I’ve been thinking a lot about the hobby since stumbling on this board a while ago and I’ve decided that this is an activity that does not lend itself to objective viewpoints.  There is not much of a continuous spectrum of belief in this regard.  Anyone you ask publicly will state an opinion that may be an accurate reflection of how they really feel, but almost always condemns the hobby.  Here on the board, the spectrum seems to be a little broader, but is limited by the desire to not rock any boats and spoil the fun.  Anyone here who advocates against it is usually couching that advice in a statement like “you have to do what you think is right.”  It’s hard to argue with those words, but they don’t simplify anything for someone who is seeking an answer.  The problem of objectivity is complicated by, and causes, a number of concerns and issues, legal, social, and medical.

If it weren’t against the law, this board would lose one of its reasons for existing.  Granted, there are other reasons as well, like a place for like-minded individuals to go and talk and a place where information about providers can be shared to help clients match up their interests and tastes with what’s offered by the providers.  There are some decidedly problematic results with the legal status of the hobby, but I think the greatest is the fear of seeking medical help. Even on this board, there is a form of law by which we abide.  Publicly exposing someone else’s identity or making unfounded accusations are understandable no-no’s.  

With regard to society in general, there is a stigma associated with providers and with clients.  A lot of it is based in religion, something from which we take a lot of our legal code. (thou shalt not kill, etc...) Within our safe group, the stigma is not as apparent, but not many of us are cavalier about sharing such information outside the group.  I haven’t seen too many referral programs with regard to the hobby.  An unmarried man has a little flexibility, but could still suffer the wrath of any professional or social organization, an employer, and potential mates if the news of his recreational activities gets out.  A married man  looking for something he’s not getting at home or looking for some extra spice generally knows that his wife will not appreciate his extracurriculars.
Even in countries where it’s legal, it carries a stigma, and no one wants to catch a bug, regardless of his societal or marital status.

Two things are pertinent in medical concerns: pregnancy and disease.  Pregnancy is pretty easy to prevent now, but harder in the past.  Also, in the past, things like syphilis and gonorrhea were a big problem because we didn’t understand them and didn’t have antibiotics until the last 70 years or so.  Herpes has been around a long time, but I think it exploded in the 70’s and killed the age of free love.  AIDS is now the biggest fear, but harder to catch in a heterosexual relationship.  Add to that the fact that drug resistant versions of the bacterial infections are appearing and you can be afraid of syphilis and gonorrhea again.  It’s possible that AIDS hasn’t had its day yet and mutations will catch us off guard.  The longer it’s allowed to continue, the more risk I perceive with regard to a useful mutation that makes it more virulent.  That brings me back to my question of objectivity even on this board.  I don’t notice a “medical” sub-board here, even though I see a legal and a social (politics and religion) board.  Is that by design or by accident?  If there were a medical board, would it answer questions like  “What do I do if I think a provider has given me a disease?”  Is that a legal question?  Has there ever been a medical board here?



It’s hard to say in human evolution, when we started selecting for women (and the occasional man)  with a preference for monogamy, it might have had a lot more to do with pregnancy than with disease.    I’m sure later, when disease started being a problem, that only added to the strength of the social code.  I’m convinced that religion was originally shaped to address the social problems of the day and led to an eventual legal prohibition in more puritanical regions.

Nowadays, it seems that the law is driven, in part, by a legal services and enforcement complex. (like a military industrial complex, which now wags the dog)  It’s further bolstered by religion and the fear of disease and serves to keep a mutually reinforcing triad of social, religious, and legal reinforcement going.

So how does one get a real objective viewpoint? Some people have posted what their therapists have said and it’s apparent that the advice given to them is designed to push them more into the mainstream of life and not necessarily advise them on their needs.  On the other hand, what is a sexual addiction?  Can someone who seeks this type of entertainment be called an addict by definition, given all the negatives placed by society on the activities we seek?

but I think the last one about addiction is easy enough to handle, though I'm sure there will be a lot of room to argue.

To me, a hobby is something you enjoy and can afford.

An addiction is something you do because you feel compelled and would quit if you could, and further, it causes problems in the rest of your life; having a lack of money being one major issue that comes up a lot.

I also think that there is a continuum from one extreme to the other, and where you draw the line is up to each of us.

I'll take a shot at one other issue you raise, monogamy:

My feeling is that this practice arose out of a need to have clear lines of inheritence as a way of sorting out money issues within large extended families as the societies evolved from matirachal to patrarchal societies, and ultimately to the age of nations.   Institutions such as marriage and religion then took their cues from that.

Yes, this is a gross over simplification, and many internal contradictions and offshoots can be found, but this is no place for a scholarly treatise with footnotes, etc.

if I even can. But it seems that is all boils down to another Chicken Little "The Sky is Falling" over VD and other maladies of the ages.

A lot can be contributed to your many theories in sociology. I will leave that to Big John and Matt.

Why do we not have a medical board? Answer that yourself. Would you be more likely to take medical advise from an imaginary Doctor on a discussion board or would you prefer to discuss a plan of attack eye to eye with your primary doctor?

This board is exploding with all manner of experts behind the a user name, who dole out advise on an hourly basis. I would take anything you hear or read here with a grain of salt, including my response herein.

Bottom line though, is if you are really really worried to the point of this post that you are going to catch something, perhaps another hobby is in order.

Forget objectivity; how about some actual productivity, in which hobbyists and providers might finally do a competent job of making sure each and other lives up to the true ideas for why this community exists? This is always will be about the behavior of people and whether you frame it as addiction or entertainment, there are always matters of degree. Suffice to say that real question might better framed as: Is there not a connection between truth and consequences, between belief and actions?

the experiences of those who have participated in the hobby. If I want more concrete advice I go to the the Legal Corner, the Erotic Highway, and even the Newbie board.

And, what is your definition of a "real objective viewpoint?" Even scientific studies, for some the epitome of objectivity, can be biased.

..."AIDS is now the biggest fear, but harder to catch in a heterosexual relationship...."

Really? If the parties are having BB anal/vaginal and one is infected, whether het(can do both) or gay...does not matter.

Talk about inherent biases...how can one derive a truly objective point of view from a site frequented by people who are clearly "okay" with exchanging money for sex?  If a survey was done here asking if prostitution should be legalized the results would be far different than that of a statistically accurate random sampling of society in general.  There is no objective point of view here because the collective opinion of those that frequent this site are so skewed versus today's societal standards.

Regarding the disease issue; sure, there is a risk in engaging in this hobby but statistically (sorry for the lack of footnotes but I don't know where the hell I heard it!) the frequency of communicable diseases transmitted via sex is much higher among casual acquaintances than "the hobby" and even the adult entertainment industry.  

So, aside from having sex with your SO (God forbid) or signing up to appear in a porno this may be the safest way to have sex.  Sure there is a risk but its the same calculated risk we take when we drive a car or fly in an airplane.

My last comment on the thread...relative to monogamy, there is credence to the inheritance angle but there is also a strong possibility that monogamy developed in the evolutionary cycle as a way for the strongest male and strongest female to procreate repeatedly throughout the woman's fertile life.  

There are two schools of thought; one that polygamy evolved as a way for males to have multiple partners therefore sustaining population levels because of our ability to procreate much more frequently than a woman can conceive; the other that by consistently mating the strongest male and female the gene pool would be stronger.  

In either case, monogamy has become the social "norm", it is neither right nor wrong, but I think we all agree it is what would be considered "normal" in today's society.  Like any other activity that is counter to culturally accepted norms, engaging in that activity is frowned on by the majority of society.

Phew...what happened to listing you most exciting body part????  I need to lighten up!!!!!!

Especially where humans are concerned, the line between objective and subjective are extremely blurry. I also suspect your misuse of objective versus subjective, but that point is actually moot to the argument.

Where is the objective reference point? As pointed out, science is anything but. Let's take a simple example. I posit the existence of lightwaves which cannot be seen with the naked eye. This cannot be based on objective observation.

Regardless, I go out and build an infrared detector and LO, it works! The problem is that device I built to detect something is biased. It detected the thing I dated but nothing else. What if some other wavelength of light I have not detected affects our conscious perceptions. Now we are really no better off.

More simply. Let's say I am color blind and observe an object which includes colors I am blind to (at it's edges), and the background has similar color characteristics. Can i accurately describe the shape of the object? Is my description objective or subjective?

If we observe the same sky would we literally see the same color, or is our perception of the color affected by our conditioning that "the sky is blue"?

As humans our perception is shaped as much by our physical ability as it is by experience, education, emotional state and any number of other factors. To posit a question which presupposes an absolute objective reference is ludicrous.

Now let's apply this to something important like provider appearance and performance ratings!

1. No medical sub-board because of the numerous pitfalls to giving medical advice.

2. Monogamous and polygamous tendencies exist in dynamic tension; with cultural norms, social controls and individual environment and values tipping the scale one way or the other.

3. The more promiscuous an environment, the more virulent the pathogens in that environment become.

4. "Thou shalt not murder" was part of pre-Judeo-Christian legal codes. There are certain commonalities a society needs to get out of, and remain out of, caves.

5. Just because something is part of a religious code doesn't mean it is irrational or counterproductive just because belief in deity itself may be irrational.

6. Social norms develop for numerous complex and interrelated reasons and aren't easily understood; as well as the repercussions to violating them; using simple analysis.

7. Though limits to perception and knowledge do NOT change the fact that existence exists and A = A; these limits have sufficient impact that unambiguously identifying the full properties of A in order to derive prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) behavioral rules for A is fraught with peril.

8. In terms of objectivity; Einstein's Special Rules of Relativity are recommended reading. Note that everythingis compared to an "inertial frame of reference."

Is it okay for me to kill somebody?

The answer to that question is actually quite involved; but our legal code recognizes that sometimes it IS okay.

I'm fairly smart and educated person, but it's nearly 100 degrees outside and reading that just made my head hurt even more.

So I'll just say what I always say when I can't think anymore:

Fuck me harder, baby!

I fuck; therefore, I am!

Addiction: That seems reasonable enough.  The hard part is determining where on the scale the enjoyment lies.  Is the enjoyment just a result of satisfying a compulsion?  Maybe it's not worth discussing that point.  The impact on one's life seems the better definition and one that's used with substance addiction.

Monogamy: I agree, religion certainly wasn't the originator of those ideas, but they used them for their own purposes.  The real reason that catholic priests are supposed to remain celibate is to preserve the wealth of the church.  It still leaves the question about the differences that men and women have:  Is the desire for monogamy by women more genetic or more societal?  Would the removal of concerns about money, protection, and child-rearing also remove the concerns about monogamy or would that remain as a "vestigial" emotion?

Agreed, even the most objective viewpoint inherits subjectivity because of perception, and each individual occupies a point somewhere in the range between reality and fantasy.  I don't believe that anyone is sitting on the reality line either.  As much as we trust the objectivity of it, even physics is not immune to it, but compared to human psychology, I think it's a bit more consistent.  Of course, my own perception on this may be somewhat subjective.

1. I suppose that medical advice would open up a whole can of worms, legally.

4. Sorry about the Christianity reference, it's certainly not my intention to promote a religion, I just wanted to use a commonly known "law" as an example.

5. There's certainly nothing irrational about faith in an evidence vacuum, is there?  

I'd love to!