After reading all of this nonsense for a while, I am ready to post a completely informal and unscientific breakdown of the way we think about all of this crap.

SO's take the most dough for the least effort.  They don't put out, get fat, and hurt your little hearts, and take all of your dough.  They are cunning, rich, and without character.  Apparently.  Laughing in our faces all the way to the bank, so overweight they need to be hauled there in pickup trucks.  Boohoo boo, btw.

Hookers are Nobel, straightforward entrepreneurs, offering a straight up deal.  Sexy, juicy, hot and worth every penny.  Unless we fall for them or the chemistry is bad and we can't get it up.  Or they are having a bad day.  Or they blacklist us.  Then they are nasty and unseemly.  And dont get robbed by their pimps btw or ratted out when they get busted.  Hooray for hookers, where's my cash!

Gold diggers, spawned from sugar babies are foolish, transparent, cheap and prone to fools gold.  They fast become broke idiots, giving away too much poon too cheap.  Unless they repent and morph into SOs.  Then, (see SOs)

Johns, of course are beyond reproach.  More on them (us) in another post.  Happy fathers day, remember to procreate at some point in your happy lives!  F Chicago CPA, btw.

It's science.

Good for you...

You managed to crap on nearly every person on the planet.

Hopefully you didn't, and don't plan on procreating.

Well I am not enamored of husbands/SO's....they too get fat, bald, and think foreplay is a nudge in the ribs (I think some of us have met you).

The guys father kids (an orgasm no less), the wife has to carry said child, give birth and for the most part raise it, listening to baby babble for years, unless she works as well, and then she is doing two jobs.

So husbands , if you want progeny and the wife gives up her career to be a host for a nine month parasite, then deal with the child for the next few years without pay, she deserves a huge payday when you split.

That's my completely normal and unscientific breakdown of husbands/SO's

it is a close truth on a few levels.

Every SO/wife is a blimp?  Well, many of the very women that are providers are indeed SO/wives.  Are they all blimps as well?  And FWIW there are an awful lot of pretty hot ex-wives out there.  And equally as many current wives/SO's.

And then the OP says hookers are nobel...but then trashes then entire profession as scum?  And then he classifies "gold diggers" as scum as well.  

Has he left out any woman on the planet from his equation?

And I can't wait to read his dissertation on johns.

So...yea on a few levels he may be right.  But that is far from the picture he is painting.

Dan's alter ego is Mr. Narcissist and Mr. Misogynist....and he didn't disappoint with this bashing of humanity!

but why is this such a problem?

To dantananot.

Well, you seem in an unhappy mood.  My prescription is to take a Xanax and avoid the gd board for three days

It is interesting that so many posters are very cynical about woman so's.  (even the erudite Mr. Fisher, who i much admire). I suspect it's very much of a product of their own so experiences.  I also think it's interesting how many on this board strongly disapprove of the fact that some married hobbyists feel guilty or believe what they are doing is wrong.  Hey, I don't tell them they should feel guilty;  they have no right to tell me I shouldn't.  I suspect that in some cases people react strongly in order to justify their own behavior, about which they may have doubts.

I do agree that it is inappropriate for me to dramatically weep about my feelings of guilt on this board.  I don't do it with providers either.  My problem is with my behavior, not theirs, and I don't think I would be a pleasant BFE (although perhaps a more realistic actual BF) for me to share any serious personal negative vibes with a provider.  But I really haven't seen much of that on this board, certainly not from you.

I do sympathize with providers who may feel the need to vent any feeling of guilt on the board.  That's a different dynamic.

You are, of course, correct that CCPA seems to get a bit excited and personally (shall we say) aggressive when he disagrees with a post.  I certainly can't speak for him, but I think that, unless you are someone pretending to be someone or something you are not, you might be wise to not take him too seriously. He certainly thinks that people say moronic things (including you and me),  and doesn't mind being offensive about it, but hey, this is just the gd board, not life and death.

Then we have to wait that long to hear Dan's take on the johns here.  And I know I can't wait to hear that diatribe.

And your last line sums up the way the boards should be treated...as NOT life and death.

And FWIW as you well know...I take virtually NONE of this seriously.  But it is entertaining to see how my fellow playmates react.  There are times I can virtually write the response...and more often than not that is what posts up from the other player.

But every once in a while there is a poster that makes the game very very interesting.  Just that it doesn't seem to happen all that often anymore

Dan has at times fallen over to the "darker side" of this game.

Hopefully he will pop back over and enjoy the game...I trust he isn't really buying what he wrote.

I retread the op, after reading more responses.  Reread the first part.  He's taking shots a how he believes various groups are portrayed by the posters on this board, not at the groups (such as so's) themselves.

I think there is also some carryover from posts by him and ccpa on a recent thread started by alluring Ava.

Good catch on that BS...I think you're right on that one.

Sorry Dan...you were just ranting on the prior threads that discussed various perceptions.

Next time head the topic as "The week in review"...preppie was supposed to do this.

as well as trying to draw you out.  It appears he succeeded! LOL!

But I had already commented on my "By George" post a while back.

So now that he has me drawn out....does danny boy want to play?

Or do we just want to leave enough room on the page to discuss some more 1/2 hour GFE crap?

Hi,

... as someone would for F. Lee Bailey!!  So, I take it F is not your first initial???  :oP

And now practicing your comedy routine here Cubbie

Sadly my first initial is not F

I think dan was just having a "lonely" moment.  And he wanted to play, but then just couldn't.

Oh danny boy...come out come out where ever you are

of opinions spewed over the board.  but i do take exception to your responses on this particular board, sir!  i challenge you to a duel!  meet at the brothel corner of ninth and villanova and be prepared to choose between bare hands, mace heads, or pitchforks.  You sir, have discredited and misunderstood me for the last time!

thank you darling.  i thought a CCPA that deals with data might see the humor in it, but apparently not!  he should be ashamed for hijacking this and other threads.  oh, i am so upset now, because this all means so much to me.  how can i ever post another thread?  (backhand to forehead, he faints, faceplants directly between a beautiful woman's legs.  Is she an SO, in the early stages of ruining his life?  Is she a nobel-hearted provider, with the most darling little cootchie on the planet, immediately O'ing and O'ing from his face plant?  Is she a gold digger, totally confused by all of this nonsense, stuck on trying to figure out if his rolex is fake?  does it matter?)

Your data will be taken into consideration for a future whitepaper...thank you.

that this is the second time you've referred to someone as "nobel-hearted."  He assumes you meant to say "noble-hearted."  That is, unless the lady in question won a Nobel Prize.  Or possibly this is just part of your humor?  Hard to tell.  Conan the Grammarian supports this message.

Been nice knowing you...

See you around

What lesson are you going to teach us today?

You've compiled this "data" over 18 months (and all of this was covered in the last week BTW).

Now what.  A book. A paper looking for that Nobel Peace Prize.

And you have my attention...what is it that you would like to know?  Or are you going to teach me something.....I'm all ears

Feel free to PM me so we don't muddy the boards with this drivel!

So people don't call you a hooker. What about Destiny or Fantasy? LOL

But you can call me Ginger. As in Gilligan's island.

Of course, I am seeing it as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek critique!  

Now, me, I see everything strangely. You see, women are humans first and therefore subject to all the wonders and problems common to humanity. Any person could be Adolf Hitler, Mother Teresa or something in between or both at once. Then, of course, they are women. This means from a male perspective that they are the most wonderful, frustrating, amazing and incomprehensibly insanely lovable hate-able creatures imaginable.

Of course, SO's, Gold diggers and the various forms of paid companionship (whether or not I just repeated myself is debatable) are women ... and human ... and hence inherit all the foregoing qualities of humans and women plus add some of their own.

But what they add is, in my opinion, more a matter of their own unique individuality than some label someone applied, especially in the case of wives/girlfriends/SOs and of paid companions.

Gold diggers actually often win. Hey, if a gold digger got a year of free rent, free groceries, free sex and free everything else out of me and then I ditched her when I finally realized what happened -- seems to me she still won in the end. Yes?

I also don't think it makes sense to judge the costs of any woman BUT a paid companion on a per-pop basis because women in other roles (even gold diggers) provide other intangibles that can be far more valuable (or far more horrible) than sex and money. It's silly to apply paid companion standards to people who aren't paid on a per session basis.

Great post!  

I love redheads. There is something about the color.