a few interesting things. One being some cultural differences.

He wrote: (African American males...I would never even CONSIDER discussing it with African American females..) who would ever confess to having "paid for it"...it is just an admission of defeat of sorts. In their mind (and to lessor degree, in mine as well), only a "loser" has to BUY sex...a "real man" simply uses his charm to get all the sex he wants.

Do men (or people in general) still think this of other men? Is it cultural mostly (as might be implied?)?
Has that attitude lessened, do you think? Do you think maybe that thinking goes mostly towards only single men who 'pay for sex', and not for married men??

I'd be interested in hearing what all you've experienced?
I still say Hobbying is the perfect solution to the intricacies and delicacies (or difficulties) of men and women relating to one another!

Coming from a culturally diverse background, I do not think that my culture would consider a hobbyist as one being a "loser".  Instead, they would be considered fortunate enough to be from a high economic status to afford the finer things in life, especially at the level most of us here are talking about.  In fact, in many higher level business transactions, favors of this sort are offered as an incentive to "close the deal".  Just a different perspective...

I think MyLifeAsMe was referring to "Players!".  You know, those guys that the fly Jock (Tom Joyner) teases about in his morning show.  MyLifeAsMe comes across very well, though a bit old school, these days, the secret is out, not all brothers are Players!

I always like to say, that this hobby is NOT FOR PLAYERS, sure plenty of pimps though!

Joey

Someone suggested I try putting an escort ad on Adult Friend Finder.com (AFF) as a way to build up some business in the mainstream community. I had an ad for about two months before it got too time-consuming.

Since AFF does not officially allow ads for escorts, I had to be careful not to use the word "escort" in my AFF profile. However, I threw in all kinds of statements like "looking for generous men", "mature men preferred", "no-strings fun", "let's have fun for an hour or two"; etc, and then I put in some of my PG-rated bikini shots.

I received a ton of hits and replies--in fact the response was overwhelming. Unfortunately, 90% did not realize I was an escort. After telling them, 100% wrote back politely telling me they would NEVER pay for sex...although they would still love to meet me as a friend sometime.

So, it was a wake-up call to me that the mainstream white middle class American male still considers it a stigma to pay for sex.

The 10% who did understand my "code" phrases were hobbyists already and they were great to deal with.

Thank goodness for TER and you worldly gentlemen who understand the politics of sex, money, and the ability to have a win-win situation for both men and women!

Gotta admit I didn't read each and every post in that particular thread until you brought it to my attention.  I must admit I find it mildly offensive and if you can't figure out why, well I am not going to explain it.

What I would say now is when I was younger and available to outside civilians, I did not see providers because I trained and worked in an environment which was 70-80% woman.  I was considered a more than desirable catch because of income and prestige potential at least within that environment.  In other words a buyers market, no need to pay, hell mostof the time I went "dutch".  

As I have gotten older, My tastes haven't changed all that much but I have a S/O.  I wouldn't want to embarrass her with an affair so it is just more convenient and easier. to pay for it.  I don't feel defeated by this, it just makes life easier and I can afford it.  Would I show off my ATF the way some men show off their new car or boat, noooo.  But I think that's true regardless of race.

Now if we had a party the way some high end escort agencies do, I might consider going depending on time and city, just to meet some fellow hobbyists in person and if I were single I would bring my ATF into town, but I am not so I don't.

I disagree that hobbying is the perfect solution but for now, it works for me.
Ultimately I suspect a change in my living arrangement with my SO is going to be the solution and not the hobby.

by the way, I tell my kids in a couple of hundred years, everyone will have intermarried and people won't be so hung up on race because they will all be the same color.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE WEEKEND TO ONE AND ALL

It really does make one see a distinction between groups:

"So, it was a wake-up call to me that the mainstream white middle class American male still considers it a stigma to pay for sex.
The 10% who did understand my "code" phrases were hobbyists already and they were great to deal with."


Excellent. How very interesting..
I'm in complete agreement with your last sentence - isn't it the truth!

Thanks.
Sedona

And, I personally didn't take anything as being 'racial' as much as just either cultural (MyLife) or whether one is dealing with 'civilian', hobbyists (Sexxygirrl's post) or any other distinct grouping. And I find the variations very interesting.

I remember one conversation I had with my FB, formerly referred to as SO (but I like this term better!) and I mentioned that I was going to have a date with my FIRST single client! He, naively asked "there are single clients? Why would a single man go to a Provider when they can date?". I just find it interesting to see how people pigeon-hole certain concepts; or make certain assumptions. I, of course, pointed out that a single man would see a Provider for, often, the same reasons any other client might and even brought up the often used quote of Charlie Sheen's. Ohhh..he said as he understood..

Then, more closely aligned with Singer's post, I have noticed in Corporate America, my own experiences, is that the higher up the Corporate Ladder, the more they were likely to be candid about having paid companionship regularly, and were often proud to boast about it. As, then, one might think, could be associated with affluence?
MyLife's post just made me wonder if this attitude was still around -??!! - and if so, where would it be most likely found? - and what groups have become more 'with it' and in tune to the "Millenium ways of dating"..

It is cheaper to see a provider than to get into a realtionship based on sex.  Besides the women are nicer.

The Adult Finder is for DATING. Putting an escort ad there is ridiculous. And the reason most males would say they are against paying is because it's against The Law. They have no idea that it can be done 'under the radar'. And a lot of them probably thought she was an undercover female officer.

I have a lot of black friends and they just want sex more than all my friends of other ethnic groups. Who knows why?

And the reason they won't pay is simple - they are much less demanding when it comes to looks. How many black pro athletes are married to women who are not very attractive and/or overweight? Almost all (at least a much higher percentage) white celebrities have hot wives/girlfriends. We white guys want good looking women and quite a few of us are willing to go without rather than have sex with a woman who does not do anything for us in the looks department. And a white guy will get hazed badly by his friends if they know he's doing a less than attractive women. On the other hand black guys make fun of guys who aren't getting any.

"So, it was a wake-up call to me that the mainstream white middle class American male still considers it a stigma to pay for sex.
The 10% who did understand my "code" phrases were hobbyists already and they were great to deal with."

Actually, few of my single friends seem to have any trouble getting "dates".  Those guys don't understand why anyone would pay for sex. It's me (mwm) and my married friends that have to pay...and pay...and pay...

peace,

Max

Having been widowed for nearly 6 years now I have to agree with Rick.  I have found that non-provider women in the age group I would normally date are cynical, jaded, and out for a long-term dip into my wallet.

A GFE provider, for me, is a more pragmatic solution to the need for female companionship, knowing that the quid pro quo of "dating" in the hobby has built in limits (time vs. $$$).  I can "contract" for whatever my current needs are without fear of repercussion or future hardship.  

Sedona, you and I have had this discussion, and as usual, your threads are on the money for this Board.  And Rick, you are completely right.  The women are much, much nicer!  And one of the nicest started this thread.

The further away you get from an urban financial center the more "rednecked" the views on paid companionship get. If the level of acceptance was as bad in LA as it is here in Riverside I doubt there would even be a TER web site.
   Even though it is hell on my budget I'm glad I'm one of the "enlightened" to consider this my  
                  "Millenium Dating"

I don't tell. Others, whether friend or foe, don't know that I hobby. I (naturally) don't criticize those who do hobby, but I don't know what OTHER people think about it. They might criticize, they might not; and I pick which battles I make public. For example, I'll protest against the war for oil more than the war against sex, although both are in the long term simple products of the same isolationist puritanical culture.

Since it's "counter cultural" and also brings potential negative consequences, I simply don't court possible problems.

But I think an interesting point about the racial division is being glossed over here. The first post (in the other thread) mentioned that "brothers" don't -- and I think there has been a long-standing cultural assumption in America that black men are somehow "better" at landing a civilan date, and (probably) at fucking her well also. With that goes the assumption that the targets of those black men (whoever they choose to fuck civilian-wise) are probably more sexual, and therefore (a) less desirable as long-term partners and (b) less "classy" for things like educated jobs and the like. To fuck a black man was, for a long time, to label yourself trashy.

That's obviously unfortunate, and a gross generalization, too. But times are changing, and the obscene assumptions we make about racial stereotypes are changing with them. Now, even a black guy can be a loser with women!

And there's another assumption, which has been discussed well in these threads. The idea that a man is a loser if he "has to" book paid-for-dates rather than has the "charm" or panache to land a civilian partner easily. It makes you, in our culture, a less-than-good male, who can't live up to his potential, and to social expectations, if he can't coax a woman into bed with him regularly, without paying for it.

I can't. It has something to do with prevailing attitudes about the exchange of sex for economic support in our society; and with the attitudes about who is "allowed" to have one-night-stands (smart people aren't, evidently); and the other assumptions. And it also has to do with my own ability to navigate those assumptions -- I quite frankly can't pinpoint it, as to why I do so poorly in attempts to hook up with civilian partners. I have lots going for me, most of which evidently is utterly beside the point. I resent greatly the power that the civilian women have over me in this regard, and feel that it is mostly wielded without mercy or, even, concern that it is being wielded at all.

So, I've been "forced" to see providers STRICTLY because I can't get laid in a more socially sanctioned way. I find the lack of choice to be the biggest disadvantage. If I were a royal stud, who could land a hottie by just striding into a bar and making intense eye-contact, I might still choose to patronize providers. But then it would be CHOOSING, not being DRIVEN TO it. And when I find a place in my life where this democracy actually offers me an egalitarian opportunity to choose, and work for, my own wellbeing ... I'll invite you all along for the ride, because it hardly exists in most arenas, sexual or not.

tend to be "better" at s$x, and all of it's nuances (obviously a wide variance here among services provided) because they practice the art of pleasing on a regular basis. This is one reason I seek out escorts, variety being another, and I enjoy a healthy sex life at home with my SO.

I rarely pursue women in a social setting, nothing much beyond flirting and conversation, but have had an occasional daliance here and there over the years. I ran very hard in my early 20s when single, used all of those player's lines, bedded women for sport as much as pleasure.

The racial/cultural angle that a few have opined on here, difficult to quantify, and frankly I couldn't care less who chooses to pay for companionship, who doesn't and why.

I treat my favs very well, long appointments, dinner, trips to Vegas for a select few. And I enjoy all of the subtleties of a GF type relationship with a few of them while we're together, great s$x, casual friendships with a few ladies I see and a few I know in the biz, mostly in Vegas. MfSD.

This is an interesting thread.  I happen to be a lawyer.  People come to me with their problems.  They spend several hundred dollars to talk to me and get my advice.  They go away feeling better.  I may be able to do something for them, too.  

Some years ago, I decided to see a shrink.  I went to his office every week.  I paid about $200 an hour to talk to him.  Sometimes he actually responded.  Sometimes I walked out of there feeling better.

From my point of view, there is no difference between what a provider does and what I do or the shrink does -- or for that matter, any other range of professionals.  It's an even exchange: money for professional services.  Frankly, the money I've spent on providers has been far more effective in getting my head on straight and making me happy than money spent on shrinks.  

I think there is hideous cultural and demographic prejudice against providers and those who see them.  Of course, there's also prejudice against lawyers, shrinks and other professionals (e.g., only "crazy people" see therapists).  But the prejudice against providers and hobbyists goes beyond a matter of degree.

Hmmmmm... Have you had the pleasure of Lady Sylvia?

hr8675309:

I know you are just going by your experience but I don't think it is true that black guys put less emphasis on looks. I know I don't. I also know plenty of brothers who would not have sex with a women they consider unattractive.

As far as white celebrities having better looking wives/girlfriends than black celebrities I don't think that is the case. Lot's of black celebs seem to be doing ok. Pick up a copy of Ebony magazine from time to time. The celebs wives are typically smoking.

Question for the guys:  I recently emailed a caucasion provider and asked if she saw, "men of color"?  I'm an educated black male, cleancut and single.  This provider stated politely that she did not see black men.  No problem, as I understand providers and hobbyists have their preferences.  However, it got me thinking.  A lady friend of mine once told me that many providers do not see black men because we are either difficult, too large, or we rip ladies off.  Would like to know from the brothers out there who have seen providers if they've heard this before.  Would also love too hear from the ladies as well.

I was screened once for NYC agency 10-15 yrs ago and the last question was whether I was black, when I answered yes, the screening was over.

One other time I had picked a provider at an incall and was handed over to another provider after the massage but before the festivities.  Actually that was fortunate because the provider I got who was white gave me the time of my life with positions I had never seen.

Currently have not had a problem, do all outcall and never had had brought up in the last 10 years.

Be nice to unbury this and get it's own thread going.

Right on bro!  Remember free pussy is ALWAYS the most expensive pussy.  And yes the ladies are much nicer.  And Sedona where did that FB come from?

Slow

Most people that go to adult friend finder are looking for sex. Let's not put our heads in the sand. I am a married white male. I am a hobbyist becasue i like variety, and do not want to have to worry about me seducing some lovaly thing and that lovely thing calls my wife or black mails me. Or she is the wife of a friend.  
I am much to busy to seduce anyone. Nor do I want the attendant problems.
Providers you do a great job.

JAMMER

'Attractive' means different things to different people. I consider physical fitness to be a huge component of overall looks. And a lot of my black friends, who are in good shape, have no problem dating/marrying overweight women. None of my white/asian friends who are in shape will have anything to do with a woman who's not in very good shape. And thus I stick by my claim. A lot of black NFL, NBA, and entertainers are married to overweight women.

You know...I was gonna let this go, but I just couldn't resist...

I know you are a real smart guy from your posts, so I am sure you will come up with some real smart reply that is a combination of your special brand of sarcastic wit, along with some vodoo logic and an intellectual argument for your position. You know what? It won't change a thing...what I am about to tell you will still be the truth...

***"It makes you, in our culture, a less-than-good male, who can't live up to his potential, and to social expectations, if he can't coax a woman into bed with him regularly, without paying for it. I can't. It has something to do with prevailing attitudes about the exchange of sex for economic support in our society; "

No it doesn't. It has to do with YOUR attitude, which is probably PAINFULLY obvious to the women you approach. Assuming that you are under the age of 40 (ok...35 maybe) and aren't targeting women who are OBVIOUSLY into material things (as marked by their car / clothes / handbag and shoes), relationships are very, very, very seldom about money. That is an excuse guys like YOU use for why you can't forge relationships with women. If you were well off financially, you'd use something else (you already tried it with the intelligence thing...more on that in a second).

You have...did I see 14 reviews? So...at a LOW estimate of about $200 each, that is about $3,000. Do you know how many Pizza & Movie or Pizza & Bowling dates that would have brought had you had the guts and willingness (and "game") to actually forge a relationship with a civilian woman versus coping out and paying someone to sleep with you? And guess what? There might have been the added benefit that said woman would have actually LIKED YOU, versus just smiling sweetly as she walked out the door one hour later, counting your money...

It amazes me how much some (most?) of the guys who post here REALLY, REALLY do not understand women...thus the "loser" label. You think women care about money? Really? So you think every guy in this world who makes less than $40K a year is celibate? You think they all hire escorts? You think that their GFs are all fat and ugly? At most, the majority of women only care that you can take care of yourself. They don't look for you to take care of them. That is an unfair stereotype...partial driven to give guys like you an excuse ("it isn't me...its women...that is why I can't get laid"), partial driven by "bad data" (guys like you pursue women you can't have...knowing you can't have them...to perpetuate the stereotype). Guess what? Waiters have girlfriends. Janitors have girlfriends. Poor ass graduate students have girlfriends…starving musicians have girlfriends…the guys who work in the mailroom at your company HAVE GIRLFRIENDS. Contray to the lie many of you guys like to keep telling yourself, IT ISN’T ABOUT THE MONEY.

Just go ANYWHERE...the movies...a bowling alley...a rock concert...and you will see young people together who obviously aren't rich. Go to any college campus...

I have a fair number of female friends...and amongst those who are "target" singles...20 some-things, college educated...none of them care about "money". All they care is that a guy has a life, is able to make his own ends meet, and isn't a total dweeb (or “loser”...yes I said it). Once you get past 35...yes, things change, because women are really looking for stability at that point, so you need to show some...but all a 27 year old wants to do is have fun...if you can afford to cover the cost of your own fun, she is happy.

***"and with the attitudes about who is "allowed" to have one-night-stands (smart people aren't, evidently); "

And this is the other lie you are telling yourself. Women UNIVERSALLY think intelligence is "sexy". "Starving artist" and other interesting intellectuals have been getting laid since the beginning of time. Indeed...having brains is a very good substitute for having money when it comes to meeting women. But...and here's the rub...the "brains" have to be translated into things like "wit" and "charm"...you have to be an INTERESTING PERSON...versus someone who simply says "I can't get laid because of "prevailing attitudes" and "societal sanctions".

***"I resent greatly the power that the civilian women have over me in this regard, and feel that it is mostly wielded without mercy or, even, concern that it is being wielded at all."

THIS is why you can't get laid. You have a very messed up attitude towards relationships with women. You admit to "resenting the power"...what you are really saying is you don't understand why you even need to be bothered with social graces such as conversational banter and the like. You resent that sometimes...maybe even most times...you have to risk rejection, and so you've decided to not risk anything, and pay for it instead.

Women don't have "the power"...but you and many of the other men on this board don't understand that, which is why you get nowhere with women who you aren't paying to be with you. You couldn't get laid in high school...you couldn't get laid in college...and you are doing the same things in your adult lives in your relationships with women that got you nowhere back then. If you stop seeing it as an "adversarial" relationship...and think of it as simply two people with similar goals (what? you think all women are lesbians?) who BOTH reserve the right to chose a partner they think is best for them, then you will have a lot more success. Sure, there will be some rejection...just as you would no doubt reject some percentage of women who approached you.

But if you were to bother trying to be someone a woman WANTED to be with (versus being "resentful")...you know, an interesting person who didn't feel like he was "smart", but instead just a guy wanting to get to know a girl...you might meet a girl who just happens to want to meet a guy.

Nah...what the hell do I know....I don't have any problems meeting women...

“wielded power”…gawd…would YOU fuck you?? Geez…you are one bitter, resentful bastard…get over it and try getting laid...


-- Modified on 7/9/2003 7:43:17 AM

I was working in a restaurant as a cashier/hostess, and this one guy was waiting for something, I don't know what, by where I was standing and started to make quick conversation. He was a person you'd target immediately as loud and obnoxious. Talking rather loudly, he asked me out (didn't even attempt at any charm) and I said no. He got pissed, and loudly said, "Why, you Lesbian or sumthin'?" To which I replied.."Yeah..that's it. I MUST be if I don't want to go out with YOU!".
I have to admit that since I rarely retort something back to a person, that was perfectly appropriate for this dungball..