Does it also apply in P4P?  I suspect so, although perhaps in a broader context than physical attraction.  After all, the P4P situation is different; the study involved men and women who were: (a) approximately the same age; and (b) very young (college undergraduates).  With the significant age difference typical in P4P, and the advanced age of many P4P clients, it’s probably easier for us to resist hotness delusion syndrome. And, for me anyway, physical attraction is very nice but it’s not everything.  There were two or three breathtakingly gorgeous ladies I visited once, but without much interest in seeing them again.  We just didn’t click in the non-physical area.  I’m slightly less superficial than in my younger days. :) And I definitely did not think that those ladies were strongly attracted to me, whether physically or in a broader sense, despite how beautiful I considered them.

But if I stop to ask myself “which ladies I’ve seen really do seem attracted to me”?   (NB: strongly implied limitation, of course:  within the boundaries of our paid encounter)  The three or four names I might come up with — the three or four who I thought probably were attracted to me, at least more than were other ladies I’ve seen – are all among my favorites.  Other ladies?  Just about all of them treated me well, most seemed to consider me a good/valued client, and several seemed to enjoy spending time with me.  But I never got a vibe from a lady (other than that small group of favorites) that she was strongly attracted to me.

I also was always cognizant of the fact that the attraction a lady felt for me was likely not as strong as the attraction I felt for her, for a number of reasons.  These ladies were among a small group of my very favorite ladies; I didn’t necessarily make their individual lists of top five clients.  And, although I didn’t stop to think about it often, yes, I was generally aware that my favorite ladies were probably less attracted to me than I thought.  Not because any of them were deceptive or manipulative.  Simply because we all like to be liked and can find it easy to err in that direction.  Or because evolution has hard-wired it into the male psyche. I’m as susceptible to self-deception as anyone; I’m just aware of the fact, whereas some are not.

—————————

Here are what I consider the implications of the study for P4P clients:

• Being attracted to her doesn’t create an obligation for her to be attracted back. She probably isn’t, to the extent you think.
• But that’s your fault, not hers.  That is, it is most likely due to your cognitive bias, rather than any attempts at manipulation or deception on her part.  Hooker Addict, in his post, said: “Imagine how this gets compounded when a woman’s job is specifically to show interest and arousal… whether she actually feels it or not.”  I’ve run into very little manipulation/deception, though, from any of the ladies I’ve seen.  I’ve run into good customer relations, including the normal slight exaggeration that one expects from service-oriented professionals.  But nothing more than you encounter in other businesses and routinely discount without accusing them of deception.  I certainly would not say there’s never any deliberate manipulation by ladies, but based on my experience (unless I’ve been exceptionally lucky), I suspect cognitive bias has much more to do with any mistaken perception than what the lady does.
• But don’t over-generalize.  We’re talking about a cognitive bias rather than a general rule that escorts never are attracted to clients.  She probably is not as attracted to you as you think she is, but that remains a probability rather than a certainty.  Don’t assume that she is, but also don’t assume that she is not and could not be.  Approach it in a spirit of P4P agnosticism. Because you probably don’t really need to know the truth, do you?

And the implications for the ladies:

• You’re right, a client reacting this way is not necessarily your fault.
• But there are probably more clients who succumb to that cognitive bias than you realize.  It’s not just the stalkers or clingy, needy types or the ones who want to leave their wives. [Question in passing for any of the ladies reading this:  Was this already fairly obvious to you from your interactions with clients -- for most of your clients, rather than just for the problem clients?]

It would be interesting to know, in the context of P4P, whether the ladies were as likely as civilian women to underestimate how attractive the men (clients) they met considered them.  Obviously some things clients do seem almost designed to beat women down psychologically.  But with more respectful clients, it would seem that their being willing to spend $$$ to spend time with you would be a confidence builder.  I’m just not sure that is true.  [Question in passing for any of the ladies reading this:  How accurately (and quickly) can you assess whether a client who sees you will become a regular, or consider you an ATF?]  And of course, civilian relationships can offer confidence builders of a different sort.

———————–

[*]  Go read the entire blog entry by HookerAddict.  (And for that matter, the rest of his blog.)  If I might over-simplify, it’s about the old controversy of whether a real relationship is possible between an escort and a client.  And it’s one of the best rebuttals I’ve ever read to the cynical attitude that such a real relationship is never possible.  As he puts it:

Can a “hobbyist” fall in love with a hooker? Can a hooker fall in love with a trick? It all comes down to this: can one human being fall in love with any other? This is what we are. There are real people behind the screen names and assumed personae. And real people sometimes fall in love. . . . 

Real people. Real flesh and blood and emotions. And any real person is capable of loving, is worthy of being loved.

Even more than these observations, it’s his actual experience that refutes the cynics.

I found his perspective very convincing, although perhaps with one small quibble.  He said at one point:

Another prevalent attitude is “I couldn’t have a relationship with a hooker unless she stopped hooking.” What this implies is that A) she’s not worthy of love or respect if she’s a hooker and B) that it’s the man’s decision to make.

That may be the implication by many who espouse that attitude, but not necessarily all.  I suspect for some it’s quite possibly explained by a combination of: (1) at some point in the relationship, I would want it to be exclusive (just as in civilian relationships, where you don’t mind that she’s dating other people early in the relationship but later expect her to see only you); and (2) I can’t separate the question of exclusivity from what she does as a sex worker. 

That’s not to see that her continuing as a sex worker is intrinsically incompatible with exclusivity.  I suspect it isn’t for HookerAddict, and Caitie Mae has made similar comments. (“In my relationship monogamy and fidelity are not indistinguishable.”)  I respect that attitude.  But I also respect the attitude of those who would feel uncomfortable if she continued to work, even though they didn’t consider her as less of a person for making that career choice.  Different points of view, and I won’t judge either as wrong.  As long as the latter group recognizes that it’s her decision, not his, whether to quit working, and that it might be too much of a sacrifice for her to make, unless he provided significant financial support.

But I may be all wrong about what people are really thinking when they express that attitude.  I’ve never found myself in that situation, and don’t know for sure how I would react, so perhaps I should take his implied advice that “experts with no experience” may not have much if anything to offer to the conversation.

Anyway, a lovely story.  Go, read, learn, enjoy.

Who is the brainiest, most cerebral, bookish type provider out there? Who appeals to your inner, or not so inner nerd?

An interesting question, but then, “brainy” and “intelligent” are somewhat vague and ambiguous terms.  At least, in this sort of context; I imagine none of us ask the ladies for their GMAT scores or their GPA in college.  I suspect that this type of determination may be almost as WALDT/CASG as any other characteristic.  Or more precisely, that we may mean something different when we say “brainy” and “intelligent.”

I admit, when reading that, it seems easy to come up with a list.  Among ladies with whom I’ve had carnal relations?  In no particular order: Carrie Hillcrest, Violet Star, Caitie Mae, Jenna/Spikebaby, Alice/Rumor.  [*]  Among escorts with whom I’ve not had carnal relations, or perhaps even met?  Elisabeth Whispers, Emily Hemingway, Tiffani Jameson, Amanda Brooks, Veronica Moore, and Traci Brooks come to mind.  (OK, I did see Traci once.)  Among people not part of this little P4P world?  Clix, my mother, my wife, and a lot of people I went to school with or work with.

It’s not that other ladies I’ve seen or know aren’t smart.  But somehow, I put the above ladies in a separate category.

I’m not completely sure how my brain selected that list; it was more an intuitive conclusion rather than a conscious analysis.  If I use the list inductively, though, I might come up with factors like:  articulate, exceptional written communication skills, well-read, broad range of things she is interested in, appears to particularly enjoy reading and thinking more than average, conceptual and analytical thinker, makes me think, offers subtle insights I hadn’t considered.

I think all of that is very sexy.  But of course it’s not the only possible definition of “brainy” or “intelligent.”  A lot of people probably have different interpretations.

And it should go without saying, but I really like a lot of people I didn’t put on that list.  I don’t think of lacking those characteristics as some sort of deficiency or flaw.  It’s just . . . different.  Like some people have blond hair and some people have brown hair.  And, again, some people not on the list may very well have those characteristics but I just didn’t happen to notice or don’t remember them at the moment when I’m composing this post.

In any event, it was nice to see a thread that asked “who’s the best” for something more than beauty or sexual skills.  Let’s celebrate the nerd girls.

———————–

[*]  Hmmm.  Surprisingly, some of my very favorite ladies.  So, is there a correlation between “favorite” and “I perceive her as particularly intelligent”?  Does it go beyond correlation, to cause and effect?  And if so, which is cause and which is effect? (The answer isn’t necessarily as obvious as it looks.  An interesting topic that I plan to post on sometime soon, perhaps.)

And someone commented:

For example the $1000 whore looks down on the cheaper whore to make herself feel better about even being a whore. . . . The ladies that charge marketable rates seem to be more concerned with their own business and do not seem to have to judge others as much.

Really??  After other comments in the same thread, that struck me as rather ironic.  And his observation doesn’t match what I’ve seen on SJMBs.  My impression is that there is a lot more bashing by “mid range” ladies and their clients — both upward at the “high range” ladies/clients and downward at the “low range” ladies/clients — than bashing by “high range” ladies/clients toward others.  In fact, there’s more bashing by “low range” ladies/clients directed upward than bashing by “high range” ladies/clients directed downward.

It’s one thing to criticize the behavior by specific individuals, criticizing and stereotyping others based on price range.  That behavior is rude, if nothing more.  It’s quite another thing to turn around and engage in the same stereotyping/criticizing based on price range but aimed at a different group.  Yet, it seems like just about every time we see a thread complaining about stereotyping against us by “the other,” it inevitably turns into stereotyping aimed at “the other.”

Sure, we’re all human and we all experience those emotions occasionally.  Better to suppress them than to vent openly, though, isn’t it?  Whatever label you attach — arrogance, insecurity, envy, snobbery, reverse snobbery – it’s a particularly unattractive characteristic to show the world.

Be confident and comfortable with yourself, and there’s no need for bashing others.  A confident person may criticize bad behavior but doesn’t care what other people charge or pay and doesn’t feel a need to spew negative stereotypes.  Live and let live.  And isn’t confidence and being comfortable in your own skin an attractive characteristic?

Some of the posters on that thread seem to have grasped the point.  But far from all of them.

——————

N.B.  It should go without saying, but just in case:  “High range,” “mid range,” and “low range” refer to prices charged/paid.  Nothing more.  Certainly they do not refer to class or quality of the lady, or the client for that matter.

But I ran across a study recently that suggests a subtle refinement of that observation.  The difference may not be between seeing someone as a person and seeing them as a mindless object, but between two different dimensions of the human mind: “agency” — self-control, planned action, morality — and “experience” — pleasure, hunger, desire, etc.  It turns out that people evaluate the capacity for “agency” and “experience” differently depending on how much flesh is visible.  For pictures of the same individuals, test subjects gave that person higher scores for “agency” if the picture showed only their face, and higher scores for “experience” if the picture showed their torso, with a bare chest (men) or in, for example, a bikini (women).   Or completely naked.

Of course, feminists might still object (understandably) to women being perceived as focused on physical sensations rather than aspects we attribute to intellect.  But arguably it’s at least better than being perceived as a mindless object. 

And it’s significant to note that the reaction goes both ways; apparently women judge men who show some skin the same superficial way.

The study is here and an article about it is here.  It’s interesting, although I think a bit incomplete.  In part, because we’re still not sure why people perceive others differently based on that.  But mostly because it was a fairly limited sample.  Some of the pictures used were of porn stars, some were of normal people.  But it appears they didn’t use any pictures of, ahem, old, fat guys.  Certainly no one who looks anything at all like me.  (Thank God!)  I wonder whether the agency/experience rating would work out the same way for us. Of course, they might; a picture of a naked torso might tend to emphasize our capacity for experience of the gustatory type . . .

Anyway, interesting food for thought.  And perhaps it points out a couple of things about sex work as well.

First, different types of sex work may be subject to different degrees of this effect.  (What should we call this effect, rather than “objectification”?  Need to work on that.)  In, say, a strip club without ”extras” the interaction between sex worker and the client is primarily visual.  This “not-exactly-objectification” effect is a result of visual perception; the resulting change of emphasis from agency to experience presumably is emphasized for strippers compared to non-sex workers.  With an escort, however, the interaction is both visual and tactile.  The latter may strengthen the effect even more.  But often an appointment will include some down time and opportunity to chat with the lady as well, often (I suspect) more so than with strippers.  It seems likely that conversation is one good way to counteract that effect, as conversation might demonstrate and bring to our attention the lady’s capacity for agency.  A “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” client may never progress far beyond the perception of the lady’s capacity for experience, but hopefully other clients do.  Perhaps — just speculation — an escort, particularly if her dates are structured appropriately, is more likely to be perceived as having that capacity for agency than a stripper is.

Second, this may fit in nicely with how escorts market themselves.  Some ladies provide pictures with lots of naked flesh, and talk a lot — whether in ads or in discussion threads on a P4P board — about physical sensations.  That attracts one type of client.  [*]  Other ladies provide more decorous pictures and tend to post different types of ads and discuss different types of topics online.  They may also use other methods of expressing themselves, such as blogs.  Perhaps that attracts a different type of client, who is interested in both capacities.  (Few clients are interested in agency only, I imagine. )  I assume that this is, for the most part, planned.  The ladies consciously choose a particular marketing strategy in light of the clients they want to attract and/or in light of the clients they think they will have the most luck in attracting.  I suspect that those who choose a strategy that emphasizes their capacity for both experience and agency do so because they define their target market at least in part based on how the clients will perceive and treat them.

But it may be hard to overcome men’s visual fixations.

———————

[*]  As well as more clients than the alternative?  Many years ago, I recall some clients on ASPD expressing a preference for more decorous ads.  A ladyfriend (perhaps Caitie Mae?) observed that she might prefer that type of ad as well, but her more explicit ads always generated a lot more inquiries.

To over-simplify, the Pygmalion effect refers to the tendency of people to live up to, or live down to, our expectations of them.  It’s a fairly intuitive phenomenon, practically to the level of conventional wisdom/common sense.  It’s been scientifically tested in the context of students and often thought to apply in other situations such as employees.  It can result from how the teacher or boss treats that person, even if the expectations are not specifically communicated.

Does it apply as well to independent contractors, such as escorts?  Or their clients, for that matter?

We do communicate our expectations of each other in P4P.  Review/discussion boards are one venue for expressing those expectations, although certainly not the only one.  At least three ways that such expectations in P4P might be communicated come to mind, off-hand.  Comments about escorts (or clients) in general on review/discussion boards.  Reviews themselves.  And the clients’ reaction to rates.  Not that those are hard and fast categories; there’s certainly overlap, and probably other ways that don’t fall within that taxonomy.  But it was a starting point for thinking through the question.

General comments.  P4P boards are a somewhat uncommon example of an online community bringing together both independent contractors and those who pay for their services.  As a result, there tend to be a lot of comments expressing general views, or stereotypes, about the other side of the aisle — and that “other” is right there to read those comments.  In a way, we are communicating our expectations for future encounters with the “other.”  And often those expectations are negative.  Complaints about no-shows, cancellations, poor hygiene, pre-paid/no-play, haggling, time-wasters, etc. give the impression — particularly if not couched carefully — that we think most members of the “other” engage in such behavior.  Sometimes comments are made explicitly about all members of the “other.”  Of course, some comments also express positive expectations, but they seem less common than the negative expectations. 

Reviews.  We tend to think of this as about past performance rather than future expectations, so this category may sound a bit strange.  On the other hand, we also often believe that past performance is almost a guarantee of future results, at least if the past performance is in the not too distant past and is confirmed by enough people.  Indeed, that’s normally considered the primary purpose of reviews, to help prospective clients assess what they will experience if they schedule with the lady.  (This differs from the traditional sense of a Pygmalion effect, since the expectations arise from, rather than precede, actual performance.  In that sense, this is traditional “feedback” rather than trying to create performance by communicating expectations.  On the other hand, there is an inherent subjectivity to reviews, and variation in reactions to individual clients, sufficient to still carry a bit of the Pygmalion effect, possibly.)

Reactions to rates.  There is clearly a negative category of such reactions.  Haggling over a lady’s rates, unless done carefully and maybe even then, can be perceived as a message that “I don’t think an encounter with you would be worth X.”  I’m not sure if there’s a positive category of such reactions, though.  The ladies set their own prices, so she is never surprised by someone bidding more than she expected to receive.  [*]  What about tipping?  Again, it comes after the fact so it’s closer to traditional feedback than to expectations in advance of actual performance.  But I suppose positive feedback can create similar effects to the Pygmalion effect.

The last two categories above apply only the ladies, and most instances of the first category apply to the ladies rather than clients.  I wouldn’t expect many clients to rise or fall to expectations.  I rarely think about expectations that a lady might have before meeting me for the first time.  General requirements for how clients in general should behave, certainly; that’s just routine etiquette.  But expectations, positive or negative, about what time with me, specifically, would be like?  I suspect that would not be very common at all.  For one thing, most ladies don’t screen much beyond making sure a prospective client is neither LE nor abusive.  Some ladies do ask more questions of references, or try to form an opinion of a prospective client, ahead of time.  But it doesn’t seem to happen a lot.  So I’m not sure I’ve ever demonstrated any Pygmalion effect.  I would guess that is true for the majority of clients.  Most of us probably don’t “perform” either better or worse than we might normally, just because of the ladies’ expectations of us.  Of course, many people don’t even realize when they’re responding to others’ expectations.

I wonder if the ladies notice any correlation between their clients’ behavior and their expectations of those clients.  But I doubt if they’re running a controlled experiment.

There may be a greater chance that ladies react to, and their performance rises to or falls to, clients’ expectations.  But I don’t really know whether there is such a Pygmalion effect in P4P.  Most ladies might say they strive to give their best regardless of the circumstances.  (There are, however, frequent comments about a session not being as much fun if the client begins by haggling for a discount.)

———————-

If there is such an effect, though, a lot of P4P clients may be shooting themselves in the foot by contributing to negative or harsh stereotypes that the ladies may perceive subconsciously as expectations.  That’s an important thing to remember.  Having, and expressing, positive expectations for someone does more than merely make them feel good or stroke their ego.  If it results in improved performance, that benefits the person who has those positive expectations.

I’m certainly not suggesting that clients inflate reviews to attempt to improve a lady’s performance.  Dishonest reviews impede the effective functioning of the P4P market.  Neither would I suggest constant, hyperbolic flattery, such as in public comments on SJMBs.  Going too far probably is counter-productive.  (Well, it irritates me, but I suppose the real question is how that would be perceived by the ladies.  Maybe it wouldn’t be as counter-productive as I think. )  But there may be some things clients can do that would contribute to a better experience. 

The most obvious is to approach every tryst in a positive, optimistic, enthusiastic state of mind.  Even a simple “I’m really looking forward to meeting you”  communicates that positive expectation.  This is pretty much conventional wisdom and most clients probably do this.  Although now that I think of it, I probably do less of it than many.  I’m not really a “people person”; a little bit distant and impersonal at times.

The second would be to minimize overly cynical, harsh and negative comments on SJMBs.  Partly that’s being polite and respectful; partly that’s avoiding the occasional urge to stereotype:  Never pre-pay because she won’t make good it.  Relationships with providers never work out because they’re damaged goods.  Providers are in it only for the money.  Etc., etc.  (And, of course, a few stereotypes aimed at clients as well.)  Similarly, write negative reviews that are honest, but tactful and objective rather than angry rants

This isn’t even remotely rocket science; mostly it’s just etiquette, good manners, and common sense.  That’s reason enough to do it.  It can make the P4P community a more pleasant place to be.  Most people understand that already and act accordingly.  We normally recommend that sort of thing with the idea of avoiding acrimony and drama on the SJMB.  But it can do more.  For those clients who need another reason, the average quality of trysts may improve as a result.  Call it the selfish reason for being nice.

————————–

[*]  I remember an old story from 40 or 50 years ago, perhaps in Readers Digest — so prepare yourself for that type of story. I’m sure I’ll get most of  this wrong, but the sense of the story remains.

An anthropologist was visiting a village on a remote Pacific island and discussing customs with the villagers.  Among other things, they described their custom of “bride purchase,” in which the suitor paid the parents of the girl he wished to marry.  It’s a common practice in many cultures, past and present.  And the price “is generally intended to reflect the perceived value of of the girl or young woman.”  But this was a very poor village, so a price of 2 or 3 chickens was not uncommon.  A price of one or two goats?  That was high praise and few girls brought that much or more.

But as the villagers were explaining this to the visitor, a couple of them started laughing and saying “Remember Joe?”  Joe, it turned out, had wanted to marry Sally, who was a shy, plain-looking girl.  She was an acceptable choice for marriage, but she certainly was not someone who was expected to bring a very high price.  Yet Joe had brought her parents six goats!  The men of the village laughed at how foolish Joe was in paying so much.  But Joe and Sally were married, and moved to another village on a nearby island.

The following week, the anthropologist happened to be visiting that nearby island and decided to meet Joe and Sally.  Someone directed him to their house, but when he arrived he met an absolutely stunning woman, perhaps the most beautiful women he’d seen anywhere in these islands, confident and well-spoken, with shining eyes and a beautiful smile.  He was startled but sure enough, that woman was Sally.  He talked with Joe and Sally for a while and then, after Sally had left, he asked Joe about the bride purchase.  Was this the same woman the villagers on the other island had described as shy and nondescript?  Had he really paid six goats to marry her?  Yes, Joe confirmed, she had not always looked as she did now.  She changed after their marriage.

“Ah,” the anthropologist said, “I understand.  You loved her and paid the six goats because you wanted her to feel good about herself.  You were sacrificing your wealth for her sake.”

“No,” Joe replied, “that’s not it at all.  I paid what I did for selfish reasons.  Because I wanted a wife who was worth six goats.”

OK, a bit hokey and Dale Carnegie-ish, as much of Readers Digest was.  But it struck me when I read it (at a relatively young and not yet cynical age).  First, because it was perhaps the first example I’d run across of the Pygmalion effect, although not expressed explicitly in those terms.  Second, because of the point it made at the end, that it’s not just for the benefit of Sally; it directly benefits Joe as well.

I bet Deuce and Chevalier are rolling over in their graves. This is the worst explanation I have ever seen from a moderator on SHMB.

I suppose I might if I were in a grave, but let’s not be too hasty.

For the most part, not entirely but for the most part, I’ve tired of criticizing how moderators of SJMBs do their jobs.  I do have strong opinions on the subject, which I’ve expressed several times before, including that members are due an explanation for the staff’s actions in most instances.  And I do think that the staff’s performance in that respect and others — for most SJMBs, not just that one – is sometimes, ummm, sub-optimal.  But, it ain’t my board, and my opinion isn’t going to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with it.  I don’t even participate much anymore, so I’m not as concerned about how SJMBs are run.  Although tilting at windmills [*] may be admirable, I’m getting too damned old, you know?

Deuce is younger, of course, so he may still have the energy for the good fight.

Oh, and my appreciation for the kind words by tigercat.

—————

[*]  I think of this phrase primarily as “fighting unwinnable or futile battles” because it’s the right thing to do.  Of course, arguably its primary meaning may be simply attacking imaginary enemies.  I always thought that Cervantes was primarily poking (gentle) fun at the knight for his flawed perception, rather than praising his courage in attacking what he thought were giants.

I do very little of what I consider attacking imaginary enemies.  I try, and sometimes succeed, to make disagreements about the behavior rather than the person.  There are very few in the P4P community whom I might consider an “enemy.”  And I don’t think I mistake windmills for giants, either.  Of course, the knight didn’t think he was mistaken either.

Men are so different in that after an orgasm, they wish to jump up and go in a different direction.

Okay, tongue-in-cheek stereotype. My reaction, I guess, depends on whom I’m with. 

There are times I don’t feel a particularly strong connection (beyond the physical) to a lady with whom I have carnal relations.  This, of course, is not a reflection on the particular lady — it doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with her, only that she and I may not be a great match.  But it does decrease the attraction of cuddling.  I don’t avoid it, but I might not seek it assertively.  I would probably enjoy it, but it’s a relatively mild enjoyment.  The tactile sensations of flesh on flesh.  Body warmth.  The general feeling of well-being that you get from a hug.  If I feel a stronger connection with the lady, I enjoy cuddling a lot more.  The physical sensations are much the same, but the positive feeling from cuddling — for me, anyway — adds an emotional content.  (Not ”I want to marry you” love or stalkerdom, but a high degree of fondness.)

I suppose that’s fairly similar to how we experience hugs.  Hug a casual friend.  Hug your mother.  Hug your boyfriend/girlfriend.  All different.  You hug differently, and experience the physical sensation differently, depending on who you’re with.

I suspect that the stereotype Elisabeth described is connected to the stereotype that men are (often) interested only in the physical.  Cuddling, for the most part, is physical but closely entangled with something more.  And in the realm of P4P, I suspect that the incidence of cuddling is noticeably less than in long-term civilian relationships, just because there are a fair number of P4P clients who are not particularly interested in anything beyond the physical.  But of course, there are also a lot of P4P clients who do enjoy cuddling.

Cuddling also depends on the individual, of course.  Even outside the intimate sphere, some people are more “touchers” than others.  In fact, some people “don’t like to be touched at all in everyday social interactions.”  I’m not that extreme, but I’m probably less “touchy-feely” than average.  I enjoy it, particularly with the right person, but I’m less insistent/demanding than some might be.

The problem, as with so many other characteristics, is when you have a mis-match — someone who enjoys cuddling a lot and someone else who can take it or leave it.  Just as Elisabeth describes. And the hesitant approach, when one person wants to cuddle but isn’t sure whether the other will.

I think that although we appreciate the input on how to “help” our monthly cycles, the fact that we have dealt with them for most of our lives kind of makes us more, “in the know” than most of you may think.

Perfect.

From TinMan’s soon-to-be-published “Five Tips for Survival on a SHMB”:

“2. Don’t preach. The people you are trying to convert aren’t going to pay attention to you anyway.”

I wonder why people even start threads like that. 

The benign explanation is that they post altruistically, to promote the safety of the other members of the community.  Unfortunately, that almost uniformly comes across as arrogant and condescending.  The underlying assumption is that others don’t know the important information, or haven’t thought about it.  Once she educates them, they will make the same decision she has.  Since most denizens of SJMBs do know the relevant information (sometimes more accurately than the original poster of a thread) and have thought of it, they likely will not enjoy being obviously thought of as uninformed and/or stupid.  [*]

The malign explanation is that she posts out of a self-serving motivation.  She has difficulty competing, or has to offer lower rates, because she doesn’t engage in the same activities as other ladies.  If they all changed their behavior, she can obtain more business or keep higher rates.  Of course, such threads never have that effect anyway; no one is every convinced to change their behavior.  And the possibility that this is her motive for posting opens the door to an ad hominem (circumstantial type) rebuttal.  It’s easy for people to dismiss an argument if you appear to be advancing it because it benefits you in particular, even if it might be more appropriate to simply address the factual claims on the merits.  [**]

I would be the last one to challenge her right to run her business in whatever way makes her feel more comfortable.  But I also wouldn’t challenge the right of prospective clients to choose against seeing her if they’re uncomfortable with how she runs her business.  For this to work, it has to be something that both parties are comfortable with.  NB:  These general rules apply broadly to just about every aspect of how ladies choose to run their business.

And even if you think she has a right to tell others how to run their business . . . this type of approach is almost never effective.

[Yes, yes, I have been known to express my opinions on how people should act in P4P and on SJMBs.  But: (a) I'm an opinionated curmudgeon, so it's part of my job description; (b) nowadays, I mostly do it here, where few people will read and be offended; and (c) I like expressing an opinion but do so with absolutely no expectations that anyone will actually be persuaded. ]

————————–

[*] Interestingly, though, the reaction such as in that thread typically only occurs when the topic is refusing to offer any uncovered services.  The typical anti-BBFS thread provokes much less criticism.  We still know the relevant information.  (Well, most significantly overestimate the likelihood of HIV infection from unprotected sex; it makes tremendous sense to avoid that, but because of the extremely negative consequences if the long shot comes through rather than a high probability of infection.)  But there is usually much less drama on those threads.  It is only when the original poster is trying to discourage BBBJ as well, and particularly when she/he implies that the risks are almost as great as for BBFS, that she/he comes under fire.

I suspect the reasons for the difference are: (1) more people are willing to risk BBBJ than are willing to risk BBFS; and (2) it can (not always, but sometimes) risk one’s P4P reputation to publicly advocate BBFS.  Propose that no one should have unprotected vaginal/anal sex in P4P?  Few objections to that idea.  Propose that no one should have unprotected oral sex in P4P?  Many more people object to that idea.  Which demonstrates that the real reason for the negative response is not simply an arrogant and condescending tone but also a strong difference of opinion.  In which case, why bother?  Should it really matter to anyone if her opinion differs from theirs?

———————–

[**] As explained here, under some circumstances, an ad hominem (circumstantial type) rebuttal is an appropriate evidentiary invalidation of a claim.  Of course, in this specific instance, the factual claim — the risk factors for various types of STDs from various types of unprotected sex — can be validated or invalidated directly.  No one in their right mind should accept a random stranger’s posting of such information on the Internet at face value anyway. 

The rest of her post is essentially a value judgment, whether the economic benefits of offering BBBJ outweigh the risks of doing so.  The economic benefits and the risks are factual; how those should be balanced against each other is a value judgment.  To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to challenge value judgments.  My value judgment of a particular question is no more intrinsically “right” than someone else’s.  “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

As active participants in the local P4P community — or at least those who visit P4P boards often — know, there are several groups that occasionally get together for socials.  Partly just to have fun around people with whom you don’t have to keep your guard up about that deep, dark secret (P4P) most of us carry.  Partly as a way for a guy to meet new ladies and have a better sense (than available from ads/reviews alone) whether they might want to schedule in the future.  Partly as a way for a lady to meet and mingle and hopefully develop some new clients.  The size of the different groups ranges from very small to very large and all points in between.  Many ladies and clients belong to multiple groups.  And some of the larger groups get their own private fora on P4P boards, for only those who are members of that particular group.

I’ve never been part of any of the smaller groups.  [*]  I have on occasion attended socials by some of the larger groups in Dallas, although I’ve cut way back in recent years.  Hey, I’m an introverted, anti-social curmudgeon — I don’t tend to mingle well at parties.  Particularly when I’m not actively looking for new ladyfriends (and I haven’t been for quite a long time), attending a social is usually not very high on my priority list.  I’ve been to maybe one in the past few years.

I was still a member in good standing of one group, though, even though I hadn’t been to one of their parties in a while.  I got email invites and had access to the private forum for that group on a local P4P board.  But the latter has now been revoked.  I’m off the list!  How horrible!  Well, not really.

I think this was just a standard pruning of their membership to eliminate people who never attended parties, or might not even be around, and I’ve anticipated that for quite some time now.  It certainly makes a lot of sense.  There is a certain need for discretion and security.  You wouldn’t want just anyone to have access to information about when and where parties are being held.  And pruning the list to eliminate people who aren’t going to attend also makes things easier administratively, for example, in sending out invitations.  So I think it was completely appropriate to take me off the list and I don’t mind at all.  I imagine I could get back on the list fairly easily just by contacting the organizers.  But I won’t, unless/until I ever decide to start attending such parties again, which I don’t expect to do.  Asking to be put back on the list, just for the sake of being on the list, not only is silly but also interferes with a reasonable attempt by the organizers to keep the list manageably small.

I suspect not everyone was as sanguine about the prospect of being de-selected as I am. I assume there will be some degree of anguish and complaining about it that the organizers will have to deal with.  I sympathize.  

I don’t mean to make fun of those who are upset about being taken off the list.  I’m sure there are some symbols that I would hate to lose even though I weren’t receiving actual benefits other than the psychological.  This doesn’t happen to be one, but then other people might not be concerned about symbols that are important to me.

———————

[*]  Someone once assumed I was part of one particular small group and let slip the location where they congregate each week.  Oops!   Don’t worry, your secret is safe with me. For that matter, I’m not sure whether that weekly get-together is still going on.