TER General Board
I'm super new, but
But with a tan 
no matter whether they be providers or civvies. Hot girls get more job offers too. Ask Brent Musberger. I'd eat the corn out of this girl's poop.
And decided to go with it rather than fight the inevitable.
When I was interested in adding staff...the candidates that I would interview were mostly women. Some I hired were true 10's (not this TER nonsense). However I didn't know what a gal looked like till she walked into the office for the interviews. There were times that some really scary looking gals showed up...but I conducted the interview as if she was a 10.
The reality is that each gal had or didn't have the requisite skills to do the job I was offering. If she did, and our personalities meshed...she was hired. If not...see ya later. Didn't matter to me what she looked like, as long as I liked her and she could do the job.
Did I ever tell you about the young Scandinavian gal that came in for the Administrative Assistant position? Holy Shit...this gal was aobut 5'9"...gorgeous and smart. I knew that I had to somehow let her go after she showed up one day in a dangerously short skirt, buttoned down blouse and ankle sox. Fortunately she married a clients IT guy shortly after that day LOL
BTW...she had the job as soon as she walked in for the interview.
And for those who understand the symbolism of this 
Yep...a meeting is set for next Friday for lunch LOL
So let's see.
You are horny. You do not think you are thinking about sex. Two ladies come to see you and one is pretty, the other not so much. You pay more attention to the pretty one than to the other, though the pretty one appears to be mostly useless to you in the situation. You hobby.
Did I sum this up correctly?
From this set of observations, you conclude that:
You paid more attention to the pretty one because you hobby, and that this is an inevitable and universal result of hobbying. Really?
If you did not hobby would you have paid more attention to the less attractive one? What would you have done before you hobbied? The hobby has nothing to do with it - almost every guy is going to pay more attention to the attractive woman. Look it up - attractive people attract our attention.
As for your economics argument, I must admit that one is even more half-baked. Please define what you mean by value, because in purely economic terms, and when you start talking about scarcity and value that seems to be where you are going, it is hard to argue that some guy who is spending a few grand a month on providers puts less value on women. Econonomically spreaking, he places more value on them, than another guy who spends his disposable income on cars, clothes, food, golf and vacations.
There is a whole different discussion about how men tend to see women as objects and how this world (and I mean the whole world, not just the hobby world) definitely encourages us in that. The interesting question on that front is whether it is worse or better here, to the degree that the objectification (ugly word, but I do not know any other way to say it) is mutual, consensual and honestly and openly acknowledged. If London wants and encourages me to look at her with lustful desire, is it a bad thing to do so?
Sorry, guys, I can't agree that this post is more than a narcissistic, half-baked exercise in airing the OP's self doubt yet again and clothing it in the appearance of thought when there is little apparent.
It makes me fucking crazy when people take two almost totally unrelated things and conclude that because they have some small bit of commonality (I hobby with women, and these two ladies are both women), superficially sound a little bit like they might be related (I treat providers one way and since they are all women, I must be learning to treat all women the way I treat providers) and both came to mind at about the same time, that the one explains and causes the other (I pay more attention to the more attractive woman because hobbying has changed me). If there is causality in this particular situation, it most likely is in absolutely the opposite direction - your attitude toward women lead you to the hobby, not the hobby formed your attitude toward women, at least as I see it.
Part of why this aggravates the hell out of me is because it is the primary mechanism for most marketing and manipulation, including all the misinformation that passes for political debate. I want to be young and sexy, and I see a really hot guy wearing Old Spice with lots of pretty girls oohing over him, so if I wear Old Spice will it make me sexier? No, in a word.
Personally, I like to get up early and take a dump, and have noticed the sun comes up while I do it. Now I am afraid that if I sleep in, or do not take that dump before dawn, the sun might not come up any more. What should I do now?
zig
-- Modified on 1/11/2013 1:55:37 PMYou are horny. You do not think you are thinking about sex. Two ladies come to see you and one is pretty, the other not so much. You pay more attention to the pretty one than to the other, though the pretty one appears to be mostly useless to you in the situation. You hobby.
Did I sum this up correctly?
From this set of observations, you conclude that:
You paid more attention to the pretty one because you hobby, and that this is an inevitable and universal result of hobbying. Really?
If you did not hobby would you have paid more attention to the less attractive one? What would you have done before you hobbied? The hobby has nothing to do with it - almost every guy is going to pay more attention to the attractive woman. Look it up - attractive people attract our attention.
As for your economics argument, I must admit that one is even more half-baked. Please define what you mean by value, because in purely economic terms, and when you start talking about scarcity and value that seems to be where you are going, it is hard to argue that some guy who is spending a few grand a month on providers puts less value on women. Econonomically spreaking, he places more value on them, than another guy who spends his disposable income on cars, clothes, food, golf and vacations.
There is a whole different discussion about how men tend to see women as objects and how this world (and I mean the whole world, not just the hobby world) definitely encourages us in that. The interesting question on that front is whether it is worse or better here, to the degree that the objectification (ugly word, but I do not know any other way to say it) is mutual, consensual and honestly and openly acknowledged. If London wants and encourages me to look at her with lustful desire, is it a bad thing to do so?
Sorry, guys, I can't agree that this post is more than a narcissistic, half-baked exercise in airing the OP's self doubt yet again and clothing it in the appearance of thought when there is little apparent.
It makes me fucking crazy when people take two almost totally unrelated things and conclude that because they have some small bit of commonality (I hobby with women, and these two ladies are both women), superficially sound a little bit like they might be related (I treat providers one way and since they are all women, I must be learning to treat all women the way I treat providers) and both came to mind at about the same time, that the one explains and causes the other (I pay more attention to the more attractive woman because hobbying has changed me). If there is causality in this particular situation, it most likely is in absolutely the opposite direction - your attitude toward women lead you to the hobby, not the hobby formed your attitude toward women, at least as I see it.
Part of why this aggravates the hell out of me is because it is the primary mechanism for most marketing and manipulation, including all the misinformation that passes for political debate. I want to be young and sexy, and I see a really hot guy wearing Old Spice with lots of pretty girls oohing over him, so if I wear Old Spice will it make me sexier? No, in a word.
Personally, I like to get up early and take a dump, and have noticed the sun comes up while I do it. Now I am afraid that if I sleep in, or do not take that dump before dawn, the sun might not come up any more. What should I do now?
zig
but Zig intentionally or unintentionally segued into statistics.
I am a Quant by trade and I could simply write all day about numbers and numerical analysis. If I combine that with sex. I could write all month 
So you could say I am a Narcissistic/Quant/Sexaholic.
I love how folks project on here
And YOU know I'm not just a narcissist....but a professional hobbyist
Yep...one size does indeed fit all LOL
Simple as that. Some of us are more narcissistic than others, but it is safe to say we all are quite involved with ourselves, much more than the average.
As for the stat side, I have more than a passing interest in science of all sorts, and am infatuated with Nate Silver, Bill James and pretty much anyone who makes an attempt to separate meaningful data from noise, no matter what the subject (reference to book title intended).
And there is so much noise. It is easy to sit in traffic, for example, and rage at the stupid driving of the person in front of me, when it is perfectly clear that if that person was not there nothing at all would change. I still rage. We do love to see immediate, manageable causes for everything that happens, we are disposed to find those patterns, it is our primary strength and a major weakness.
For most of us here, I suspect that how we view and relate to the opposite sex is more cause than effect. That does not mean that the hobby does not change us all, man or woman, but like most things the voyage is one of discovery more than transformation. Having said that, your initial post was making a simple situation way too complicated - you looked at the pretty woman because she was a pretty woman and you are a guy. That is what happens whether you are a priest and she is a Sunday school teacher, or you are a drunken truck driver on a Friday night and she is the star stripper at the club. The reasons for it are mostly survival-related - the species does best if each male does his best to impregnate every likely female he can find.
Of course, being the civilized man you are, RT, you just looked and did not act on that primitive impulse. Then you went two steps further, recognizing what you had just done and considering why you may have done it. But, no, I do not agree that hobbying has much, if anything, to do with how you view and value women. And I can say that with the total confidence of someone who does not know you at all. No facts to destroy the perfect beauty of my thesis.
zig
As for the stat side, I have more than a passing interest in science of all sorts, and am infatuated with Nate Silver, Bill James and pretty much anyone who makes an attempt to separate meaningful data from noise, no matter what the subject (reference to book title intended).
And there is so much noise. It is easy to sit in traffic, for example, and rage at the stupid driving of the person in front of me, when it is perfectly clear that if that person was not there nothing at all would change. I still rage. We do love to see immediate, manageable causes for everything that happens, we are disposed to find those patterns, it is our primary strength and a major weakness.
For most of us here, I suspect that how we view and relate to the opposite sex is more cause than effect. That does not mean that the hobby does not change us all, man or woman, but like most things the voyage is one of discovery more than transformation. Having said that, your initial post was making a simple situation way too complicated - you looked at the pretty woman because she was a pretty woman and you are a guy. That is what happens whether you are a priest and she is a Sunday school teacher, or you are a drunken truck driver on a Friday night and she is the star stripper at the club. The reasons for it are mostly survival-related - the species does best if each male does his best to impregnate every likely female he can find.
Of course, being the civilized man you are, RT, you just looked and did not act on that primitive impulse. Then you went two steps further, recognizing what you had just done and considering why you may have done it. But, no, I do not agree that hobbying has much, if anything, to do with how you view and value women. And I can say that with the total confidence of someone who does not know you at all. No facts to destroy the perfect beauty of my thesis.
zig
I love how folks project on here
And YOU know I'm not just a narcissist....but a professional hobbyist"
"Whatever you are, be a good one."
Honest Abe
And YOU know I'm not just a narcissist....but a professional hobbyist
""Whatever you are, be a good one."
Honest Abe
Related Link: http://sensualdesiree.escortfiles.com
And don't forget the Sarcasm meeting of the Professional Hobbyists starts at 10...SHARP!!
Don't be late again!
It makes me fucking crazy when people take two almost totally unrelated things and conclude that because they have some small bit of commonality…they might be related
You're referring to a common fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("After that, therefore on account of that"). The most common example: A farmer notices that a rooster crows, then the sun rises. Then the farmer mistakenly attributes an astronomical event to a rooster's crow. Your example about a morning bathroom routine is quite similar. Interesting post! I must admit your foray into multicollinearity...Is very interesting in and of itself. An entire book could be written on this subject alone.
Dear lord…books have been written on the subject, lots of books. Open any book on logic. I do not agree that hobbying has much, if anything, to do with how you view and value women. And I can say that with the total confidence of someone who does not know you at all. No facts to destroy the perfect beauty of my thesis.
How grand! It's now "your" perfectly beautiful thesis, lol. You mean Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. --zStephen Hawking
is closely related to this form of logic. The key difference is that Multicollinearity is a statistical argument that is quantified (proved) by numerical data. The problem with statistics is that you can "prove" damn near anything. There are lies, damn lies and then statistics.
For example two events happen at the same time every day but are not related. A person says there has to be some relation. Statistics would (or could) prove with an observable set of numerical data (via regression analysis and other programs) that the rooster crow and sunset are not related. How? Don't know I have not run that analysis. But here is how it would/could happen:
* You need a large data set of 1,000,000 (or so) observations of sunrises (independently verified - i.e., 200k in Europe, 200k in North America, etc.)
* The same for observations of rooster crows (independently verified, etc.). Independent observations not connected to the sunset. In other words, the person observing the sunset cannot be the person observing the rooster crow.
* Using a statistical program you conduct a correlation analysis between the two data sets.
My initial hypothesis is that there would be a small percentage of observations where the rooster does not crow when the sun rises. Why? The rooster could have died, eaten by a fox, maybe some roosters don't crow south of the equator, maybe the rooster is a hobbyist and was on a date, etc.
Given a large enough body of observations damn near anything can be proven (or not). This is why some shady car insurance companies try to charge more in premiums for people with bad credit. They ran a large enough analysis and "proved" that people with low credit scores filed more claims. Trust me it's BS. But again given enough data points you can prove almost anything.
Damn, you got me started. And today was my day off from work. Damn you to hell!!! This is what happens when you get a nerd like me started.
Off to watch the Big Bang Theory.
-- Modified on 1/11/2013 7:24:54 PMFor example two events happen at the same time every day but are not related. A person says there has to be some relation. Statistics would (or could) prove with an observable set of numerical data (via regression analysis and other programs) that the rooster crow and sunset are not related. How? Don't know I have not run that analysis. But here is how it would/could happen:
* You need a large data set of 1,000,000 (or so) observations of sunrises (independently verified - i.e., 200k in Europe, 200k in North America, etc.)
* The same for observations of rooster crows (independently verified, etc.). Independent observations not connected to the sunset. In other words, the person observing the sunset cannot be the person observing the rooster crow.
* Using a statistical program you conduct a correlation analysis between the two data sets.
My initial hypothesis is that there would be a small percentage of observations where the rooster does not crow when the sun rises. Why? The rooster could have died, eaten by a fox, maybe some roosters don't crow south of the equator, maybe the rooster is a hobbyist and was on a date, etc.
Given a large enough body of observations damn near anything can be proven (or not). This is why some shady car insurance companies try to charge more in premiums for people with bad credit. They ran a large enough analysis and "proved" that people with low credit scores filed more claims. Trust me it's BS. But again given enough data points you can prove almost anything.
Damn, you got me started. And today was my day off from work. Damn you to hell!!! This is what happens when you get a nerd like me started.
Off to watch the Big Bang Theory.
Related Link: Ridge's wack off material
In a different context than what you’ve brought up....possibly.
But. In a professional environment, if you are ignoring the smart woman in the room---the one who has the expertise, and useful information you need---just because you find her less physically attractive than the hot girl sitting next to her; who has nothing useful to say, and has nothing useful to contribute, *just because* you think she’s hot?
Yes. That is wildly unfair. And pretty dumb, frankly (assuming you really are looking for useful information, and not *just* great tits...whatever...). Although, sadly, not at all uncommon.
Take that dynamic out of a professional environment and what you get is...well....what all of us do, to one degree or another. No big news that physically attractive people draw more attention.
The fact that you happen to pay sex workers is not the driving factor here.
But. In a professional environment, if you are ignoring the smart woman in the room---the one who has the expertise, and useful information you need---just because you find her less physically attractive than the hot girl sitting next to her; who has nothing useful to say, and has nothing useful to contribute, *just because* you think she’s hot?
Yes. That is wildly unfair. And pretty dumb, frankly (assuming you really are looking for useful information, and not *just* great tits...whatever...). Although, sadly, not at all uncommon.
Take that dynamic out of a professional environment and what you get is...well....what all of us do, to one degree or another. No big news that physically attractive people draw more attention.
The fact that you happen to pay sex workers is not the driving factor here.
And each and every time some poster sucks you and your gal pal into the fray...you both feel compelled to reply with virtually the same posts.
Amazing...you'd think that after the hundreds...maybe thousands of posts that call you out...you would simply ignore them and do whatever it is you do best....man hate LOL
And you won't be winning any lesbian beauty contests...WE both know that
Hey, men love lesbians.....lol.... As long as they’re the fantasy version. But, everyone knows that all real lesbians look like men. So if a lesbian offers an opinion on a discussion board that you don’t like, don’t bother responding with a counter opinion. This will only continue to feed the illusion that dissenting opinions can be offered on a discussion board. The obvious thing to do is say she’s manly looking.
The next best option, in response to any perspective offered by a lesbian that does not neatly align with yours, is to tell her she’s a man-hater, and announce very loudly that you would never be caught dead fucking her.
That approach can be greatly enhanced by following with offer to spend time fucking her (even though, for obvious and understandable reasons, you find the idea revolting). The end-result of this strategy being that, after her experience with a real man she will have seen the light and now, and forever after, will only want to fuck men, (the exception being she will always be willing to fuck another women for your enjoyment).
She will also have miraculously learned that she simply cannot swallow enough and will regularly express out loud (with a giggle--to your endless delight) how surprised she is that she never realized how much semen tastes just like pineapple upside down cake.
And, as an added bonus, after she has realized what she’s been been missing out on, she will no longer have any opinions at all, unless they completely agree with yours; in which case it will no longer be necessary to categorized her as a “man-hater” since a fully compliant attitude will have been been achieved.
Then order will have been restored to the tiny universe of TER where all women are the perfect fantasy fuck toy and never say anything to challenge the status quo. And the circle will be complete.
And, keep in mind, if the above approach does not work the first time (or even after several hundred times), keep doing the same thing over and over. Never lose hope. With patience and consistency, all lesbians can be molded into a closer version of a real fantasy women.
The next best option, in response to any perspective offered by a lesbian that does not neatly align with yours, is to tell her she’s a man-hater, and announce very loudly that you would never be caught dead fucking her.
That approach can be greatly enhanced by following with offer to spend time fucking her (even though, for obvious and understandable reasons, you find the idea revolting). The end-result of this strategy being that, after her experience with a real man she will have seen the light and now, and forever after, will only want to fuck men, (the exception being she will always be willing to fuck another women for your enjoyment).
She will also have miraculously learned that she simply cannot swallow enough and will regularly express out loud (with a giggle--to your endless delight) how surprised she is that she never realized how much semen tastes just like pineapple upside down cake.
And, as an added bonus, after she has realized what she’s been been missing out on, she will no longer have any opinions at all, unless they completely agree with yours; in which case it will no longer be necessary to categorized her as a “man-hater” since a fully compliant attitude will have been been achieved.
Then order will have been restored to the tiny universe of TER where all women are the perfect fantasy fuck toy and never say anything to challenge the status quo. And the circle will be complete.
And, keep in mind, if the above approach does not work the first time (or even after several hundred times), keep doing the same thing over and over. Never lose hope. With patience and consistency, all lesbians can be molded into a closer version of a real fantasy women.