Given DC's comment below, I got to thinking about this concept of "connection" that comes up so often; is sometimes lauded, sometimes condemned, and most often misunderstood by both sides.

While the precise meaning is likely to be very individual, I thought some might find the natural limits of "connection" such that they may promote greater understanding.

In 99% of cases, "connection" does not refer to a hobbyist admitting a provider into what could be called his "sympathy group." A person's sympathy group can be defined as those people who, if they were to die suddenly, the person would be devastated.

Humans evolved in small groups and have a channel capacity for people with intense emotional connections such as parents, children and best friends limited to between 10 and 15 people. That's it. Anything more than that becomes too much. Adding anyone else means removing someone once that capacity is met.

While a person who is having an intense affair is likely to admit the object of that affair into her sympathy group; it is highly unlikely that a hobbyist will admit providers into that group because it takes too much emotional energy and would quickly exhaust channel capacity. He'd have to stop caring about his kids or something in order to make room -- and that is pretty unlikely.

This same thing would apply to providers, btw. It would be highly unlikely for providers to admit hobbyists into their sympathy group. With a total limit of between 10 and 15 members; this group must necessarily be much more selective than the base of clients.

So, EXCEPT for those cases of intense friendships or "I've fallen and I can't get up," hobbyists and providers are NOT talking about "connection" as admitting someone to their sympathy group. They can't be. They'd quickly run out of capacity and have to stop hobbying or providing.

Humans also have another limit discussed by Gladwell in "The Tipping Point" but well-explored elsewhere in anthropological literature. This is called "social channel capacity." The largest size of a social group in which everyone knows everyone is ... 150.

These are people with whom we are friendly and on a first-name basis. It doesn't make them friends or lovers or anything of the sort. These are acquaintances or slightly more; but not members of the sympathy group by and large.

According to LG's survey, the average provider has seen several times more than 150 men. Thus, her social channel capacity; especially considering a great deal of it is taken up with non-hobby-related people and so forth, is inadequate to accommodate many hobbyists at all within her sphere of just "acquaintances."

Same for hobbyists who often have a social channel pertaining to work as well as home taking up space. Relatively few providers, if any, will become any given hobbyist's friendly acquaintance.

While it is certainly more likely for "connection" to refer to mutual admission to each other's limited social channel capacity than to one's sympathy group; again, this is likely the exception rather than the rule due to natural limits.

Therefore, in MOST cases, when hobbyists or providers speak of "connection" they are NOT using that term as any sort of synonym for any sort of relationship -- even one so slight as to be mutual acquaintances.

I'm not saying that social channel and sympathy group membership do not occur -- what I am saying is that the capacities are so low that in most cases such membership does NOT occur; and therefore cannot be what providers and hobbyists are referring to as "connection" in most cases.

Thus, the "connection" of general hobby parlance would, in the overwhelming majority of cases, even among so-called "manginas," be far more ... impersonal ... than might be assumed from the term itself. Sorry, but that is just the reality of the hobby.

What IS connection? I won't take a stab at that tonight. All I have defined is what, in most cases, it is not.

Again, I'm not saying that some hobbyists don't care for some providers and vice-versa. All I'm saying is that is the exception and not the rule.

made a connection with her that was intensified by the sex.  That's one of the things that I love about the hobby.  I can have this connection with a woman that I never would have had without the Hobby, usually for the duration of the session, but sometimes a little longer, and that connection is reinforced by the intimacy of the sex.

Is it the "real" her?  No. Not more than it is the "real" me.  That doesn't take away from the instant, snapshot in time, connection that I make with every provider that I've been with.

To me, "connection" isn't a bad word or concept.  However, as with all words and concepts, some degrade it's meaning with derision, and some give WAY too much importance and meaning to it.  But hey, that's the hobby and it is uniquely unique.

I absolutely love women.  Everything about them.  In fact, I honestly appreciate the connection made in bad and mediocre sessions as well (except the muggings and rip offs) because I have experienced and enjoyed A part of the woman for that moment in time.  Good, bad, indifferent, I appreciate it all.  I just enjoy the good ones more. LOL

What I take away from every session that I've had over 27 years of hobbying is not only unique to me, but also valuable to me beyond just the sex of the moment.

It helps that I usually select based on how much a provider looks like someone in my other life so that I can mind-fuck myself before, during, and after the sessions.  I'll tell you about the one that could be my psycho sister-in-law's twin someday, but suffice to say that memories of fucking that provider sure made some of the holiday gatherings a LOT more interesting and easier to get through.  LOL

I love the Hobby.

Maybe it's akin to a healthy adversarial relationship?

The respect say that athletes competing against each other may experience.

Good game?

Excpet in this instance you have the powerful stuff of sexual intimacy leveragin into the perspective.

Those hormones and the endophin release are powerful things.

I have to say over the yrs, I cherish many but have learned grown and changed in some way from them all.
Some good  some bad, that's true...but it's the nature of the beast.  I do believe even the bad ones which are few and far between, have sweetened the good ones greatly. I love what I do, who have had the  pure pleasure to meet and the women i have been blessed to get to know. Yes Ladies...kudos to you~You know who you are!!!! (Cookie being at the top of the list and of course Jill  lol)

Peace
Nicole

pedantic

Etymology

From pedant +? -ic.
[edit] Pronunciation

   * enPR: pa-dan'tik, IPA: /p?'dæn.t?k/, SAMPA: /p@"d{ntIk/

         Rhymes: -ænt?k
Adjective

pedantic (comparative more pedantic, superlative most pedantic)

Positive
pedantic


Comparative
more pedantic


Superlative
most pedantic

  1. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
  2. Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner.
  3. Being finicky or picky with language.

There have been very few providers (an yes, I've seen more than I've reviewed here) that I've felt attuned to.  A "connection" infers something much deeper, more of a spiritual sort of bonding with a person.  Chemistry would also be a more appropriate term for what most of us experience.

Lets face it, just because you and another woman are able to have amazing, mind bending or even life altering sex does not convey that a connection exists.  It's typically no more than a connection that two deer that are attracted to each other's pheromones are.  So chemistry, attunement...I've definitively felt both of those.

I agree that only a certain amount of people can enter the sphere of a person's life. I do have to say, that I have a client or two with whom, I have entered into a real friendship with and who I spend time with and care deeply about.  I would be devastated if something happened to them and through this very strange circumstance we found some type of kindrid and caring spirit with each other. There is passion, chemistry and yes, real connection.  This is a rare thing in life, both civilian and Hobby and it  takes time for it to get to the point where lives are intertwined and understanding and support for each other to grow.  Although I feel that initially we both knew right away, but time is what developed it into something real.  

Just my .02.

As long as you spell out 'Not the Rule' I'm alright with it. Concretes have always scared me. Notice the use of the concrete(always)?lol

I do know a provider who 'ran out of capacity'. Thus,no longer providing.

**Warning Long Post**

No wait, we really already know this don't we? lmao

Sorry John, had to pull ur chain a little.

was running low----LOL ! You gotta hand it to Joh ;he lays out QUITE the behavorial science smorgasboard : psychology, sociology, cultural anthroplogy---what's next ? Scientology & phrenology ? No doubt that John is a very bright guy that comes up with excellent insights from time to time. It's the LENGTH that I question.
Some of the posts run into "War & Peace" duration. Pity I don't have a laptop----I'd be able to read his posts in the a.m, while sitting on my "American Standard porcelain throne"-----

For me it is pretty simple. If I can converse with someone, smile a little and feel comfortable around them I feel as if we have "connected". If I feel tension in the room, or can't make simple conversation or sense she does not want to be there I am going to walk away, even if the envelope is already on the table. On one of my first visits I did walk away after a few minutes. In another encounter I wish I had walked away.

I feel more comfortabel with some ladies as I am sure most men do

It's just my writing style, Captain Obvious. Folks who meet me learn quickly that I'm extremely informal in person.

"The pedant is he who finds it impossible to read criticism of himself without immediately reaching for his pen and replying to the effect that the accusation is a gross insult to his person. He is, in effect, a man unable to laugh at himself."—Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id.

This explains one of the main reason that provider/hobbyist relationships so often fail. Each of the partners capacity is already full and they can't find a way to create space for each.

It's been my experience that some extraordinary women are able to create 'instant' connection and then disengage without attachment. I'm not talking about 'love' but a real connection whether it's based on intellectual, physical, or emotional aspects.

When that happens, it makes for a good time!!

Now where in the hell is my cigar?

Hopefully you have more interesting material to read! LOL

The length comes from anticipation of likely objections to the initial idea.

I *could* have said: "Folks who equate "connection" with mangina-hood are full of shit." That's the idea in a single sentence. But without saying WHY and making allowance for exceptions ... it would have just been fodder for bickering.

I think much of the criticism directed towards those who have reported having had a connection with a provider or hobbyist, by others, confuse connection with attachment, rather than connection being attunement. But, then there are those who desire to hold onto that state of attunement for longer and longer periods of time, and thus try to form an attachment. That's when things can begin to deteriorate.

filling the board with more touchy, feely and in this case again NEEDY manginas.  The need for the "connection".  Now we have taken it a step further to break it down into "attunement" or "attachment".
Unfortunately, there seems to be no good treatment for PUSD (Post Umbilical Severance Disorder).
The hobby seems to be just one stop along the never ending journey to become "reconnected".  To be somehow go back to the stress free environment of being submerged in amniotic fluid.  No cares, no worries, just floating, sucking their thumbs in the fetal position!

In short, they desire to go back where they came from.  We wish they would too!

Why is it that you cowardly, alias-using,  shitheads can't comprehend that different people want and get different things from the hobby? Are you that threatened by anyone who is not exactly like you?

Why don't you just post some threads about things you're capable of understanding, things like Leggos and Tinker Toys, and let the adults who enjoy engaging other adults on an adult level have a pleasant conversation.

If you'll do that, I promise I won't barge into your threads about whether it's legal to fuck your pet.

Ummm. Except for that whole existence of the subconscious thing. That's still kinda important.

relativity.

Much of what Freud wrote is still applicable in many situations, and if he is not being taught at schools, that explains why the amount of insanity in the world is on the rise.

That being said, the quote above is certainly on the mark.

Willy is correct. If you take an introductory psychology course today; very little of it is based directly on Freud. He has long since been supplanted.

In contrast, if you take an introductory physics course today, until you get to the last two chapters, almost the entire thing -- force, acceleration, etc. -- is straight Newtonian physics with darned little deviation.

So comparing Newton and Freud in terms of practical applicability as Mr Fisher did is not quite apples to apples.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Freud made important contributions to the ideas of psychology as a practice; and he had some worthwhile (and some not so worthwhile) insights. Certainly his ideas of the subconscious are still in use today by hypnotherapists. But given his very unscientific methodology, the mixed bag is almost inevitable.

But I would hardly cite him, today, as an authority.

As for the whole start of this -- the use of Freud in this case to support circular reasoning similar to that employed in witch trials is ridiculous.

Him: You are pedantic!
Me: I am not!
Him: The fact you deny it proves that you are!

Sounds a lot like if you drown, you are innocent and if you float you are a witch so you get hung.

LOL

psychology has gone from studying the psyche to studying behavior. However, if you read the contemporary books on psychoanalysis and psycho-dynamic psychotherapy, Freud will be abundantly referenced. Freud's discovery of the unconscious still stands as his major contribution.

I can only imagine the vast hordes of you's behind your WE. NOT! More like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

Now, I do not knock the use of pharmaceuticals for many disorders which have as their origin chemical and other physiological problems; but there are still abundant psychological problems which could benefit from various forms of nonpharmaceutical intervention; and because of a certain amount of laziness and profitability in prescribing drugs, this is not happening as much as it should.  (Not to mention that a whole generation of psychiatrists are being minted with little or no knowledge of this lore.)

And I think this is a shame.

(Stepping down from the soap box.)

if you, you'd better PM me.