What??

Did I just see Alice/Rumor “being naughty, again”???

If so . . . welcome back, pretty lady!!

Can we just stop this??

This is just the latest iteration I’ve run across:

I see the “girlfriend experience” as meeting her parents, going out with her friends from work on Saturday nights, and fighting off questions of marriage.

Elsewhere, there have been even more extreme versions.

OK, it’s a cute little joke (semi-misogynist) and play on words, because everybody knows that’s not what is meant by GFE.  Why people take such observations seriously and attempt to clear up the “misunderstanding,” I have no idea.  (Although in this case . . . maybe the original poster was indeed clueless rather than trying to be funny.)

That joke was funny the first time I read it.  Perhaps mildly funny the fourth or fifth time, at least if written well.  But by the hundredth time, it’s getting to be monotonous.  We should have a limit (length of time or number of instances brought up) on repeating some of this kind of stuff.  Can’t we think up new stuff instead???

[/curmudgeonly rant]

Bulwer-Lytton, again

I posted about the contest last year, so I guess I just as well post a link to this year’s winners too.

Lots of good stuff there.  My personal favorites:

Rationalizations

One of the things I find amusing about review/discussion boards is the arguments people will make to justify what they want to do.  Indeed, often you can tell they’ve already decided what they want to and will do; they just want validation of that decision.  And when it’s something that they probably already know the vast majority will support, one wonders why they even put forth the effort. 

One particularly amusing area that falls into that category is the question of whether a client should compensate a lady if he no shows or cancels on very short notice.  Of course, almost no one wants to or feels they should have to pay a cancellation fee.  It’s particularly amusing because there is one clear and complete rationale for not compensating the lady, which is mentioned at most in passing, while most guys rely on a bunch of other arguments that on examination are weaker than they sound at first.  (It’s particularly amusing to contrast to their attitudes about the reversed situation, when it’s the lady who cancels short notice rather than the client.)

So here are a few typical arguments:

Exclusive arrangements

Recently I read a thread over on ASPD about exclusive arrangements.  I’m not sure I learned a lot from the thread, but it got me thinking about the difference between a “regular/favorite” and something more “exclusive.”

Humor

I’m not particularly funny myself, but I love humor — at least, other than the teen raunch variety.  That certainly extends to broad, slapstick humor – The Producers, the 1968 original rather than the remake, is one of my all time favorite movies and It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World! and Foul Play are others, not to mention the Harry Chapin song 30,000 Pounds of Bananas.  I’ve even been known to enjoy the occasional shaggy dog story that makes everyone else groan.

But my favorites in humor tend toward the clever and witty end of the spectrum.  Woody Allen movies – Bananas, particularly the scenes with Howard Cosell, and Love and Death are his best, IMO.  The occasional Neil Simon — I wish The Cheap Detective played on cable more frequently (although now it’s hard to repress the laughter when I watch Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, or To Have and Have Not).  And my favorite part of Airplane! was the scene on the beach:

Trade offs

This analogy came up in a discussion of ladies not being available during a time convenient for the client, so it’s focused on schedule.  I’ve modified it to apply also to the question of rates:

quote: Originally posted by lance charger
What do golfers do when they can’t get the T-Time they want?

Great analogy. If the specific TIME [or cost] is what’s most important they change golf courses and call as many as they possibly can in the area to get the TIME they want [or greens fees they want to spend]. If the specific GOLF COURSE is what’s most important to them, they take whatever [tee] time [at whatever rate] they can get. In my view it’s how the customer chooses to prioritize what it is they WANT, it’s something different for everybody as this thread illustrates very well.

Some just like to play golf, and the specific course doesn’t matter that much.  Some like to play a specific course, and don’t worry as much about the schedule or cost.  Two approaches; neither is wrong; just different.

In P4P, some clients choose ladies based on when they’re available or what their rate is.  Some choose ladies because they want to see that particular lady, and the schedule and rate are secondary concerns (although still constraints to a degree).  More and more, I find myself in that second group.

The complaints arise when someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.  Have their choice of a specific golf course, while still get the tee time and greens fees they prefer.  If you can, more power to you, but most often you have to accept trade-offs.  Do so with grace, please.

Attraction

I ran across a rather interesting — because rare — comment by an escort in a post on ASPD:

I can think of five long time regulars of mine, that I have seen for years.

All are unattractive, two are obese, one is disabled, and all are socially awkward.

You see comments by clients occasionally about how the ladies must perceive us as unattractive.  But it’s pretty rare coming from the ladies, unless they can do it anonymously.  (I suspect the five regulars Heather spoke about are not ASPD members and therefore wouldn’t see it.)

In honor of a legend

From Farrah Fawcett:

The reason that the all-American boy prefers beauty to brains is that he can see better than he can think.

(Of course, ideally we find ladies with both.)

Missed opportunity

No, nothing to do with P4P.  It’s about a chess game.

K. Emmrich v. Bruno Moritz, Bad Oyenhaussen tournament (Hamburg, Germany), 1922:

1. d4 d5  2. c4 e5  3. dxe5 d4  4. Nf3 Nc6  5. Nbd2 f6  6. exf6 Qxf6  7. g3 Bg4  8. Bg2 O-O-O  9. O-O Nge7  10. Qb3 Ng6  11. a4 Bb4  12. a5 Bxa5  13. Qa4 Rhe8  14. Nb3 Rxe2  15. Nxa5 Bxf3  16. Bh3+ Rd7  17. Qb5 Nce5  18. Bxd7+ Nxd7  19. Ra3 Re5  20. Qb3 Nh4  21. Bf4 Qg6  22. Bxe5 Nxe5  23. Qb5 Qh5  24. Qc5 Nhg6  25. Qb5 Nf4  26. Re1 and here Black blundered with 26. . . . Bd5??  27. cxd5 Nh3+  28. Kf1 and Black resigned.

Click this link for diagram of the critical point.  OK, see the missed opportunity now?  If not, click on “Read the rest of this entry.”