LG, There is a very interesting current post on the National Board by a provider who describes a client who visited her and refused to proceed to intercourse, citing principle.  

She admired his 'discipline' and 'principle', as did some others.  I expressed skepticism, speculating that, although I was not there and am not a psychoanalyst, it could be an expression of conscious or unconscious anger towards women - in effect, saying "Fuck yourself" to her.

She replied that my observation may say more about me than about him - to which I pled guilty.  Projection is ever present in the human brain, and I do feel some strong anger towards women in my past.

Others pointed out that an 'ethical principle' that allow visits to a provider, but not a male orgasm, seems strange.  Wouldn't a future wife be more likly to understand and accept full sex with prior girlfriend(s) than even such a self-limited visit to a prostitute?

His whole 'charming' presentation to her stuck me as bizarre. Is that just me, or do you or others feel the same way?

The provider/poster jas given me specific permission to refer her post to your Board for comments. The link to that thread is below.

Thanks for your help, as always.  

BTW" This is not of just academic interest to me.  I have noticed that I sometimes have trouble having an orgasm with a woman I really like and respect, as opposed to those I don't.  I think that's because I still feel anger towards women in the past whom I was (or still am) close to - particularly my mother and my wife.  I like but still have problems with both of them - and I may be painting all really nice women with a still-angry brush.

Obviously, you can't analyze someone you haven't even talked to.  But if you have any general thoughts on this incident, they would be helpful.

Dear bostongreg,

I think we're talking apples and oranges here...but I'm curious as to why it might be difficult [for you, perhaps?] to take the client's actions on face value. This is what the man said:

"I know it sounds strange, but I'm saving that one thing for the girl I finally end up with. It's old-fashioned, I guess... but it's just how I feel about it. I hope you aren't upset."

I find that this is not about an orgasm, it's about not wanting to lose one's virginity until the right moment. Who knows? Maybe he had plans to do it, but when he got in there with the escort, he simply felt that it wasn't the right moment to lose something that clearly is important to him..for religious, spiritual or who-knows-what reasons?

I wouldn't read too much into this one. There is a huge chasm between the sexual internal interpretations of a seasoned roué [haha, look that one up, fellas] and a nervous ingénue.

Heck, I had an experience like that myself...I was once very young and very beautiful, LOL [egads, we're talkin' late 70s now.] Working for a major corporation, right after college. Went to a fancy-schmancy conference in New York City. Stayed at the Westbury Hotel. Took a serious liking to a junior account exec. Lured him into my room and proceeded to rip his clothes off. Ripped mine off too at the same time. We're gettin' hot and heavy, bumpin' and grindin' our young, nubile bodies together, when all of a sudden -- WHAM!!!!! -- HE STOPS COLD and jumps like a man on fire, outta the bed and onto the floor. It was like a baaaad soap opera; the boy looks at me with alarm in his eyes and declares, in the most dramatic fashion: "I can't do it! I'm Catholic! I want to wait until I'm married!!!" And on that note, he tore into his 2-piece suit, shirt and tie askew, and practically leaped out the door with his boner still in his pants...leaving me, the hot, young thing sitting buck naked, bemused and bewildered on the rumpled king bed. Oy vey!!!

I will never, ever forget the incident and I'll never, ever forget that body that just got away. Of course I could probably find him on the Net, but I'm afraid of finding my phantasy irrevocably crushed, LOL.

The point is that there are still some very sexually conservative young people out there, and maybe he was one of them. Maybe he thought that he could break out of his nullicoital state, but alas, his convictions got the better of him.

Now about your "angry paint brush" and withholding orgasm...hmmmmm.....

A looser notch on the Bible Belt,
the Love Goddess

he DID have an orgasm. I know, because I was there. There was no "refusal" of that.

I think he simply didn't want to commit the 'act' until he was ready. Is that so really difficult to believe?

I'm astounded at the vitriol being flung at this poor bastard, and at me, for ostensibly falling for his "line."

I don't know why anyone would think he made it up to impress a provider he may never see again!

call me bewildered,

Tabu

This may be off the point, or maybe not.  I am dubious of people holding out for one reason or another -- moral/religious, psychological, wariness, whatever.  One of the most impressive guys I ever met, a natural leader and very charismatic, adored by women from upscale bar girls to sophisticated and beautiful graduate students, always refused on the ground of saving it.  We used to tease him for refusing to "fire the silver bullet," and he'd laugh it off.  We even thought he might be gay, although there was no evidence whatever for that.  Eventually he married, and I don't know if the bullet was still intact by then or not.  My first wife, a passionate but moral women with whom I enjoyed almost everything possible except intercourse in college, nevertheless believed firmly in "saving it" for marriage.  When I went off to Asia in the navy after college graduation, she encouraged me to have as much experience as possible.  "If we get married, I want a guy who knows what to do," is how she explained it.  I took her advice and I think she was pleased with the result.
What's the point?  There are moral considerations in almost every human act, but "saving it" because of religious/moral strictures when there are no other overriding factors, now seems to me a dreadful waste of talents that could be put to one of the quintessential joys of human existence - the physical and passionate bonding of man and woman.

I posted to the original thread on the General Board, but I am going to post something here as well.

I don't see sinister motives in what the man in the account did...or more correctly didn't do.

As I wrote in my post on the general board; I know of one lady in this business that told me how she is "saving" "greek" for her future husband, because she believes that to be one act she can experience with only him, and by that it will be a special intimacy, for her at least, that the man she loves is the only one that will ever know, and that he will be the only one she will ever know that with.

I know another lady that has said she hasn't gone "BB" with anyone, that is a special intimacy she reserves for her future SO.

In my own odd case, though I masturbate like a fiend, I do so only clitorally.  As to my mind, for whatever damn reason, I see vaginal penetration as being something one does with a partner...and even though in my case that penetration will be either digits or a artificial phallus...it is still an intimacy that I think requires another.  So, I have "toys" which lay in waiting, for a partner, a partner that could be paid companion, one night stand or love of my life, but which I will not use on myself alone.

We all have certain concepts of intimacy and they deserve to be respected, even if not always understood.

Religion.  I'm 50, and was involved (not a fanatic or even close) with several churches from about 1976 to about 1993. Church teaching on sex is confusing at best, alot of 'don't do it' stuff. What all this teaching fails to address is the basic human need for intimacy.    I could easily see myself at 27 (though I was married) thinking it would be ok to experience the closest form of intimacy with anyone, even a provider, as long as my penis did not enter her vagina. Anything and everything else would not get me 'condemned to hell,' but actual penetration would certainly be viewed as sin.   Though I seriously doubt his experience appeared in the church bulletin (if in fact, his reasons are indeed religious), in his own mind he committed no sin.      I actually think the guy went into the session knowing pretty much what he wanted, as well as his limits.   Consider this; Tabu is an experienced, well reviewed provider. It's simply not possible to get consistently good reviews without the ability to 'read' a client very well. I think if the guy had other motives, she would have seen right through him, and stated so in her post.

I don't understand all the noise and controversy here.  The guy is waiting for his own reasons.  Fine.  Great. Whatever. Its his decision to make.  I believe Tabu and I agree that the guy has every right to make his own choices and I applaud his stand on his own virginity if it is right for him.

Look, it's perfectly acceptable to believe in virginity till marriage, if that what any believer wants to do. But an ethical religious man then shouldn't, and generally wouldn't, allow a lady undress him, and disrobe herself in front of him, alone in her bedroom.  He simply shouldn't and wouldn't allow things to progress to that point.

I've agreed with everything you've written, for a long time now. But I'm *not* with you on your lenient analysis of this guy here.

You were treated cruelly. He led you on, when he shouldn't have, and then abandoned you, in a self-absorbed rush.

Only good thing is: you were spared further involvement with such a selfish man.

I wasn't there; and you were. So only you know. But I have to tell you from very far away: His behavior strikes me as self-righteous selfishness covered with a religious veneer - exactly the kind of hyprocrisy the real historical Jesus railed against and got extremely angry about.

I wish you would show less tolerance and reveal more anger about that abuse you suffered long ago.

Imagine leading on, and then turning down a beautiful, bright, caring lady like you. What a jerk!

Thanks for having the courage to share your memory of this intimate incident with  us. I'd love to agree with your acceptance of his behavior as normal...but I just can't. That would be forgiving the unforgiveable and would be repeating the kind of unfairness he showed you.

This must have been an insulting and painful experience for you as a young woman, despite your good humor about it now. Any young woman, and especially you, deserved far more considerate treatment.

If he had said, "Look, I'm afraid I can't go through with this.  Please forgive me for leading you on.  You're a wonderful woman - I'm just not the right man for you" - that would be one thing.  But the way you've described it, he just abandoned you, thinking only of himself, rushing off as though you were the devil incarnate.

That's hardly a model of Christian behavior. He was totally inconsiderate and unfeeling about the harm and hurt he easily could be causing.

In my opinion, his behavior was simply shameful and not admirable, Christian or defensible.

Please forgive me if you feel I'm speaking too frankly, or am just projecting. But I'm OUTRAGED that you, of all people,  were treated that way. And I can't stop feeling this way.

BG

PS. I wish I'd been a nearby junior executive back then.












-- Modified on 5/20/2007 10:13:25 AM

Sorry, bostongreg,

But I don't see any abuse in the situation...only a young and confused guy. I did not perceive myself as a "victim" of anything, and I don't today either. I was the one who came on to him, not the other way around. It wasn't "insulting or painful" in the least - why should it be? After all, don't men get turned down for all sorts of reasons? And do they feel humiliated or abused? I should hope not, mostly for their sake.

I think that any woman who doesn't infantilize her sexuality or falsely protect herself from enjoyment for the sake of some misguided "morality," would benefit from some outright rejection at times. It was a good learning experience, from a narcissistic point of view. Having experienced rejection and learning to pick oneself up and go on can be a confidence-builder. Attend any motivational sales seminar, and you'll know, LOL.

Perhaps it would have been insulting if he told me that I was too ugly or unappealing to get laid. But his religious convictions? I had absolutely nothing to do with those. And besides, I found another lust object the next night, so what did I care? But I'll admit it was a momentary dent in my narcissistic armor, LOL.

Actually, I've shared this incident with loads of people, so it's hardly "intimate." In fact, I shared it with a gaggle of jr exec's at the company breakfast the next morning. I thought it was funny, in view of the fact that I was VERY HOT-LOOKING, and that he missed out on a great lay. Of course, I used to be of the grandiose belief that ANYONE who said no to me on ANY level was completely deluded, LOL. Talk about a young, nutty gal !!!

Now, I would have been much more insulted if he would have questioned my intelligence or judgment in a business meeting. On that point, I would probably have been much more insecure. But with the "brick shithouse build" [a FEMALE exec's assessment of me at said company] I was sporting back then, I felt I could slay any guy who came my way.

So don't cry for me, bostongreg. Cry for all the young girls out there - yep, the religiously indoctrinated ones who suffer in a sex-negative environment and who never learn to be sexually assertive or meet men on their own sexual turf. Such a woman might have been crushed at being rejected...but me? Not a chance in Hell!

Way-too-Led-Zep-kickass for taking rejection seriously,
the Love Goddess