The "a priori" argument that boundaries must be drawn to be successfull or happy in the hobby is a persistent and nagging gratuitous assertion. It is not an axiom that there must be boundaries in the hobby. To claim so ignores the stages of moral development and the evolving human. I posit that trying to draw such artificial boundaries not only  prevents success but indeed, stops moral development. It may even stagnate spiritual development.

  Like mainstream society, the hobby sub-culture has developed it's own set of conventional rules. The irony of course is that the hobbyist sub-culture exists on the fringe of society and is not normally accepted openly. Certain rules, of course are necessary for the safety and security of both participants. . . vis a vis, for their physical safety and legal issues.  But it is unusual for such a sub-culture to manifest rules such as the ones created to protect emotional risks. Like mainstream culture, the hobby mirrors the the conventional stage of moral development with respect to monogamy. The idea of creating boundaries and having only one serious monogamous relationship is grounded firmly in the idea of seeking something that will gain the approval of others, usually a fellow provider.

This, of course, provides a framework where the chances of success are rare, and failure, almost certain. And for good reason since the conflict created between belief and reality is almost certain to create and maintain an unhealthy mental disorder.

  Instead, these rules should be abandoned to the trash heap of the 19th century and puritanical American fundamentalism's fear of modernity, and a post-conventional stage or moral development should evolve for the community where consequences should be experienced (some say suffered) willingly.

Postscript:
 All misanthopic, misandrist, and misogynistic posts sent immediately to the rubbish bin along with arguments using correlational studies.

your argument is a wee bit opaque for me, though I think I see where you are coming from.

Let me know if I am getting it right in this nutshell, so to speak:

Are you saying that avoiding deep interpersonal involvemnent with a provider does not make sense and is an artificial construct sure to fail at some point because it is contrary to our nature?

If this is your arguemnent, then I agree with you in theory.

In practice, it may be better for most to stick to the artificial constructs for within them is a certain amount of safety and for most; safety equals good.

Remember, for most this is nothing but a recreational hobby, like golf or water skiing.

But I do agree, for others (and I include myself here), there is no reason to hold back.

We live but once, and it's a shame to miss golden opportunities.

I for one, struck the jack-pot.

I wish you and all others the same.

If I have missed your point, I apologize and ask your indulgence to spell it out for us again.

Oh, and for correlational studies; I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. (They sound like too much work.)  

Charming, Lawrence,
but didn't you commit suicide 20 years ago?

As far as moral development theories, they are very interesting, but some activities do benefit from some guidelines. It's easy to call them "rules," but of course, they are self-imposed and not adhered to under duress. And, it surely helps people who otherwise could get very confused - or, as you so astutely point out  - "for the safety and security of both participants." The fact is that there are two people involved in the activity. No correlational studies needed here - empirical results have shown that providers do not usually want to get involved with clients beyond the job, and when clients try to push the client-provider boundaries and create dual relationships, the provider usually shuts down and terminates the client.

The boundaries I advise clients to have, is to stay away from involvement beyond the fiscal exchange relationship with ONE provider, and instead spend paid time with several. I'm not sure what's so puritanical about that. Or misanthRopic . In fact, it's being polyamorous and very exploratory, which to me signals anything but fear of modernity.

I'm not Carol Gilligan, so I'll end it right here,
the Love Goddesss



-- Modified on 9/4/2006 5:43:42 AM

As usual, I think LG has given us some sage counsel here.

It is dangerous to be building a personal relationship with a provider.  So, if you want to try that, it may be more self-protective to try it with more than just one.

Besides being fun, that strategy can help keep any  relationship from becoming or seeming like an unpaid affair, which would endanger ,more our marriages. If there's more than one provider relationship, perhaps there's less danger of that.

I read LG as saying, "Maybe it's OK to become friendly with a provider.  But if you start to see that happening, make sure there're more than one you're personally friendly with."

Expensive (in both money and time), but much cheaper than corrective psychotheraphy and/or divorce proceedings.

I'm wondering . . . What is the general opinion on a relationship between provider and hobbyist becoming something of a paid mistress relationship?  As long as the lines are clear and rules established, where is the harm?

There are plenty of men out there who would rather see just one woman, an affair without grey lines and empty promises if you will.  So, he becomes attached and it can hurt, but sometimes, especially with men in long-term marriages, new love, the pain (the "it hurts so good type"), excitement and confusion that comes along with it, are just what he's looking for.

There are all kinds of ways to go about the hobby -- one hour trysts with different girls, longer-dates with a handful, a long-term relationship with girls in each town you travel to, one relationship with one girl until it runs it's course, etc.  I think this is a one size fits most hobby.  What makes one wrong and the others right?  

Kate

as there are people involved.

In my case, I have a SO type relationship with Ms. Fisher and we have a set upon plan for financial consideration.  
She sees any men she wants whether professionally or otherwise and likewise with me.

We correspond every day and lay bare our souls to each other.

So far so good in just over a year now.

It helps that we are both divorced and share a lot of common interests.

It may also help that we live many miles apart, so that when we do meet, it is very blissful.

The "rules" are there for anyone who wants to use them.  They work to keep you out of trouble, but not necessarily to maximize your experience.

Caveat Copulator

I agree, Kate.  There's nothing morally wrong with single paid mistress relationship.

However, as LG has said, there may be real danger of getting too involved (if you want to stay married), so it might be emotionally safer (if one can afford it) to have two or three mistresses available for still-personal, if more occasional, visits.

Our romantic hormones can always get out out control and cause us a heap of trouble.  Romeo and Juliet did not have a happy ending.

It's not a matter of morality, but one of prudence.  (I'm assuming no lying to any mistress, such as making her think she's your only one.)

Will welcome your further thoughts, especially if you disagree with me.

Greg

They are neither wrong or right. But since you are an advanced and evolved woman you can accept the consequences or your actions and are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with being put inside artificial boundaries.

I'm not big on deciding what is morally correct for one person or another.  Just for myself.

Falling in love with another person while you're married can be difficult and emotionally exhausting, I'm sure, but it does not have to be disasterous.  People don't have to go nuts, leave their jobs or their families, make empty promises and basically go overboard.  There are sane ways in which to have a relationship and being realistic and keeping your head on straight is key.

I'm not sure why seeing more than one person could lessen the chances of falling in love.  The more you put yourself out there, the more likely you are to find "trouble".  It happens when we least expect it, doesn't it?  

Best,

Kate

You've lost me.

Kate

My position is that monogamy is passe and that the assertion that getting more involved than in a financial way is dangerous and is fundamentally flawed because it is an un-evolved belief system.

Humans today have a high capacity for intimacy and with more than one person at a time. Monogamy is very much an archaic and virtutally obsolete system advocated by those who suffer under the illusion that monogamy equals loyalty and control. This very old belief system has changed very little over the centuries, but can change, if bad advice such to stay away from more than one intimate relationship is abandoned and left to the church ladies of the puritanical 18th century mindset.

Let me put it another way. It appears the conventional mindset here is to say it is ok to have a SERIAL monogamous relationship that has a financial component, because it eliminates the eventual heartbreak of separation. (Note: the serial monogamy apparently lasts 1 hour.) But, somehow if the intimacy goes deeper into an emotional or spiritual relationship, the eventual pain of separation must be avoided at all costs. This conventional way of thinking is, admittedly held by a majority of persons. However, and this is the important part, the EVOLVED human thinks on a more advanced level.

An evolved human CAN have more deeply held emotional and spiritual connections with more than one person at a time...without jealousy or regrets. They are able to ACCEPT the consequences of their actions. They do NOT depend on being accepted by others into a clique for their own emotional well being. That's why the vacuous assertion that married men are happier and live longer is pure rubbish and belongs in the same funeral pyre of psychological mumbo jumbo as the archaic idea that homosexuality is a disease. (Yes, the old school of psychologists actually called homosexuality a mental disorder.) The assertion that married men are happier and live longer rests on the incredible idea that one's own emotional well being is tied to another and is not based on any real scientific experiment that is repeatable or falsifiable.

Sidenote: I am not going to go into another posters personal attacks on me at this time, except to say, that to use a phrase like "terminates the client." and  "didn't you commit suicide" is extremely disturbing. I will note that psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists have one of the highest suicide rates for professionals in the USA and Lawrence Kohlberg for 16 years suffered from a rare disease he caught in British Honduras (Belize) and suffered great pain and eventual depression that led to his suicide. Palliative therapy in the USA is a joke.

I think he's trying to define those who can maintain polygamous relationships - physical, emotional, and spiritual - as advanced and evolved human beings (in this case, hobbyists and providers) and those who maintain and seek only monogamous relationships as, well, un-evolved.

Personally, the large issue I don't think that he's addressing is societal norms.  As social animals, human beings need to conform to some extent, hence the necessity of rules, whether it be between two consenting adults or a nation or a religion or what have you.  Polygamy is practiced in Middle Eastern nations but so are beheadings in the streets, a practice I don't see as particularly evolved.  The US has made it a criminal act to be married to multiple people but adultery is off the books now and, while still not in the mainstream, swingers and their parties are tolerated more now than back in the 1960s.

As individuals, we can evolve, yes, to seek out and exercise and enjoy multiple relationships with varying facets.  But we do need those boundaries, as individuals, as couples, as families and extended families, and as nations, if we're going to function as social animals.

There are no truly artificial boundaries, only those we choose to recognize or to disregard.  And what those boundaries truly come down to are trust and respect.  Without those, relationships, evolved or unevolved, cannot hope to exist and flourish.

and very comprendable as well for which I thank you.

I find a lot in your writing to agree with, but in terms of its relevance to the majority on this board, I think it is too ethereal right now.

Alas, but the average hobbyist is looking for a brief escape from the humdrum of work, society and the non-sexual reltionship with the wife; and then there's the kids and their school work, bills, the bowling league and the crab grass.

I hear where you are coming from and I like what I read, but, if you'll excuse the metaphor, I think you may by the Ayn Rand of the hobbying movement.

Do keep contributing please.

Kate, Thanks for commenting.  I absolutely agree with your first paragraph. I'm not sure about your second one.

When I feel pangs of attachment and longing growing too much towards one provider, I'll go see the other one - that seems to help me keep sane about it.  

It's that I'll then feel any less for the first one, but that I can compartmentalize the feeling, and control it, better.  

Isn't A wonderful - wish I could see her more - wait a minute, this isn't meant to be - I better see B instead of A next time (all the while taking care of my wife's needs).

It's, admittedly, quite a balancing act.  And I agree with you that there is no one right answer.