I do not understand the phenomenon

[Doug69]

>I usually skip

>Woodie, Dougie, etc. unless there's some inkling that it isn't

>the same tired stuff.

 

If you skip our posts, how can you tell whether there's something in them other than "the same tired stuff"? Wouldn't you have to first read them to know that?

 

Now you have this awful dilemma. If you answer the question I just asked, it proves that you don't actually skip my posts and that you lied before when you said you did. But if you don't answer the question I just asked, you'll look really dumb for having said something so plainly self-contradictory.

 

Hmmm . . . look at the quandry you just went and made for yourself.

[Boston Guy]

>I sure hope Woodlawn says something - and soon - that I hate,

>because arguing with him is, at least for me, way more fun

>than defending him, but once again here, I just can't help

>myself.

 

:-)

 

As for the rest, nicely done.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

>If you skip our posts, how can you tell whether there's

>something in them other than "the same tired stuff"? Wouldn't

>you have to first read them to know that?

 

Interestingly, it's the same thing woodlawn likes to often claim about my posts. Fancy that. :+

[Rick Munroe]

Sorry to have to tell you this yet again, Doug, but you're wrong. woodlawn has stated on more than one occasion in the past that it is morally wrong for escorts to help married men cheat on their wives. So add that to your list.

[Traveller]

I hate to agree with Doug about Woodman, because then I'd be confirming to me about me according to half of you out there - and you know who you are - at least I know who you are, but W never condemns hooking. He just exposes hypocritical posts. He takes time to call people on the nonsense. It's very Hallmark of him, don't ya think?

 

Later.

[Doug69]

>Sorry to have to tell you this yet again, Doug, but you're

>wrong. woodlawn has stated on more than one occasion in the

>past that it is morally wrong for escorts to help married men

>cheat on their wives. So add that to your list.

 

That's not an argument about the immorality of prostitution, Rick. It's an argument about the immorality of breaking one's vows of monogomy to one's spouse.

 

His argument is that it's wrong for a person to make a vow to someone who is supposedly one of the most important persons in their life, and then break that vow, particularly to do so repeatedly. He also argues that it's wrong to knowingly participate in that wrongful act by aiding and abeting someone in violating those vows.

 

How did you read into THAT some sort of belief that prostitution per se is immoral?

 

I guess I didn't include that adultery argument of his in my list becasue it has even less to do with a belief in the immorality of prostitution than the 3 arguments that I did list.

 

And by the way, do you disagree with Woodlawn about the immorality of violating one's vows to their spouse?

 

As I said, I think people often distort the arguments Woodlawn does make (such as somehow misreading his condemnation of adultery as a condemnation of prostitution) because they can't refuse the argument he actually is making, even though they don't want to accept that it's true.

[Rick Munroe]

>He also aruges that it's wrong to participate and

>aid and abet someone in doing so.

>

>How did you read into THAT some sort of belief that

>prostitution is immoral?

 

What is the difference between "wrong" and "immoral" in this case?

[Boston Guy]

Hmmmm.... that might be true. But, if so, it seems a different issue to me: the morality of anyone helping someone to cheat on an affirmed legal and emotional relationship of the significance of marriage, or perhaps even the morality of cheating on one's spouse (with anyone). It seems to me to be fairly far from the actual question of whether or not prostitution is moral or not.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

Traveller -

 

Not to hijack this thread and I meant to post this on another thread earlier and then forgot, but it's nice to see you posting again. Welcome back.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

>It seems to me to be

>fairly far from the actual question of whether or not

>prostitution is moral or not.

 

That would be true if the subject were about just anyone "helping" someone else to cheat, but it's not about just anyone...it's about escorts doing this supposedly immoral act.

 

As woodlawn said about Franco in April 2003, "I do think it's funny the way he's always lecturing us on the 'honorable' thing to do while he takes money to help married men cheat on their wives. In fact, one characteristic that a number of the escorts who post here seem to share is a propensity to lecture the rest of us on how negative and hurtful some of our remarks are while ignoring the harm they do in the real world through that same practice. It seems their ethics stop short of the point at which they might reduce their income."

[Boston Guy]

Perhaps and it's a fine point. But one can easily view dating as moral and good and also view dating a married man as immoral. (That's actually how I feel.)

 

Similarly, it's easy to imagine someone believing that escorting is not immoral in and of itself but that it's immoral for an escort to assist a married man to break his vows. I wouldn't hold that view, because I believe that it's each person's own responsibility to respect and maintain their own vows. But it is a fine point and my recollection -- possibly flawed -- is that Woodlawn's points about morality turned on the breaking of the marital vows more than on the relationship of escorting to the act.

 

BG

[HotdadENYC]

I really like this response.

 

Putting aside momentarily the various avenues this thread has travelled to, I am impressed by a man who rises to the defense of someone that he admittedly often disagrees with and would rather argue with rather than defend.

 

My goal is not to validate doug's response; I don't have the time nor the energy to do that kind of research. I just wanted to comment on a cogent, well written response that I don't have to agree with, but I admire nonetheless.

 

Woodlawn posts a lot of things that offend my sensibilities. More often than not. But I also recall reading some of his posts and thinking "wow, I wish I had the balls to say that in public." And I'm not, really, a shy and retiring or timid person.

 

This thread seems to have gone a bit off-track from the original theme and has become, in large part, an indictment of woodlawn. Up to each of you to decide if that's proper or not. BUT, pooh pooh to anyone of you who think that this forum is only a mechanism for ESCORTS to self-promote. Some of us clients do a pretty good job of doing that for ourselves.

 

I am going to close with the following thoughts:

 

1. I defend Rick's right to post and appreciate his attempts at social awareness. I don't think he's angling for sainthood. He probably has a long way to go in that regard, anyway.

2. I defend Woodlawn's right to post and while I might find the content objectionable, I am comforted by the fact that I live somewhere where censorship is NOT an issue and I can read about this kind of stuff.

3. I defend everyone else's right to respond, remark, opine and bitch.

4. I detest and abhor other types of postings that are inane, stupid and add little value. The blocked number post immediately comes to mind.

 

I won't defend these rights to the death, as I don't think that's necessary. Sometimes just posting in this forum is death enough.

 

Regards,

 

hd NYC

[PacNW]

>>I usually skip

>>Woodie, Dougie, etc. unless there's some inkling that it

>isn't

>>the same tired stuff.

>

>If you skip our posts, how can you tell whether there's

>something in them other than "the same tired stuff"? Wouldn't

>you have to first read them to know that?

>

>Now you have this awful dilemma. If you answer the question I

>just asked, it proves that you don't actually skip my posts

>and that you lied before when you said you did. But if you

>don't answer the question I just asked, you'll look really

>dumb for having said something so plainly self-contradictory.

>

>Hmmm . . . look at the quandry you just went and made for

>yourself.

 

Doug, what's the point? Buckguy tosses off a misstatement in an informal MC discussion and you jump on him in hollow triumph like a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court. Instead of "skip" he could just as easily have said "ignore," "skim," "read and reject," "take with a grain of salt" or any number of other terms that would equally express the value he puts on your and woodlawn's opinions. That he didn't is at worst an editorial oversight, and since few of us bother to hire an editor to hang over our shoulders while posting, stop trying to score points this way.

 

This same narrow stance shows you in an even worse light in your tortuous defense of woodlawn above. To do so, you have to enclose yourself in so tight of a logical box that it allows for absolutely no extrapolation by a reader even after hundreds of his postings. You thereby wipe out any real-world applicability to your arguments.

 

Discussion/argument in a public forum can be edifying for broad-minded participants. When others come in and establish arbitrary limits to seal their points, the whole exercise becomes useless. Pyrrhic victories aren't meant to be considered good things.

[Guest jeffOH]

Nailed that one packy!!

 

"Pyrrhic victories", I learned something new today. :-)

[swallows22]

RE: The Elusive Dodge

 

>>That is not why I go to a message board

>>that is supposed to allow consumers to exchange information

>>with each other.

>

>There are entire forums on this site which do not exist purely

>to discuss escort-client relations. Further, the forum has

>always encouraged the participation of the escorts, not just

>the consumer (i.e. the clients of these escorts). While there

>are a very few escorts who have hired other escorts and, more

>typically, a few escorts who have gotten clients to arrange

>threesomes so that the escort could "engage" another escort,

>by and large, the consumers we are talking about are the

>clients. One of the forums here is called ASK THE ESCORTS, not

>ASK THE CLIENTS. Personally, I would prefer if the site was a

>little more managed, i.e. that questions, self-promotions and

>other conversations about escorts by and between clients be

>kept to the DELI, as that is its purpose, and not the LOUNGE,

>but one of the attractions of this site to most people is the

>Wild West Frontier nature of it.

> Not where you are coming from, Franco, but reckon I would have loved to been there.

>

>

>>I suppose one reason people here put up with it is that they

>>find Rick's posts amusing or titillating. I do not -- to

>me,

>>his humor seems exactly like the jokes I and my friends used

>>to make when we were 13 years old and had just discovered

>sex

>>a few weeks earlier. At that age, any remark that could by

>>any stretch of the imagination be associated with sex seemed

>>utterly hilarious to us. Some of us grow out of our taste

>for

>>adolescent humor when we are no longer adolescents, and some

>>of us clearly don't.

>

>There is a reason why most comedies now seem to be made, even

>the more intelligent ones, with some fart jokes, jokes about

>other bodily functions and jokes at the expense of an

>individual. These movies make a lot of money and a comedy by

>Woody Allen or a movie like Some Like It Hot would

>likely never be made today unless you got to see Tony Curtis

>is fake rubber breast catch fire as in Mrs. Doubtfire.

>

>

>

>>But it can be done

>>-- take my word for it.

>

>

>We do not have to. There are any number of posters and entire

>threads I avoid quite easily.

>

>

>>How can escorts post here without promoting themselves?

>

>Is this what you have been hiding? You are just the bitter,

>jaded, tired but horny nom de guerre of some formerly famous

>ho? Woody is Xaviera Hollander after her sex change?

>

>Fine. Let me just log off and create a new name and profile.

>How does Sonya Marmeladova sound?

[best hotel]

...rick's posts are enjoyable as long as i pretend that he isn't the same mean escort who fucked with my head ...if you sense that the image here is phoney, you are right

[Doug69]

>Doug, what's the point? Buckguy tosses off a misstatement in

>an informal MC discussion and you jump on him in hollow

>triumph like a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court.

 

Did you intend this post as a joke? Because that's the only thing that I can think of that could explain what you wrote.

 

This Buckguy person insinuates himself into this discussion and then decides to proclaim - apropos of absolutely nothing and wholly unrelated to anything being discussed - that he finds the posts that I write and which Woodlawn writes to be worthless trash that he prefers to ignore.

 

I then see that Buckguy - about whom I have never said anything -- has, out of nowhere, attacked me in this manner, and I reply to him NOT by attacking him in return, but instead, pointing out that his attack is self-contradictory.

 

You then come along and criticize me - not Buckguy, but ME - for being gratuitously mean and negative and attacking. It is hard for me to believe that you don't see how inane and irrational your reaction is.

 

As long as specific personalities are involved, you'll probably never see it, so permit me to give you an anlogous abstract example:

 

PERSON A: "I think person B's statements are stupid and worthless and have no value and I never listen to them."

 

PERSON B: "If you never listen to my statements, how do you know that they are stupid and worthless?"

 

PERSON C, TO PERSON B: "Person B, why are you attacking Person A in such a pointless and aggressive way? Don't you see what a bad light that puts you in?"

 

Wouldn't you agree that 99% of sane, literate individuals who read that exchange above would conclude that Person C's reaction is irrational, bewildering and absurd?

 

>This same narrow stance shows you in an even worse light in

>your tortuous dnefense of woodlawn above. To do so, you have to

>enclose yourself in so tight of a logical box that it allows

>for absolutely no extrapolation by a reader even after

>hundreds of his postings. You thereby wipe out any real-world

>applicability to your arguments.

 

By my standards, it is intellectually dishonest and profoundly unethical to accuse someone of saying something that they never, in fact, said, and then viciously attack them for saying it.

 

Apparently, to you, requiring that a person actually express an idea before they are viciously attacked for the idea constitutes "enclosing yourself in a tight logical box."

 

That just means that we have - thankfully - quite different ethical standards, or it means that you have none.

 

Claiming that someone expressed an idea that they did not actually express is not, as you called it, "extrapolation." It is called "lying." If, as seems to be the case, you have no problem with that behavior, then it is hardly surprising that you will attack those who condemn it.

[Guest alanm]

Who knew that Woodlawn had such a dedicated, yet very small posse.

Rick has made some excellent points, that nearly everyone has simply ignored.

 

There are exceptions. It's truly embarassing to read Boston Guy's torturous defenses of woodlawn. I understand that BG is passionately dedicated to free speech and not piling on, so his intensions are good. At least Doug seems to truly believe what he writes (by the way I did not know who Doug was until a few days ago). He writes well, makes impressive arguments and sticks to the subject, but that's after reading only 5 or 6 of his postings. Only one of those postings was on politics.

 

As to escorts posting here with their contact information included, I am sure that it is a net plus. Yet, Rick seldom avoids controversy, which must turn off some possible clients. Also Rick and BN ("15 Minutes") run the risk of overexposure, some people on the message center might pick other popular escorts like Tristan Waters or Kristian first -- the sex may be equally good and it's a chance to get to know a new person. Rick's getting way too much grief on this --

mostly from woodlawn, of course.

[PacNW]

Let's play a game. We'll use your rules.

 

A. Woodlawn thinks prostitution, prostitutes, and those who patronize them are immoral.

B. Woodlawn thinks prostitution, prostitutes, and those who patronize them are moral.

C. Woodlawn has no opinion on the morality of prostitution, prostitutes, or those who patronize them.

 

Having read his postings here, which of the above statements is true? Which of them would 99% of sane, literate individuals say is true?

 

Remember we're playing in your sandbox. It's your rules. Simple declarative statements only are allowed. Nobody can hedge, fudge, insinuate, imply, extrapolate, exaggerate, intuit, or use a wrong word. They can only "lie." Nobody can criticize, question, challenge, use hyperbole or sarcasm, or write creatively to break up the tedium of endlessly repeating the same thing. They can only "attack." OK, sometimes they can "viciously attack." Nobody can mistype "quandary" and "analogous." They can only misspell them out of ignorance and stupidity. And the color grey, along with every other color except for black and white, has been removed from the Crayola box.

 

So which is it: A, B or C?

[PacNW]

>"Pyrrhic victories", I learned something new today. :-)

 

Dictionaries are your friends. :-) If someone goes to one after reading a post of mine, I've done a good deed that day. And I appreciate the favor when someone sets me to searching one.

[Boston Guy]

>

>So which is it: A, B or C?

>

 

Packy:

 

At the risk of embarrassing Alan further :-), I think it's a bit disingenuous to set up the situation you have set up and then ask which statement the masses would believe. Wouldn't it be better to ask which statement is true?

 

To answer that question, one has only to go to the writings of Woodlawn himself.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

I agree. Will's posts used to send me to the dictionary regularly. I miss him and wish he'd come back.

 

BG

[woodlawn]

>That would be true if the subject were about just anyone

>"helping" someone else to cheat, but it's not about just

>anyone...it's about escorts doing this supposedly

>immoral act.

 

>As woodlawn said about Franco in April 2003, "I do think it's

>funny the way he's always lecturing us on the 'honorable'

>thing to do while he takes money to help married men cheat on

>their wives. In fact, one characteristic that a number of the

>escorts who post here seem to share is a propensity to lecture

>the rest of us on how negative and hurtful some of our remarks

>are while ignoring the harm they do in the real world through

>that same practice. It seems their ethics stop short of the

>point at which they might reduce their income."

 

Thanks for reminding me of the above post, Rick. I'm proud to affirm that it does indeed represent my views.

 

It might have been even more relevant had you quoted something I once wrote to your pal Devon. To summarize, I told him that escorts like him (and you) have the exact same moral compass as liquor dealers, gun dealers, tobacco dealers and drug dealers. All of the above make money by selling goods or services that they know can cause harm in certain situations, but all refuse to take any responsibility for any harm that is caused. All use the same rationalization: it isn't the seller who causes the harm, it's the buyer. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "Liquor doesn't kill people, drunk drivers kill people." "It's none of my business whether my clients are married or in committed relationships." None of you cares about the harm that is caused, so long as you don't have to deal with it. Right?

 

The fact that I think it's wrong for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, of course, doesn't mean I think it's wrong for anyone at all to take a drink in any circumstances. The fact that I think it's wrong for you to make money by helping married men deceive and betray their spouses (as you've often boasted that you do) doesn't mean I think it's wrong for anyone at all to hire an escort in any circumstances. I don't think you're too stupid to understand the distinction, I think you understand it quite well. You're just pretending you don't understand it because it destroys the argument you're using to attack me. Do you really think there's anyone here who doesn't recognize that? If so, your opinion of the intelligence of members of this board must be a lot lower than my opinion of it.

[woodlawn]

>Let's play a game. We'll use your rules.

>

>A. Woodlawn thinks prostitution, prostitutes, and those who

>patronize them are immoral.

>B. Woodlawn thinks prostitution, prostitutes, and those who

>patronize them are moral.

>C. Woodlawn has no opinion on the morality of prostitution,

>prostitutes, or those who patronize them.

>

>Having read his postings here, which of the above statements

>is true? Which of them would 99% of sane, literate individuals

>say is true?

 

You left one out:

 

D. Woodlawn thinks that prostitution is a vice, like tobacco or alcohol. He thinks that, like other vices, it can be pleasurable and harmless or nearly harmless to those who indulge in it if they are careful to limit their indulgence in certain ways. He also thinks it can cause harm, sometimes very serious harm, to those who are not careful. And he thinks that those who refuse to acknowledge this truth are either pathetic characters for whom escorts represent their only source of pleasure and excitement or are simply lying -- to themselves, to others or to both.

[PacNW]

>I think it's a

>bit disingenuous to set up the situation you have set up and

>then ask which statement the masses would believe.

 

Mmmmmm, I don't think so. You did catch that the 99% bit came from Doug's previous post, and I was turning that back on him? His having brought the concept into the discussion makes it seem like fair game to me, not disingenuousness. I won't completely deny it though, until I've heard more of your thoughts on it.