Ugly, part 3

I guess what bothered me most about that thread was not the complaint that many reviews dramatically exaggerate the provider’s attractiveness. Sure, that happens, and most of us just discount and ignore it. No big deal, but neither is it a big deal if someone takes the position that reviewers shouldn’t do it. Fine.

What is annoying is the extremes people try to apply. Either she really is hot . . . or she’s ugly. No, that’s not the case (at least in my not-so-humble opinion). Most people are . . . OK. (In reviews I’ve written, at least in the last couple of years, I tried to include pics so people could judge for themselves, and restrict opinions — and qualify as such rather than objective fact — to comments like “attractive” rather than “most beautiful” or “hot.” Almost by definition she was “attractive” from my perspective; if I weren’t attracted to her, I wouldn’t see her and, usually, be willing to see her again.)

If Mary Jane had just said something along the lines of “many of you exaggerate too much; not every provider is the ‘most beautiful’ around. It’s OK to say ‘attractive’ or ‘average’ rather than ‘hot’ in your review, and readers won’t be as annoyed by exaggeration” . . . people wouldn’t have be as upset. It wasn’t necessary to start tossing around words like “ugly.” Unnecessarily rude, even if not directed at specific, named individuals. Calculated to stir shit up?? Dunno.

Ugly, part 2

But what is most amusing is the guys who complain the most about others overstating the attractiveness of providers. Because the complainers make an underlying assumption that they never overstate provider attractiveness. I agree with them that many guys exaggerate how attractive (from my perspective) the providers really are. Yet, there are at least some providers the complainers consider very attractive . . . and I don’t. At all. (Not that I’m stupid enough to post names where someone might run across them.)

It’s not simply a problem of Desperados and WK’s, as they assume. It’s a problem with everyone (the complainers included) who raves about how wonderful the provider looks without realizing their opinion is just that, an opinion.

Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder

I posted an entry a couple of weeks ago about face pics and how different people rate women’s faces differently. E.g.,

my characterization of providers’ faces might be something like this: Absolute knockout — 2%; cute/attractive — 28%; average (not a big plus or minus) — 40%; unattractive (and I wouldn’t want to see her BCD as a result) — 30%. Compare that to Client X who characterized them as : Attractive — 10%; average — 20%; unattractive — 70%.

I’m beginning to wonder whether the tendency to categorize a lot of women’s faces as unattractive/ugly correlates with gender. That is,

Overkill??

Kayla is organizing a charity raffle. A generous effort on the part of her and her friends. But at what point does it become too much? Seven women (and counting) for a 2 hour period? For a lot of us old coots, that’s way more than we could take advantage of.  Between “Quick Draw McDraw” syndrome and a long recharge time, I wouldn’t get much extra benefit from two ladies as opposed to just one. Three would definitely be more than I could handle. And seven???? Oooff!! But . . . it’s an interesting concept and I’m sure will get a lot of attention for that worthy cause. What’s that old expression, “his eyes were bigger than his stomach”? How would that translate into this situation? LOL

The Web

An interesting column by Michael Kinsley this morning about the Internet and ego. A couple of comments that caught my attention in particular:

There is something about the Web that brings out the ego monster in everybody. It’s not just the well-established tendency to be nasty. When you write for the Web, you open yourself up to breathtakingly vicious vitriol. People wish things on your mother, simply for bearing you, that you wouldn’t wish on Hitler.

But even in their quieter modes, denizens of the Web seem to lug around huge egos and deeply questionable assumptions about how interesting they and their lives might be to others.

Tendency to be nasty. Questionable assumptions that people are interested in your opinion and life. Yep, see that sort of thing all over the Web. For all the criticism of ASPD, it’s no worse than average — probably better.

Of course . . . well, I hope this blog doesn’t come across as too nasty, but yeah, “egotistical” may be a fair characterization of anyone who blogs — not to mention the main website, with info about me, my preferences, reviews, etc. Makes sense when an escort does it, because it’s business promotion rather than egotistical per se. But for a client??? Oh well, I’ll plead guilty. It’s not my only character flaw.

Make it easier, damn it!

Another email from an ASPD member with questions. Frustrating, as I’ve discussed before. To begin with, such questions are usually covered by some of the threads stickied at the top of the Dallas forums, not to mention in Ask a Moderator. Either he didn’t try very hard to figure out for himself, or those resources are even less valuable than I thought (as discussed here and here). And if not, well, that’s what the staff is for — and I’m no longer on the staff.

OK, I try to be a nice guy and send him a quick answer. Doesn’t work.

Does familiarity go both ways??

That last entry (and the thread on ASPD) concerned whether providers start reacting to clients differently as they become regulars — being less aware of or less concerned about appearance, etc., etc.  Some clients see that sort of reaction by the providers they see on a regular basis; some degree of complacenty or taking the client for granted. Which makes one wonder — do providers see a change/deterioration in how regular clients treat them, over time?? Do the clients begin to take less care about their appearance or dress? Less likely to bring the provider little gifts (for those clients who do this; I don’t)? Less likely to tip? Other aspects?

I wonder . . . but I doubt if providers could afford to be honest enough in public posts for us to get an accurate answer.

(Sure, it might not go both ways. In a normal business relationship the vendor is concerned about retaining the business more than the client is concerned about continuing the relationship. But that might imply that hobbyists are not expending much effort in the first place to make a good first impression, and I’m not sure that’s the case.)

Familiarity

An interesting thread over on ASPD concerning whether “familiarty” (with a repeat/regular client) leads to contempt or more accurately complacency. As usual, the answer is probably “it depends.” There have been providers I’ve seen regularly who maintained the same attention to attire, makeup, etc. consistently. A few probably have been a bit more relaxed as time has gone by . . . but for me, the aspects that have relaxed have tended to be things that weren’t that important to me. Makeup is no big deal, I prefer no noticeable scent, and what she wears — well, that can be nice “enhancer” but not a big deal. I’ve had providers answer the door in really eye-catching lingerie, or in regular “street clothes” (think a soccer mom who wants to look nice and even stylish in public, but not to the point of dressing as though headed to a cocktail party). The lovemaking may be more relaxed — not as “urgent,” but intense in other ways that involve not only the body but also the mind and emotions. And the focus on me may tend to move toward a focus on both of us — because, with a regular, knowing more about her and hearing about her life is part of what I enjoy.

Things often change. If they didn’t, I might think of it as purely “professional” without the element of connection. (Rather reminiscent of providers who “script” the entire session.) And, although things often change and may be a bit more relaxed an attitude, I can’t think offhand of a provider who (in my opinion) was starting to “take me for granted.”

This is really a generic issue, not just the hobby, and fairly universal. Most business people probably put extra attention on making a good first impression and then relax a bit. If I’m meeting a new client, I’m probably wearing a suit — but for subsequent meetings, not necessarily. After awhile, we rely on the (business) bonds that have developed and don’t strive quite as hard for some of the peripherals. Unless, of course, we think that those peripherals are important to the client.

That’s the rub — identifying or knowing what is important to the client. That ASPD thread is about some situations where the provider was relaxing with respect to some things that were important to her client. I haven’t experienced that, but then different things are important to different clients.

Chemical assistance

I started using Vitamin V two or three years ago, and am preparing to try Cialis as well. But there are non-physical complications of using these supplements. A married guy, whose wife has not been interested in sex for many, many years, can’t just get a prescription and leave it lying around the house. Even worse, my wife and I use the same doctor, and I don’t really trust him not to mention anything about giving me a prescription for ED medicine on her next visit — even if I came (relatively) clean and told him that I was having sex with other women but not my wife. (And I can’t even visualize admitting that to him.)

Once I tried going to a doctor at a clinic. The one advantage was that I could fill the prescription at other than where my wife and I usually fill our prescriptions, and pay in cash to leave less of a trail. But the prescription was only for a limited period (until I could see my regular doctor), and it took a lot of time and $. Don’t know that I would want to go through that again.

Online pharamacies aren’t great either. Some have been “generic” drugs from Eastern Europe or Asia . . . and I question whether they’re real and/or effective. Others have been more reliable, but not only are they expensive, but I have to pay by credit card (leaving a trail, which I have to disguise) and I have to get a mailbox (leaving more trail), since it wouldn’t do for the package to show up at home or the office.

I suspect it’s easier for some guys who have more hobby connections. May know some hobbyist doctors who can write prescriptions, or be able to arrange a “mail drop” to a buddy or favorite provider. Maybe some other strategies that I haven’t thought of. But in general, aging and needing some “assistance” does increase the effort required to keep this life secret.

Intelligent Sophisticated Provider

That thread on ASPD is about a matter of degree, isn’t it? It’s unfortunate, but perhaps predictable, that such discussions are interpreted as saying that most providers are stupid and/or low-class. Well, there are some like that, but most are probably fairly average. The question in my mind when I read the thread, though, was “If I needed an escort to go to an important business party; who would know how to dress and act for a function like that; who talks well, with proper grammar and sophisticated vocabulary; who could be charming and witty; who could converse intelligently about current events, “culture,” etc. — in short, who could make a very favorable impression, for more than her physical appearance, mingling with the “upper class” — who would qualify?” (Note in passing: not that I’m saying I would necessarily qualify either.)

I can think of one or two of whom I would be very confident, and two or three others who would probably work out well. And a lot (many of whom I’ve never met, just judging by their public posts or emails) whom I would be very confident would not qualify. Of course, for many providers, I simply don’t know enough to judge one way or another — a BCD session, or even a “hobby social,” simply doesn’t test those qualities.

That’s not to say that providers who didn’t qualify were low-class individuals deserving disrespect or scorn. Just means they’re average. Hell, 99% of the population wouldn’t do well at something like that, and I would certaintly fall a bit short of ideal myself.

But this topic is not something you can discuss easily in public without offending. And, of course, the person who started the thread on ASPD was likely not thinking in the same terms I did.