I have a question to providers and hobbyist...society and the mainstream media portrays "Johns" as horrible people(to a level, rightly so) who go to streetwalkers, get dieases, and pass it on to their wives...

My question is do you consider hobbyists johns??
If you're willing to share your thoughts I want to hear your personal opinion.

My opinion, I don't consider hobbyist to be johns nor providers to be hookers. I can't speak for all hobbyist, but I would never go to a streetwalker because that is too dangerous and besides, it just stupid and unncessarily risky to do something like that if your a responsible person.

For an empirical argument most hobbyists will pay anywhere from $100 to $1500 an hour for a provider depending on her rate/value/name recognition.

Many providers usually charge $300 an hour on average and if your a pornstar/centerfold provider even more.

I don't know for sure and this is all assumption on my part is that a "john" usually pays a streetwalker less than a $100 and streetwalkers usually get less than a $100 for whatever service they provide. When I think of johns and streetwalkers I associate them would low value and low pay($20,$40,$60 services) and they do all there business in his car out in the open in some ghetto/dirty/high crime part of town.

As for hobbyist/providers there is more culture and class to the business...men normally pay in the hundreds sometimes thousands depending on the girl. And there business is done tastefully, usually at a hotel, where its private, discreet, and classy.

I am obviously bias, but I just think if a johns is accustom to paying $40 for a street hooker he will not pay $300 for a provider and even though hobbyists and johns have similarities, they're very different on a cultured level.

I know this question was about hobbyists, but you can ask the same question of providers as well, to me provders are different too. I don't see them as hookers in the traditional sense like society and mainstream media sees them.

Yes, it is an assumption, and one borne out of ignorance. A "John" is any man who engages a woman for remuneration.  Money, other favors of value, etc. Whet in the hell do you think that you are? Casanova?  Maybe I should apologize for being too harsh, but frankly, I think that ~stunad~ (ask Tony Soprano about the meaning) should know better than to think that they are god's gift. Pay your money, take your pleasure and if she really wants some pleasure, then give it to her if you are able to do that, and if not, shower and go home Otherwise it is simply a perfect business transaction. Best wishes to you, buddy! Life's too damn short. Enjoy!!! That's what it's all about!

can delude yourself into thinking you are the Pope if you want to--but everyone knows what you are.

-- Modified on 7/7/2006 10:15:56 PM

Well, I already wrote my opinion so you know my thoughts. I don't have HBO so I don't understand the Tony Soprano lingo. Am I Casanova?? I don't consider myself a ladies man, so, NO. But, your real intention was to take a shot at me and I realize this.

Just the existence of the term "hobbyist"(which by definition can apply to any hobby, but it is well understood in pop culture to mean men who pay to be with escorts) means there is an important conscious belief to differentiate themeselves(hobbyist) from what the "johns" do and how they operate.

Your thought is basically everyone is the same and equal where my thought is basically everyone is not the same and not equal. I understand this was not your only point in your post, but I'm addressing your shot at me with the Casanova and god's gift comment.

This is a free country, but not absolutely free tell that to a john and he'll disagree.

I don't delude myself to anything...I know society and the mainstream media considers me a john. I don't understand why you two are making the casanova or pope comment...I don't pretend to be on a high horse or on a pedestal, I just think of myself as being more classy and better than the typical "john" who goes to the ghetto to get a BJ while her pimp is outside waiting for her to finish so he can get his hands on the money.
 
Maybe your right and maybe I'm deluding myself and my thoughts are clouded, but I like to think of the glass as half-full and not half empty.

and I have no moral problem with it.

A rose by any other name....

yes. It is what it is.

lol. Thats not what he wants to hear and it's going to cause an uproar in here. It's a business between a john and a hooker. Plain and simple. Doesn't make it or anyone bad but that's all it is. Happy Hobbying!!

if you think of yourself that way then why post in here and not like what we have to say? If you think you are better, so be it.

Huh?!?!?!   You seem to be the only one that thinks in the manner that you are describing. I don't really understand where the F*** you are coming from with these comments. My gut tells me that they are delusional. Don't know, as we have never met, but that is my best guess. I stand by my earlier comments, as do my fellow hobbyists and peers.

Sorry about this in advance, but your point would be stronger if you would check your grammar. Lots of programs out there to help you even if American English is not your 1st language. Please don't take this as a put down...... it is not meant to be that. Just a little friendly advice between a couple of men with similar interests.

. . . in semantics. "Johns" has a negative connotation so use it if you feel negative about the activity.

and therefore you probably have a greater tendency to compare yourself to others and perhaps more importantly what others think. If you pay for pleasure, it matters not what you are called or even what someone thinks of you. If you can't find value in your quest for sexual recreation, then you might as well stay home and watch TV. For me, it is really undefinable. I have yet to meet any two women who were just alike. I have yet to find any two people who think exactly alike. Relax, enjoy the smell of coffee, the scent of a freshly cut rose, and the taste of a wet pussy on your tongue.

-- Modified on 7/8/2006 6:59:24 AM

you said, "...I don't pretend to be on a high horse or on a pedestal, I just think of myself as being more classy and better than the typical john."

I think needing to feel superior to others is the definition of a high horse. As I said, you can delude yourself into believing you are whatever you want to be, but if you get busted they will put you in the back a a police car and the local news will publish your name in a list of "johns."

At the heart of your need to feel superior to "johns" who engage low priced streetwalkers is an acceptance of puritan values that proclaim that an exchange of something of value for sex is immoral. In our society words like john and whore are negative terms used to cause people who engage in prostitution to feel bad about themselves.

Hence, we use words like escort and hobbyist and escort that do  not yet carry a negative connotation. As long as you buy into society's opinion of johns, hookers and whores, you will either feel guilt-ridden or need to feel that your own activites are somehow superior to others who engage in prostitution.

As for myself and many others, our values allow us to openly and joyously enjoy the exchange of sex for something of value.
For myself, participating in a profession whose goal to to give pleasure to another human being is a wonderful and joyous way to support myself and my family, whether as an "escort" in a luxury hotel or a streetwalker in the front seat of a car.

My own moral values tell me that it's OK to do whatever I please as long as I don't do harm to another.

If we're talking in the vernacular, without drawing fine distinctions, yes, hobbyists are johns.  But "john" is a perjoritive term, steeped in the lore of streetwalkers and vice, and connotes someone who pays a few bucks to get his rocks off in a hurry.  "Hobbyist" connotes someone who pursues the hobby for pleasure and does so with some degree of selectivity and appreciation for what he's doing.  

Is a courtesan a whore?
Is a wine afficiando a lush?

It's a matter of attitude and manners (or breeding as it's sometimes known.)
A poor "John" with only $50 to spend on a street corner can be a perfect gentleman, while Mr. Bigshot seeing a $1000/hr courtesan in a five star hotel could be a perfect cad.
We often connect the former with the latter's behavior, but I suspect that is mostly unjustified class bigotry; unless someone has some statistics out there to prove otherwise.

If you look up prostitution on Wikipedia the first sentence in the first paragraph under the heading Socio-economic and legal status of prostitution states: There is a superficial class divide between street walkers and high end escorts.

So, replace the street walkers with johns and high end escorts with clients or hobbyists.

They are all simply words that mean basically the same thing.  John is sort-of outdated and not often used but by the media.  I cannot see a street walker using the term client, either.  

It's an interesting read.

Kate

I understand your point about me and offering your opinion that I'm probably delusional, etc. Those are legitmate opinions and I respect that.

But, what I don't like is WTF is your point with my grammar?? I don't claim to be the most intelligent person but attacking my grammar? WTF is that all about?? Is that the only way you can intelligently debate me?? Seems a bit childish to me!

1) sorry, but I don't proof read every line in my post since this is a hobbyist/provider messageboard and not some formal college paper where I have to worry about being graded, lol.

2)read my post(s)again...I think there are very few grammatical errors in my writing so your basically pulling sh*t out of your ass. Even if there were grammatical errors(if you want to nitpick and you seem like that type)in my writings they are stll coherent and organized enough to understand.

Well on to a change of thoughts. It is interesting to read what a few of the providers wrote and they basically agree that hobbyist are johns...I guess you can take the class out of it, and stop using the word escort and provider and replace it with hooker and prostitute.

It is what it is: what are you saying?  A word can't be anything real.  It's only what guides your thoughts and emotions.  That's the only "realness" about it.  If society gives you insulting terms for yourself or your customers, you don't have to use them.  There's a such thing as new terms.  Shakespeare, for example, coined a third of the words in the English language-- really.  A rose may be a rose by any other name, as he said, but he knew the value of the right term for the right thing.

I have terms for women in your profession: tryster and shift mistress.  I haven't come up with terms for clients yet.  

You might be in this for the money, but there's not need to insult your customers, even if society wants you to.  And you might not remember my name after I see you, but my name is not John.  

-- Modified on 7/8/2006 12:37:34 PM

Hey it is what it is. Whether you say hooker, prostitute, provider, or courtesan if LE steps in it's all the same.

A hearty bravo Zina. You rebutted that so eloquently.

Society often assigns us labels and monikers to wear in order to define who we are, or who they think we are at any rate. No where in the rules though, does it say we are required to wear the costumes society has selected for us.

In some cases, an epithet may be embraced for its symbolism and worn in defiance of the derogatory connotations it represents. The phrase "gay pride" and the term "gay" are excellent examples. Paris before WWII was known as the party town, and attracted a large homosexual community. Its party atmosphere lead to the phrase "gay Paris". When the Nazis took control, homosexuals were rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they were treated to extra helpings of torture and cruelty. The Nazis began calling homosexuals "gays" in reference to the fact that so many Parisians were arrested for homosexuality.

After WWII ended, homosexuals embraced the epithet in defiance of the horror that homosexuals had endured at the hands of the Nazi's, and "gay pride" was meant to refer to those who survived their ordeal.

So, not all epithets continue to hold the same connotations they had when first introduced. It remains to the individual however, to take the costume offered or not.

For myself, the word "John" is about as tacky a phrase as it can get, and certainly not one that I would consider in connection to any man that I see. It isn't what it is. Its an insult in our vernacular, and one that has no place being used in this community where hobbyist and provider come to enjoy a meeting of the minds.

Just my two cents. Or rather, given the length of this post, just my nickle.

When a man pays a woman for sex, he is a john.  Hobbyist  and provider are  cute euphemisms, and certainly connotes the idea of "recreational sex" but in the end, it's still just commercial sex, and...

I have to add though, about defiantly choosing a derogatory term, IMHO, it won't work.  "Gay" had pretty remote origins, and it was one of the beautiful terms for joy in the language.  If you choose a term like "whore" describe yourself ordinarily (not in dirty talk which is whole other story) it's more in human nature that you'll live down to the term, rather than elevate it.  For a term like "prostitute," Mary Magdalen couldn't bring any honor to the term.  People just consider her to be an exception, and don't consider "prostitutes" in general to be more honorable due to her legend.

I'm an atheist, so I have no religious objections, and sex for money is not morally questionable to me.  

A john to me is the sort of guy who spends his money for desperate women who take it only with the agreement that sexual encounter won't be called rape.  He's the sort of guy who would patronize enslaved women.

that many agency women fit that description? Let's not argue semantics, but you seem to be describing lots of men with such a broad brushstroke when many of you see teenagers, women who are drug dependent, and women who've been forced into this life to pay off debts and the like. How is any interaction different if you are paying someone for sex? Arguing about streetwalkers vs. high-priced porn star is only a matter of tastes and wallet size and it still makes you a john by either definition and whether you believe in God or not only means you have made another choice.

Why don't we have a "Semantics Discussion" board for people who want to play with/argue about words?  This is called "beating arouind the bush."  Personally, I'd rather talk about/play with the bush!

Its all the same if and when you get locked up. LE won't treat you any differently because your an "escort" or because you were caught "hobbying".

It seems like many people on this board want to believe that their ATF's just fawn over them and that there is reallu a realtionship there. Many times a regular client is nothing more than a guaranteed source of income on the weekly basis. In addition this whole john and hooker thing is absurd I guess to make ourselves feel better we use words with different connotations but it's really the same thing.

I'm writing about my use of the term there, not what I think the "proper" definition should be. It's a means of comparison to what society presumes about clients, but I admit it's perhaps a little off topic.  

How is any interaction different if you are paying somebody for sex?   I think there are many differences you could describe, but a better answer to your question would be that if somebody wanted to insult me they could still call me a john.  I just think it's important psychologically that I don't insult myself with the term, or casually insult others here with it.  It endangers  good behavior and mental health, not to mention it makes everyone here hate themselves and each other; for no reason except their morality differs from the wider culture on one issue.  

Zin, that was a bunch of bullshit, but I'll defend your right to say and though I read it several times trying to discern your meaning. Alas, I came to the conclusion that if you think calling someone a john or a whore is going to injurious to their souls, then wait to someone calls them assholes. What does a pint of hemlock goes for these days, because so many people are going to off the deep end because they are called "johns."

It's thinking of yourself that way.  The word "asshole" if you think about it, has no meaning whatsoever.  It's totally metaphorical.  Therefore, as insults go, it's actually one of  lamer ones.  The better ones strike at something true.  

However, I wrote too quick there, and maybe read you too quickly.  I rolled out of bed very late.  I'll reread in the AM before I go to bed, and I'll see if I could write it better.

-- Modified on 7/9/2006 11:52:29 PM

I'll have to answer this in two parts.  The first part is long, the second is brief.  

First, if you think that words can't have a profound psychological effect, I suggest you look at other groups that have changed names because they felt the terms given to them had become insults.  For example, the "lame" became the "crippled" became the "disabled" became the "handicapped."  For a while they were "physically challenged," but that one was abandoned quickly when it became the butt of too many jokes.  Which one of those terms was the "real" one?  Which one tells it like it is?  

Don't think this is due to PC either.  "Grave- diggers" became "undertakers," then "morticians," then "Funeral Directors," now they're becoming "Grief counselors."  This one began long before there was PC.  Now, which term there tells it like it is?  Which is the "real" term for it?   Now, you probably weren't around to realize that "undertaker" was bullshit.  When would your bullshit detector have ever gone off I didn't make this point?  

You could tell how much a group is having trouble on the psychological and social scale by how often they insist on a change of name.  Before I was around "negro" (actually "n*gger") became "colored," but within my lifetime, the accepted term became "black," which became "Afro," which became "Afro-American," which became "African-American," which almost became "People of Color."  As they have trouble pulling themselves to equality, who knows how many times their name for their group will change?

The same pattern.  The people abandoned the term once they sense a social stigma around it, and when they felt it was oppressing or insulting them.  

You think they are changing these so that society thinks better of them, but it's also so they'd feel better about themselves.  It's almost like you smell it.  The fear is that you will live down to the insults they are given. It's the only thing to do because you really can't rehabilitate a term once it becomes debased enough.  

Sometimes a change in terms is prompted by an important social change.  Like the internet.  I mean, who would use the term "call girl" today?  When that term was coined, it was a euphemism at a time when phones changed the way business was done.  Just like "provider" and "client."  They have a flat innocuous sound of a euphemisms, too.  

If you think that words don't effect mental health or behavior do you think you could maintain your balance having a drill sergeant scream insults at you every hour of every day?  I know you've probably been to boot camp, but what if there were no way to get out?  Imagine that now more low key but constant.  

For the second part: yes, paying for sex might involve women enslaved, might involve teenaged women or children.  However, slavery, child labor and deprivation happen in other industries.  If a slave in India works assembling shoes, you don't call the entire shoe industry slavemasters.  

What's weakened or destroyed in what you've pointed out is the quality of consent.  If sex-for-money is exchanged between two consenting adults, then it's honorable, and there's no reason insult anybody about it.  

I'll end it by saying I've already proved that I could go broke and never think of buying the time of a $40 hooker.  That disproves the economic angle.  As for the tastes, there's line in which a differences of aesthetics become moral differences.  I've thought that out very carefully.  I could write you a longer post on that one.  

-- Modified on 7/10/2006 1:28:02 AM

If it is, why choose john and hooker then, all things being equal.  Is there something about the terms that make you feel that they're more "real?"  Get real.  Words have no real dimension other than the way they guide your thinking and make you feel.

The only reason to not change the terms is if you don't feel you have the right.  How is it that society can assign you terms?  

John and hooker became terms of insult for very particular reasons that are no longer applicable.      One should feel free to report that back to society.

Like the old joke about a guy who asked a girl if she would fuck him for $1million.  She says yes.  He says, how about $50.  She says what do you think I am, a whore.  He says we know what you are, we're just haggling over the price!

They are one and the same thing, dude.  More like Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion divide- says mnore about you than it does the subject matter.

I suggest you stick to the john/hooker terminology with any civvies- the hobbyist/provider is pretty much a dead giveaway...

But I applaud your self delusional skills- they are smooth...