It's because they are married, and so are unavailable.
Fear of intimacy is not something that only affects men. Women can have it too.
That may or may not be true, however a lot of women beleive that the best men are married. Ihad mnay more invitations wheen I was married than when I wasn't. And trust me it had nothing to do with commitment issues.
you just figured this one out?
but do you think you could possibly just fuck off?
decisions of the adults on this board about whether or not to post.
...should we ever meet, I'm going to have a souvenir black eye or fat lip to show for it.
Where can I set up an appointment with you ? I just love you !!! hahahahahahahah
Nah, it's because she sees that he's a sucker who has agreed to marry a woman in the past, so she sees him as a more likely prospect to possibly do it again with her.
Second question: did you get a student loan for this? If so, I'll have to write my congressmen.
"Including some providers..." it's not like providers have to target their marketing to the "unavailable male." Married men find them and seek them out quite readily. They make it a habit of seeing single "unavailable" men as well. They don't have to shake the tree very hard, or even at all, for the sexually frustrated unavailable fall out by the bushell.
You're trying to ponder wisdom from a cliche first uttered by those who didn't know anything, Freudian psychologists, then dime novelists. I'd say your topic of study is a dead branch.
/Zin
you seem to be confusing the kind of man who a provider may be attracted to with the kind of man she would want as a client. There may be some congruence between the two, but they are not really the same.
Freudian psychologists were wrong about many things, but I think it an overstatement to say that they didn't know anything.
Nothing dead about studying human nature. Endlessly interesting.
-- Modified on 12/27/2004 3:59:58 PM
The kind of man she (generic provider) is attracted to compared with the kind she would want: many providers have SO's anyway. And if not, they can get one, it seems to me, quite easily.
For the provider who's client is married, there's always the landmine of the jealous wife/stalker. But, remember, he's so attractive because he's unavailable, right? Granted, there are some, but this is pretty much hogwash
The clandestine nature of this hobby does add to the excitement. I've heard providers express that to me. It's true from my side too. But I take it for granted that people are able to add spice to their sex from many sources. Of course there are those who will spice it, where applicable (or role play it?) with the thought of stealing something unavailable. The women I've met in the business (the best ones around, BTW) are terribly capable of adding verve and enthusiasm to their work this way, and do it routinely, I assume. Is this what you mean by "would want?" Not that it would have been her original intention to steal the forbidden guy. He came to her, which realistically spoils the idea, but she might as well go ahead and fantasize about it and earn a 10 doing it.
So, unfortunately, your original statement just comes out as trite and even worse. You express it as such a grandiose tone of discovery, titling your thread with it, that a reader here is also inclined to read prudery into it as well. I mean, why is it that important to you...?
Freudians definitely did not know anything about women, and I'm afraid to say, they didn't care to. Yes, that's judgmental, but I think the evidence is strong.
I'll agree about human nature. As a study of it, perhaps understand why your post is not well received.
/Zin
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 1:44:44 AM
are unavailable. Odd that you would then use the term "hogwash". Are you saying that generalizing would be hogwash? - if so, I agree, but of course I did not do that. Extreme touchiness about imagined generalizations gets in the way of the exchange of viewpoints.
Are you disputing my view that some women fear intimacy? If you think it is so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, I invite you to read some of the responses below - it may be obvious to you, but there are other participants on this board other than yourself.
I think, based on your comments, that you are unaware of how often providers are not looking for clients who they are personally attracted to, but who are simply clean, respectful, safe, reliably "regular" in their visits, and reasonable enjoyable to spend time with.
While Freudians were wrong about many, many things in their view of women, it is incorrect to say that they did not know anything about women.
I think my post has been very well-received, although perhaps not by some of those who responded to it. In any case, lots of room for different viewpoints on the board.
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 7:58:27 AM
You confuse the terms, albiet, in the culturally approved way. It depends on if you define intimacy also by commitment. I see most of this hobby is quite intimate-- consensual sex being most intimate, IMHO. Though the commitment, from my side, is my limited financial commitment. This all that's expected. The commitment from her side is a brief amount of time, and in that frame, sex, comfort, conversation and friendliness, and a guarantee that nothing is expected beyond that.
Since our culture at large doesn't approve of this, it compels us to think of intimacy only in the context of strengthening commitment. This caused a confusion of terms.
I am one of those who shun commitment. It's the main reason I hobby. I consider it to be a rational choice. Because there's never been a reason in sight to think that women can't be the same way, especially providers, I called your "discovery" trite, and hogwash. The equivalent of tapping me on the shoulder to tell me it's daytime and taking credit for the discovery. The discovery is trite, the credit you claim is hogwash.
"...you are unaware of how often providers are not looking for clients who they are personally attracted to, but who are simply clean, respectful, safe, reliably 'regular' in their visits, and reasonable enjoyable to spend time with."
What? Based on *my* comments? You came up with almost exactly the reverse of what I wrote. How did you do that?
The argument about Freudians is better left where it is. "Not so much," I say. "Not so much, but really more than you must think," you say. 8-| We're arguing about where to draw an imaginary line in invisible ink on an evaporting pool.
/Zin
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 10:07:16 AM
You are mistaken to feel that consensual sex must necessarily be truly intimate, at least in the sense that I used the term intimacy, which was in the sense of emotional intimacy.
No problem with your shunning commitment - I think that can be a valid choice. Perhaps you thought that I was somehow putting down people who do not choose to embrace commitment - this was another error on your part.
The notion that I took credit for any "discovery" in my original post is just plain silly.
I am beginning to wonder if some people may be bringing so much pent-up emotion to this forum that they are unable or unwilling to have an adult discussion without unwarrented assumptions.
From my own experience, sex always affects people emotionally.
But not in necessarily the way it's looked for or expected. We expect more from it, normally. Even porn is quite emotional-- even if its effect is to offend. And the emotions there run quite high.
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 3:18:19 AM
But being affected emotionally in some way is not the same as feeling emotionally intimate.
Emma is right. What a screaming wanker you are, and only with the head on your shoulders! And I think you wank it with blunt objects, too.
You start this thread and correct other people's errors. Some student. When did you promote yourself to headmaster? What did you intend to "learn" from this? I think you just felt your sickly ego groaning and needed some suckers to for light abuse to give it a pulse. I think it was just a tease to make a wanker feel important.
"Just plain silly," I critiqued the tone your original post took, how it appeared to me. Now, flush that information down the toilet like it doesn't matter. My "assumption" wasn't unwarranted. What possible adult discussion could you have over your post? It was a tease, if anything. I was hoping to draw out whatever deep thought might have prompted you to make a post over something this trite. I took you seriously for second-- and I feel like an idiot now.
You have every arrogance and flaw of an academic, and none of the virtues. If you're still educable, try to get yourself a real education. I bet you've retaken Life 101 three times to get a D.
Find a different major.
Emma Bond's instincts about you were absolutely correct. So was her response. Just fuck off!
/Zin
I have learned many valuable things from the adult members of this community. It is a wonderful community.
But I think we can all learn more when we do not sink to the level of childish rudeness, as you and Emma Bond have done.
You did exactly that. And you still never answered the question about how you managed to reverse my point, you simply ignored it.
/Zin
I have certainly not had an intent to be rude. However, with your name-calling, not to mention the "fuck off!", it seems to me that you intended to be rude.
I actually read, and tried to understand, the point you were making about my having reversed your point. Since I didn't understand it, I could not respond. I wanted to ask you then to elaborate, but by then you were sinking into intentional rudeness, something that Emma was never able to rise above.
But I am nterested in learning from you, so I will ask you now to elaborate on what you meant, so that I can better understand it.
I will also ask you to understand that I do not always have as much time to spend on this board as you seem to. I am sure that this is also true of others who you made have participated in discussions with. I wish I always had more time for the board, but circumstances do not allow it. So when this happens, and I do not respond to everything you say, try not to read too much into it.
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 9:47:28 AM
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 9:48:21 AM
Wow what a statement,,, Just because a man is married does not mean is is a nice guy. Just means some gullable woman was dooped.
exactly Karrie. being married doesn't mean anything, but being married and seeking out intimacy outside of his relationship does say something. to me this means that the guy couldn' be trusted in any sense of the word.
Aut.
pre-approved, that is really funny.
are you assuming that women need men in order to be happy or some such nonsense ?
Aut.
rather than simply pontificating.
Pretty much saving a doomed, flame-throwing thread.
so that I can have all the female grouse follow me to my lek. Thanks for an interesting read.
indeed done much good work. Many accurate answers about human behavior in the burgeoning, trendy-yet-valid field of evolutionary psychology.
It may be best not to assume too much.
-- Modified on 12/27/2004 3:51:26 PM
"New Scientist can be a little too chatty" Hello?! Of course it is. It's a populist mag whose focus is on reportage. That has no relevance, and certainly doesn't detract from, the validity of the papers and events about which it reports.
If you want hard core, peer-reviewed papers then stick to Nature magazine.
If the term was intended as name-calling, its use seems a bit childish.
Glad to hear that you study.
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 5:43:19 PM
...would someone please tell me where I can find these women?!
I turned to hobbying after years of searching for them.
We are all studying life, some feel the need to voice opinions and others who are more learned watch and read the viewpoints that are submitted. Fear of intimacy and being unavailable are all choices individually made and therefore are personal decisions, the wise observe, the young and learning speak prematurely in the hopes of being recognized for their insight and intelligence. This is a wonderful place to test your thoughts and opinions of all things due to the depth of intelligence and the willingness of many to state their thoughts without reservation, truly a wonderful situation for everyone.
That's funny I was thinking of of the same situation today. Why is it that when your single and unattached it's like your a leper, invisible to women. Once your in a relationship or are on a date you get all kind's of look's and flirting? Is it, as I've heard before, that most women are very competitive, wanting to prove they have the ability to upstage an opponent. I've had one provider get really pissed at me because I gave another provider she know's a higher review score. In fact she no longer will see or talk to me. And some of the women ask why a lot of the guy's don't want to leave review's.
You may be right at least in some cases. Years ago when I was just out of college I had a conversation with a young man who worked for me about the same thing. He was not particulary handsome but as soon as he slipped a wedding ring on his finger he had 10 times as much booty being waved in his face as he ever did when he was single. His wife and him both believed it was the competitive nature of the women trying to prove that they could steal another woman's husband.
As to the jealousy between providers and the problems potentially created by reviews and references - nothing new there.
Tell me why obviously attached women slober over an obviouly unattached attractive guy, even when in the presence of their boyfriends or husbands, much to the chagrin of the unattached guy. Also, have some of you married guys that have women knocking down doors to get to you figured out why your SO is often uninterested in making love to you?
Get real, the person that started this post is making a third rate observation that has, at best, a weak basis in reality.
... including this one.
Seriously, I tend to discount any statement that looks like
all X are Y. or, even
many X are Y or even,
some X are Y.
It's either obvious, or someone's projection. Good psychologists make their money by listening and recognizing that there are infinite varieties to human experience.
Edmand Sapir, the great social anthropologist, wrote an essay about characteristics that are common to all human societies. He found only one: there was always some group in the society that other members of the group were not allowed to kill. Are we going to do any better?
Harry
Why would you discount a statement that is obviously true? Are you willing to acknowledge that what is obvious to you may not be obvious to others?
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 8:03:40 AM
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 8:05:18 AM
OK, not a generalization like the first two.
If something is obvious to me, it will be obvious to everyone. I am pretty dense.
Harry
It's only one person's perspective....and for all we know it may just be a woman who posted it. Everyone has experiences throughout their lives that shape their opinions and that is why sharing them can help all of us. No matter how old you are, you can always learn something...right? IMHO I always thought that married men may be attractive to providers because they might be considered safer prospects. I say this because I would think it is much, much more difficult to find a provider-stalker that is married. JMO
The original post didn't generalize in my eyes, and that is the only thing that should have offended people. If I am wrong about the generalization...please enlighten me on why. Maybe it is holiday stress that caused so much angst. That is what I prefer to think anyway.
Because I'm married and I can't seem to find these women, that's why? And God knows I've been looking.
Hey, any of you ladies out there who are obsessed by married guys!!! I'm over here!!! [waving]
See!!! Right here!!! [waving]
Yes, the bald guy who's waving!!! [waving]
That's me!!! I'm married!!! [shows ring]
Yes, that's right... married!!! [shows ring again]
Please come and take me just to show that you could...and feel free to toss me aside afterwards like the cheap-and-easy lay that I am.
You said the magic word! Bald! No sex for you without pay!
I too was surprised by the scorn heaped on the original poster. Maybe it was because the proposition was put forward rather more like a statement of fact, rather than a debatable point? Who knows. To me, the concept behind the question is an idea worthy of discussion, and has at least with as much merit as many other topics which appear here.
I notice that the statement referred to all women (and not just providers in their business and/or personal capacity) so we have the broad spectrum of womankind being contemplated here. I do think it's impossible - dangerous even - to generalise. Like everything, it depends on the individual woman concerned in her particular snapshot of time. Women are worthy of more than generalisation I suppose is one answer. Another might be that, believe it or not, we really don't only have men, married or not, on our minds.
~A~
I didn't think it generalized as the post said "some" and not "all" or "most". You would know better than me what women think about though...after all these years I still can't figure it out! 
Maybe the generalisation is more in the issue of a fear of intimacy. The one issue of preferring married men does not necessarily flow into the next statement regarding fear of intimacy. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, don't you think? A woman might prefer to have a fling with a married man, not because of a fear of intimacy but because she hopes and expects that that he will be seeking the same sort of objective - casual sex without complications. Or, yes, maybe she might have a combative streak. Or maybe she doesn't even know he's married until it's too late and she's already involved. Or maybe he tells her that he's unhappily married and is getting a divorce, and she believes him. Etc.
The reasons for attraction are myriad, even when it comes to married men, I guess.
~A~
What you say could be true Linkmeister, assuming that this isn't a provider who posted. If it is...she would have much more insight than either of us on this subject. Generalization is the one sticky point...I was questioning the use of that term because the original post did not generalize as it did not say "all" or "most"....it said "some". That is an exclusive term as opposed to inclusive. If most people here think I am wrong about that observation, I will change my understanding of the word. I'm not too old to change...yet! That aside, I do understand what you mean. But I wish people wouldn't gang-bang a poster over a simple opinion...unless she likes it of course!
That was an attempt at humor...hopefully someone thought it was funny
The generalization is not about "all women".
It is about the "some women who are often attracted to married men".
Once this subset is established, the poster generalizes the reason to all members of the group.
He does this by authoritatively saying what the single answer is.
This is how it comes across to me.
Perhaps it is the perceived arrogance of stating the answer as if there's no other way.
The reaction is visceral. Hard to articulate, but I tried.
A so-called "student of life" should realize that there is rarely a single answer and humans are multi-dimensional and complex. I can think of several other reasons women are attracted to married men, safety and discretion among them.
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 9:00:23 PM
Hey...I guess I really can still learn something!! I see what you mean
just an honest mistake based on the visceral reaction you mention that you had. We are all creatures of emotion, I know I certainly am, and such a mistaken reaction can certainly be excused, but there is also a place in these discussions for logical thought.
The group I was refering to was defined by my statement as those for whom the reason I gave (fear of intimacy) was true.
In your response, it is as if you said:
"The poster walks into a room, and makes a statement that "some of the people in this room are over 40 years of age".
Once this subset is established, the poster generalizes by saying that all people in the over-40 group are over 40 years of age".
Well, yes, if a group is defined as the those who are over-40, than one can "generalize" by saying that they are all over 40 years of age. This kind of "generalizing" is not the kind that I think you mistakenly seem to feel that I did in my original post.
In your last sentence, you make the same mistake that many others have made in reading my post. It is hard for me to see how someone could think that in my use of the term "attraction", I was referring to a provider's preference for one type of client over another. I said that my statement was about woman in general, and did not limit it to providers. The attraction I was referring to was that of romantic feelings, not a business-related preference.
I have been willing to take the time to respond to your post because I have generally found your posts to be thoughtful in the past.
I will state again for those who are willing to take the time to think about what I am saying:
"The reason that some women (including some providers) are often attracted to married guys is because they are married, and so are unavailable.
Fear of intimacy is not something that only affects men. Women can have it too".
As I said above, I am beginning to wonder if some people may be bringing so much pent-up emotion to this forum that they are unable or unwilling to have an adult discussion without unwarrented assumptions.
Let's take your example:
The poster walks into a room, and makes a statement that "some of the people in this room are over 40 years of age". Once this subset is established, the poster generalizes by saying that all people in the over-40 group are over 40 years of age.
Now let's look at it this way:
The poster walks into a room, and makes a statement that "some of the people in this room are over 40 years of age". Once this subset is established, the poster generalizes by saying that all people in the over-40 group are that way because they were born in 1930 on September 19.
The impression (mistaken or otherwise) that some get, is that the poster is proclaiming "the" reason, as if it is the only one.
As a matter of style, the poster does not mention that this is an opinion or thesis, nor is there an invitation for other thoughts or discussion. It appears to be a proclamation, and a lesson to be learned by the reader.
-- Modified on 12/28/2004 10:39:47 PM
thanks to your fourth paragraph.
You seem to think that I was saying that the reason that women who are attracted to married men feel that attraction is that they fear intimacy, but if you will simply read my post, I would hope that you would see that what I said is that the reason that those women who are attracted to married men because they fear intimacy feel the attraction is that they fear intimacy. This may be a simple truism, but I believe that many who read it thought about it and that it had value for them, although they did not post a response. I could perhaps have given a more elaborate and laborious explanation, but I think that at some point you yourself need to take some responsibility for misunderstanding my post.
I hardly think that a thread-starting post needs to include a specific invitation for other thoughts on the topic at hand. This is, after all, a discussion board. Perhaps all of your thread-starting posts have included this type of invitation, but I think that many by others have not, and that is fine.
"Well, yes, if a group is defined as the those who are over-40, than one can "generalize" by saying that they are all over 40 years of age. This kind of "generalizing" is not the kind that I think you mistakenly seem to feel that I did in my original post."
Try not to confuse the two. Because a person disagrees with conjecture does not make them into upset, angry people. Maybe future generations will view your musings with the reverence reserved for de Vinci, but I will not bet any of my money on it.
No confusion, at least on my part.
I hardly think my thoughts are worthy of the reverence reserved for de Vinci, LOL. But they may possibly be worth posting on a discussion board.
But I have to admit, I can't generalize as to why it upset all the people it upset (:
This discussion board gives all of us an opportunity to both teach and learn, among many other things.
I welcome the opportunity to learn from you, as I would hope that you would welcome the opportunity to learn from me.
P.S.: Please explain to stilltrying25 your view that some of those who responded to my original post were upset.
I'll reiterate: Emma's initial response was right, and how quickly he ran out of time once the discussion seemed to turn serious.
Instead of TheStudentOfLife, his handle should be ArrogantWankerLookingToBolsterEgoWithIntellectualPretense.
/Zin
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 4:09:18 AM
from time to time, as I'm sure you do too.
A serious, adult discussion, without name-calling, would be a very good thing.
I believe that some women, and some men, have a fear of emotional intimacy. As we have agreed back when you were less rude, this is not to be confused with their feelings about commitment.
Where does a fear of intimacy come from? It could come from a variety of sources, and everyone is different, so with ten different people, it could come from ten different sources, or combinations of sources. Perhaps with some people, one of the sources may be that they felt betrayed as children by someone who they trusted and felt emotionally intimate with, and so fear making themselves vulnerable again to the pain they felt when were they were betrayed. Or perhaps they experienced this as adults rather than children.
Or perhaps, if they are a man, they were made to feel that being emotionally intimate with another person is unmanly, perhaps by a "macho" father.
Or perhaps, whether they are a man or a woman, they simply have not had much experience with being emotionally intimate with another person, and so fear it as something that is unknown to them.
I have, as a student of life, talked with people who expressed all three of these reasons.
I have often seen that from Emma, but this forum can be better than that.
Childishness at its best can be a very good thing, but that aspect of childishness that is simply rude, as in "fuck off", demeans those who present it.
-- Modified on 12/29/2004 12:14:08 PM
you just figured this out ? how old are you ?
20's ?
I have found much more of a fear of intimacy in men than women.
you however seem like an idiot. Married men are not ideal examples of the male species in any case.
Aut.
I agree that fear of intimacy is more common in men than in women. Also that there is nothing about married men that makes them any more "ideal" than unmarried men.
Not sure that the name-calling adds much to the discussion.
Au contraire, my dear Autumn. You just haven't met me.
"Married men are not ideal examples of the male species in any case."
Now IMHO this is a generalization that is issued as a statement of fact. Yes, I could see how this would offend or alienate married men....but it is just an opinion.
Autumn I am very, very curious as to what you think is an ideal example of the male species? I presume you are speaking of humans also. lol