of context. I wasn't referring to the post where you jumped in to tell other posters that they were being mean to TJ after he told them all (or at least those who disagreed with his view of a movie) that they were confused, culturally primitive, sad creatures because they saw the movie differently.

 

The post that I was referencing (and I now remember who it was who posted it - thanks!) was one where someone made some passing light-hearted joke about waking up with TJ, and you seized on it as an opportunity to proclaim how precious - how absolutely precious - it was to wake up in his arms, and how painful it was - how horrifyingly painful - to have to wake up and leave the deeply profound embrace that you two share in your private, intimate moments - the ones that you described for all of us here, totally unprovoked.

 

Now that I've generously pointed you to the actual post that I was referencing (and I have no expectations of gratitude for having taken the time to do so), I think you will find that my comments, which you so rudely dismissed based on your confusion about what we were discussing, are quite applicable to your prior postings here.

[Doug69]

>No not really.. I would actually like to know.. though I see

>you avoided the question.

 

To paraphrase my good friend and fellow forum member and colleague Woodlawn (who, by the way, thinks the world of you!), I am not in the practice of disclosing information about my personal life on Internet boards.

 

I can't help but observe, though, that as you simultaneously preach against the practice of attributing hidden psychological motives to others who have different views, you continuously do that to me - indeed, you do it in the very thread that you preach against it. Why is that?

[giovoni]

>The post that I was referencing (and I now remember who it was

>who posted it - thanks!) was one where someone made some

>passing light-hearted joke about waking up with TJ, and you

>seized on it as an opportunity to proclaim how precious - how

>absolutely precious - it was to wake up in his arms, and how

>painful it was - how horrifyingly painful - to have to wake up

>and leave the deeply profound embrace that you two share in

>your private, intimate moments - the ones that you described

>for all of us here, totally unprovoked.

 

awwww did I say that? How cute.. and true.. even with all the colorful added launguage that you added. I believe my post was maybe 2 lines long but your post.. well that approaches ART. Still everything I said is true.. I responded to a compliment. I'm sure if your significant other (if you have one) is ever referenced you're quite sure to refrain from making any comments that would confirm that you consider them significant, or indeed that they exist.

 

And you're wrong, by referencing the post I do owe you a thank you. If TJ does read this maybe he'll put off his plans to break up with me for a few precious weeks and my troubled... no broken relationship can stagger along until I find another opportunity to reference it in Hello Kitty type syrup and push it along a couple more days.

 

So thank you Doogie

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[giovoni]

I guess sarcasm doesn't come through from the private messages I just got... the last paragraph is a sarcastic joke.. I appologize to those of you on here with hearts.. it's somtimes hard to remember you're here.

 

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Doug69]

>I guess sarcasm doesn't come through from the private

>messages I just got... the last paragraph is a sarcastic

>joke.. I appologize to those of you on here with hearts.. it's

>somtimes hard to remember you're here.

 

Seriously - LOL!!!!!!!! - that is the funniest fucking thing I've ever read here!! I would pay huge sums of money to read those private messages offering weepy condolensces over the disintegrating nature of your relationship - all based on that patently patently patently facetious paragraph! Holy shit!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!

[giovoni]

Nice try Doug, I'm sure baiting like that works just peachy for school yard bullies but I'm not about to list the people who AIM me while I post on here.

 

Thanks for getting that the paragraph was sarcastic though.

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Trixie]

RE: Is escorting architecture?

 

Giovani, somewhere up there you made a post about first year architecture school... Is this where

you learned your talent for great erections?

(Oh Lord, I should be so ashamed of myself! But I dearly love a bad, bad pun!)

Trix

[giovoni]

RE: Is escorting architecture?

 

:-P ... No its what got me in in the first place. :-P

 

Gio in Denver

 

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

[Trixie]

Foxette, my love, what a magnificent thread you've started! You really do know how to throw a party!

For what it's worth, my own definition of an "artist" is one who can take the mundane and reveal the transcendent experience within it. I imagine, thus defined, that some escorts are artists, at least on certain occasions (not everything we produce can be a masterpiece).

Then again, so are some retail sales-clerks.

But "art" takes two. There is the presented object, and the viewer, who either appreciates and expands on what is presented, or does not.

 

Is it a can of soup, or is it Art?

 

Ingres' "Odalisque" also comes to mind. An exquisitely wrought, technically perfect painting.

Any heterosexual or lesbian viewing this piece would feel the stirrings of desire. Even we homos can gaze upon it and say "What a gorgeous painting, what an exquisite moment in time captured... what a hot babe!"

Cannot the same be said of an escort, whose 5 days a week at the gym, whose cabinet-full of skin care products, whose Macy's charge card have all transformed him into an idealistic object? During his best tricks, on his best days (and given that his patron is at that moment willing to suspend disbelief) he is an artist, and the work of art.

He is an ideal of beauty and/or desire, just as is the Odalisque.

Trix

[Paul Revere]

>

>PLEASE! Don't extend yourself in expressing sorrow for me, as

>you don't know a FUCKING thing about my escort experiences,

>and have no FACTS as such, to base your opinion about those

>experiences. FYI, I don't treat escorts as meat, but I also

>don't treat them as some kind of God that deserves to be put

>on a pedestal and worshipped.

 

No, I don't know anything about your escort experiences, its just that you seem so bitter and angry about the whole thing.

>

>I have had a lot of good escort experiences, but I have also

>had a lot of bad escort experiences, and I'm willing to bet

>that is the experience of most clients. You come across as

>someone who blames bad experiences on the client alone, as if

>the escort can do no wrong at all! WAKE THE FUCK UP, as there

>are a lot of clients who have been ripped off by so called

>"escorts" whether it is a 1 hr booking or an extended

>booking.

 

Sport, I never said any of that. Please re-read my posts before you react so harshly. I said that escorts run the range from simple plumber to artist. I never blamed a bad experience on anyone, and I never discussed bad experience. I did not put escorts on a pedestal to be worshipped, but you accuse me of that. I am not naiev, I know that the whole escort thing is basically a business arrangement. Some are bad, soen are OK, and some are great.

>

>I really don't give a damn what your experiences have been,

>but I base my opinion on what my own experiences have been. I

>have had some great times with escorts who book by the hour

>and those who book by the weekend, and some bad experiences

>with both scenarios. But, unlike you, I don't ASSUME that

>those that book by the hour are hustlers and whores and those

>that book by the evening or longer are ARTISTS!

 

I never said that, you did! Check your meds honey, and calm down.

[+ Charlie]

To me, an artist is someone who exhibits sensitivity towards a particular situation, and responds with judgment and creativity. If all he does is mechanically follow a pre-set procedure, he is a technician. Many escorts are artists, at least some of the time, though the quality of the art they produce may be great or mediocre; others are just going through the motions most of the time, but rise to artistry occasionally.