Guys, here's a question I've often wondered about.
Do you find any difference in bedroom behavior between the really hot civilian girls and the ones who aren't nearly as attractive? More selfish, less selfish, no difference?
I know when I've dated very good-looking guys, they generally are more selfish in the bedroom---kind of a turn-off.
I think it must be a learned behavior. Because these guys are pursued by so many women, they get their sexual needs met easily and quickly by eager women who want to please them.
Therefore there isn't a great incentive for these GQ types to learn how to please a woman to make her stick around--too many other fish in the sea.
So, any correlation with the hot civilians and how they perform in the bedroom?
None that I've found, Chrissy - at least not a direct relationship.
When people enter the bedroom, they take with them all their experiences, past relationships etc. (kinda crowded sometimes) and they act accordingly.
That's the beauty of a paid provider. When they enter their "office" there is a singluar focus ... and that's the client .. HIS wants ... HIS needs and HIS satisfaction.
Well not always. Some providers I have come across have the single focus of seperating you from your money in the quickest way they know how.
Iv'e had terible and wonderful experiences with both hot and not at all hot civvilians.
Chrissy you are the sweetest and hottest civillian or otherwise. I have this thing for beautiful women. Both of my ex's were drop dead gorgeous and I found them to be great in the bedroom. In fact I have yet to meet a provider that was as good in the bedroom as my last ex. Here goes the truth from my point of view. If they are hot it makes no diffrences civillan or provider. If it is their it will click. But hot has not much to do with looks more to do with their attitude. Usually when they meet the real Rick their attitudes usually adjusts to, "oh my god." and they love me or not. Chrissy is #1 on my must see list and she may very well be the last one I see.
From my "limited" experience I have found that civilian "Hotties" bring a host of baggage as well as hidden agendas into the bedroom. This is why I as well as the many other men on these boards so appreciate you and the other beautiful providers. The "agenda" is in the open and understood and to let any of your personal baggage interfere with the session is just bad business on your part.
A civilian hottie is a mercenary, a golddigger. This is only natural and "Darwin(ism)" at its purist. Woman has always sought after the most skilled hunter, the best farmer, the most savvy businessman. Civilian women especially the hotties save their best sexual performances for the man they think will best provide comfort & security for them and their offspring.
A provider is seeking comfort and security also but it is done cumulatively by treating many men as the best source of security.
The Civilian hottie reaches her goal through a bit of acting, a bit of longsuffering(putting up with her mate for however-long)and then a helping hand from the No-fault community property divorce system.
The Provider reaches her goal by a bit of acting, treating all her clients as special, valued and appreciated plus a bit of good money management on her part.
I hope I wasn't too obvious as to whom I have more respect for.
FR225
"A civilian hottie is a mercenary, a golddigger."
Agree, unfortunately.
"This is only natural and "Darwin(ism)" at its purist."
Disagree. I think it's an unnatural outgrowth of our EXCESSIVELY materialistic society, I think evolutionary psychology could prove that women were motivated by a host of other things (except that most current working Evo-Psych. and Anthro. people are hopelessly uneducated in anything except the sciences, hence don't know their own cultural assumptions, hence tend to "prove" those assumptions and demonstrate that the status quo is what is supposed to be). To prove or disprove these generalizations is rather difficult ... I'm not gonna try.
It's good to see a thread about the negative nature of hot-looking civilian women, tho. I had thought I was in the minority in this world ... anyway, I won't chime in, I annoy too many people by telling it like it is.
BG
except there's not much to add that hasn't been said !
oh yes ... Evo-Psych is all bullcrap ... just read the master pontificator:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/upd/sept00/19feb00/randy.htm
--
it's ALL about the money! (that evidently we "evolutionary-rapists" give these gals)
Cm2.0
that you read some of the good scientists. I don't mean morally good, I mean the ones who do good science. Stephen J. Gould, Richard Leaky, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan, to mention just a few. A great starting place would be "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould, since it deals entirely with "don't know their own cultural assumptions, hence tend to "prove" those assumptions and demonstrate that the status quo is what is supposed to be".
Just read the link Cynicalman 2.0 provided (thanks!). Immediately confirmed my suspicion that "Evo-Psych" is just the latest incarnation of Biological Deterrminism. I prefer the generic title because 1) it describes the real agenda 2) It changes name every generation or so. In the past century we've had Social Darwinism, Eugenics, Sociobiology, and now Evo-Psych. I'm sure I've missed a few. Every time one version is discredited (and I can't stress strongly enough, discredited as being poor science) a new incarnation arises.
With all of nature to draw on, it's pretty easy to find any behavior you're looking for. So the "logic" goes something like this. Dominant males have sole access to females (as well as being aggressive towards one another and very territorial) in baboons. Therefore these are all natural behaviors in humans.
Lifetime pairings (the nuclear family) are unkonwn among baboons, bur are the norm for many bird species and small canids (jackals, foxes, etc.). Therefore the nuclear family is the natural state of humanity.
Need I go on???? Scorpion flies! Gimme a break!!!!
"I would recommend that you read some of the good scientists. I don't mean morally good, I mean the ones who do good science. Stephen J. Gould, Richard Leaky, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan, to mention just a few. A great starting place would be "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould, since it deals entirely with "don't know their own cultural assumptions, hence tend to "prove" those assumptions and demonstrate that the status quo is what is supposed to be".
Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I dissed on the Anthropologists and Evolutionary Psychologists. I'm pretty familiar with the ones you've recommended. In "Mismeasure" there's the Victorian scientists who "proved scientifically" that blacks were stupider than whites, for example. At the time, it was just a triumph of knowledge; now we see that sort of thing as a triumph of prevailing cultural attitudes taking over the hypothesis and getting proven because of the "scientist's" weak thinking, not because of "science" at all. The same thing goes on (and on and on) among the television Evo-Psycho nit-wits, and most Social Scientists, these days.
Sure, I'm generalizing. I'm sure there are some good smart clear thinkers in those camps. But to "prove" by speculation, as is the general process in those things that tell us "women are supposed to want money, it's natural," is simply to speculate. I know plenty of examples of cultures, women, etc., in which the dice are loaded differently. How come all those examples don't get included in the TV shows?
I'll tell you why. Our current cultural assumptions don't fit them. Our current assumptions are, that it's OK for hot women to be gold-diggers. Then the Evo-Psycho nit-wits go out and "prove" a biological basis for this form of immoral selfishness, and we end up with a society tilted against what I, at least in my experience, know to be biologically much more reasonable and hopeful -- acts of love are good things that don't tend to hurt anyone if they're done with reason and responsibility. But that woo-woo-1960s type of belief has no place in post-Reaganomics expansionism, so men like me are left miserable in a community that says it's OK for us to be taken advantage of, that's what bonding with women is all about.
Grr ... and even on these boards, people tend to be less than supportive of the idea that having human drives, and seeking to fulfill them, is somehow appropriate!
-----
Now, here's an interesting point about evo-psych or, as you prefer to name it, Biological Determinism. One of the prime television proponents, Desmond Morris, comes to some odd conclusions on the basis of some odd data.
Desmond informs us that over all of current human habitation, 95% of adults are reported to prefer permanent pair bonds. He also informs us that in 5 out of 6 of those bonds, at least one partner is likely to "stray" at least once.
Males who DO stray tend to stray many times -- an average of seven affairs in a lifetime. But it's only 1 in 3 males who GETS to stray. Most are rejected or simply don't try.
On the other hand, MORE females are likely to stray, although on average just once in a lifetime. 4 out of 6 females stray, compared to 2 out of 6 males. That's right, although the men who do screw around, do it lots, more men than women DON'T screw around.
So, to recap, the numbers are, that there are more times that a male is straying, but more females stray than males. If you think about it, the multiplication must generally work out to equal numbers, of course, since we're talking heterosexual liasons and, therefore, every coupling, whether of a "permanent" bond or a "stray," requires one male and one female. Consequently, any increase in FREQUENCY of liasons involving a male, must also include an increase in NUMBER of liasons involving a female. Get it? So, to me, the old story that men sleep around and women don't, is just a misrepresentation. Both do, to equal degree; one gender in terms of a few very rakish bastards doing it a lot; the other gender in terms of every girl doing it a little bit because she "needs" it.
But dear old Desmond: from this information he soon explains that "obviously" (yes, he uses the word "obviously") humans are monogamous and mate for life, and that males are the predatory and unfaithful gender.
From the same evidence, I would have concluded that humans are serially monogamous or even polygamous, and that (as his own numbers suggest) a female is more likely than a male to be a cheater, although males who cheat are more likely to cheat often. That would mean each gender was equally "guilty" of straying, and "scientifically" we'd have a much less biased moral conclusion based on our evidence.
But Desmond, uneducated as he is in history, culture, or even the humanities, feels few qualms about coming up with a biased conclusion, considering that he's convinced his "science" actually "proves" the matter. It doesn't. It simply "proves" his own assumptions, that males are naughty when it comes to faithfulness, and females are nice. Another way our culture discredits men ... we can't "need" it but women can.
-- Modified on 8/11/2003 12:23:53 PM
or as politically incorrect or "controversial" as it may sound ... i honestly can't have hot-n-nasty "hardcore" sex (that is to say GREAT SEX - not love!) ... with civilians i like ... cuz if i did then i'd probably not [cough] "respect" them as civilian relationship material ... is that as honest an answer as you wanted? 
to me that's why most men stray into provider kingdom in the first place ... even single ones like me
this sounds like the way many old time men looked at women. A woman was either a madonna to be worshipped or a whore. Or put another way nice women won't do things like that. Whether the things were Greek, BBBJ, etc.
i'm not sure if i believe a woman can TRULY be a madonna and a "whore" simultaneously in one body and soul
despite all my pervitude, i'm rather "conventional" when it comes to civilians
and believe me, it's not that i've come to this conclusion through some kind of societal or childhood trauma ... i seem to be "wired" that way ... or perhaps raised that way, which is almost the same as "installed wiring" LOL
OMG...how sad! And from Single to boot!
Dude, you be dating the wrong women! With apologies to the woderful providers I have seen, I have enjoyed sex much more with women I was involved with because with the security of an established relationship comes a desire on most women's part to open up sexually. Admittedly, I don't have any extreme tastes, so my activities with both are somewhat similar. However, most of the women I have been involved with (who are provider age... admittedly, a 55 year old woman is seldom going to be as "wild" as a 25 year old...although my 47 year old ex-girlfriend is still going strong!) have been very receptive to being sexually adventurous (again, I am not interested in anything too extreme).
I think the more we get into generations of women who grew up during or after the "sexual revolution", the more these lines will blur. Also, it one hell of a lot easier to be wild with a provider you just met than your wife of fifteen years. However, if things are that way with a girlfriend of a couple of months...well, it reminds me of a routine Richard Pryor did on "Richard Pryor...Live In Concert":
"If you done made good love to your woman, she will go to SLEEP! But if you're done fucking and your woman wants to talk about computer components...you got some more fucking to do!"
four of the participants are both of her parents and both of his parents.
The relationships she had with her parents as a child are a lot more important than her physical appearance.
I can look at this for 2 periods in my life. Interestingly, the results are not similar.
When I dated civilians, in between my 2 marriages, it was mostly in a period where HIV was not yet discovered or epidemic. Hell, it didn't even exist to our knowledge. Promiscuity in NYC was rampant, and getting laid on a first date was not uncommon. It was a good time. During that period I cannot begin to count the number of women I had been with. But this I do remember: Based on the TER looks scale, the best sex was with women in the 6-7 range, as compared to higher scores. And they were far easier to bed. At that time the only analysis I did was done with my little head. When in a "Target Rich" environment (a party or a bar, etc.), I would target those "7s" because I had more confidence in the outcome.
After my second wife passed away, I found that almost every civilian I dated was more interested in my portfolio than in my "package", such as it is. I returned to the hobby as much for this than anything else.
Since my wife's passing I have had sex with only a handful of civilians. Most are in their 40's and divorced or widowed. My experience is that thay've become cynical in their anger or grief and make for poor companionship vertically or horizontally. And looks, it would seem, at that age makes little or no difference.
Just my .02
F.
civilians and providers both want our "wealth" !
but providers are more honest in trading their charm for it
I have to agree with singleton's response to this post,
the civillains are after money just as well as the providers
are, but the providers are unpfront about it. As in no games
to play!
I was very fortunate in that my ex-wife was terrific in bed. Part of that was the emotional bond and love we had together (at the time).
It has been my experience that women who are not as good looking tend to be better in bed (take the generalization for whatever it is worth...that and $3.00 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks). One woman I dated for about 4 months after my marriage broke up was about a 7 in looks and on the heavy side. I can't say anything about weight because I am not exactly a twig myself. She was insatiable in bed!! We have sex 5 times on the second date (including Greek). That was the most times I had EVER had sex in one day. She was a trip.... That ended because we did not have an intellectual connection (a real aphrodisiac for me). I think the reason that some civilians who are not as good looking are better is that they have less opportunity and therefore try to make it better.
I have had the privilege of spending time with some of the most amazing sensual, funny, attractive and intellectually stimulating women ever through my hobby. Three of the greatest sexual experiences of MY LIFE have been with ladies I have met. Of course, as another contributor said, the ladies are focused on me and my needs...they are "into me" for the time we are together. I also love to make a connection with them. Thre is nothing better than connecting on an intellectual level, enjoying their company, and making them experience as much pleasure as I am.
IMHO.....
Huey Fan writes:
"It has been my experience that women who are not as good looking tend to be better in bed (take the generalization for whatever it is worth...that and $3.00 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks)."
=================================================================
I agree wholeheartedly. I've always been sort of a nerdy guy and a little shy, so I've never gotten the "hot" girls anyway. LOL.
"Hot" women know they're hot, and behave accordingly. Besides the gold digging already mentioned, they are stuck up and snotty. If you get involved with one, she'll leave you when something better comes along, and screw around on you in the meantime.
So I've developed a taste for women who are larger, plainer and older than what Playboy or Penthouse editors think is "hot." Everyone uses that 1 to 10 scale. Hey, the 1's need sex too! Assuming I'm looking for a relationship, a plain girl will probably be a better mate and companion than a "hottie." So I do my girl watching at Wal Mart. LOL.
Of course, I doubt if a woman could be successful as a provider if she were "less" than a 5. But I could be wrong.
-- Modified on 8/10/2003 10:16:51 PM
since you and other providers may already be independently wealthy (and are in it for the phun) ... seriously, i'm NOT being sarcastic
but you have to admit that most girls would not have "wealth" if they didn't charge their "fees"
no?
Not necessarily.
What about all the years of working in the corporate world, and building their own portfolios?
My assets were in place light years before becoming a Provider.
However, that's actually apart from my point. The comments indicated that providers were after the clients wealth. I'd rather ATTAIN my own, and NO, NOT from my fees - from my work.
I do thank you, however, for taking the time to post a reply, as GLis HJ really got under my skin with that comment, which was not even relevant AND was stupid.
And I DO see your point - it's just not (entirely) accurate, is all.
It must be such a burden to have so much money that all the women want it. I guess I am just to poor for those kind of women to bother with. Have you ever thought that it might be your own choice in women that causes you to be attracked to gold diggers. Try finding someone who likes you not your wallet. Just act broke.
There may be some truth to what your post Rick, I have to admit
to one thing, I am attracted to attractive women, But it appears
as though the women I am attracted to have it in there mind
that they have to have alot of money to feel secure, or feel
beautiful?
I may be broke because of my dysfunctions about women! LOL ...
Seriously, I find it quite difficult to "integrate myself" into the typical North American corporate and capitalist culture, don't do very well in marketplace type situations. And in my childhood, I spent a lot of time among girls and then women who were from wealthier social strata than my family, who also (it turns out) were misrepresentatively VERY SICK people. This may have been simply bad luck of the draw, that the richer-than-me females I met in my formative years were also sicker-than-me. (Example: in grade school my female classmates attempted to take a pair of scissors to my genitalia to see if it would grow back. Just one of many traumatic or not-so-traumatic experiences, all having to do with girls run rampant without decent authority over them, me being the small AND poor kid in the class, etc.) But it has "formed" a set of associations that leave me incapable of truly devoting myself to becoming rich or financially successful in our society. It's sad, wish I knew how to fix it.
Anyway, the upshot is, I'm "worried" (paranoid?) about women assessing me as rich, and thus fulfill my own prophecy, by not getting rich. Get it? Convoluted, yes. I don't mean to defend it, just report on it. Wish I could AFFORD therapy ...
-- Modified on 8/11/2003 11:55:41 AM
-- Modified on 8/11/2003 12:29:15 PM
Although I don't necessarily disagree with Singleton's response (the cynical statement that "all" that women want is money), I didn't really read your post in that manner, as highlighting solely that idea, Fortitude. I was struck by the differences in your experiences as depedent on differing time frames.
It must have given you a wonderful sense of "choice" to be able to release tension easily enough, simply by acting like a normal human, going to a party and picking a partner who agreed to be with you. In that context, I think I could learn to believe that there are a variety of potential outcomes to my own search for a partner, and stop generalizing so about how negative my experiences have been. The access to pussy was in an (presumed) environment of plenty, rather than scarcity, and so all humans could feel more comfortable with less politicization of their interactions. NOwadays, I just don't get that kind of respect at a party ... and it leaves me without options for living a decent life.
In my observations it has as much to do with the age as the looks. Now I'm only generalizing because every individual is different, & just as age is no guarantee of emotional maturity, looks are no guarantee of anything either.
From what I've encountered myself the gals less emotionally mature tend to be the more selfish ones...& I'm referring more to the materialsm than the bedroom.
But by the same token I've known gals of all ages who were too impressed with themselves to be much more than selfish. In this respect I don't think civilians are ultimately much different than many providers.
It's been a long time since I was not married, but I'd say you're 100% correct. The ones that had a few extra pounds, not-so-perfect hair, etc - were always more uninhibited, naughty, sexier, and just plain more fun. Give me that attitude any day!