the Danimal wrote:
> GoddessBaybee wrote:

> > >When you sold drinks to men who were willing to pay extra to
> > >get a close look at you, was your transaction devoid of
> > >mutual affection, attraction, interaction etc.?
> >
> > um, dan, I didn't have sex with the guys I sold drinks to.
>
> What does that have to do with my question?

I think what GoddessBaybee is alluding to is that she didn't
sell sex, but rather sold the prospect for sex.
This is the main rationalization that meal whores
use to seperate themselves from ordinary prostitutes:
that unlike prostitutes, they do not make a direct
simple exchange of sex for money.

> Real familiarity does not start to kick in until a couple has
> been sexually active for several months and past the "best
> behavior" period.

Interestingly enough, men are pushed by the system to
be on their best behaviour while women generally are not.
GoddessBaybee's primary reason for demanding a free
meal was as a "test" to ensure the man liked her
for more than sex.  Yet, the moment a man commits
to buying something, he then has a financial incentive to
lie.

This is why it's not all that uncommon for women to be
puzzled as to why a man courts them for a long period
of time and then takes off after she sleeps with him.
Once he's past his personal "point of no return", it makes
sense for him to appear the good boy until he's
gotten something out of the relationship.

> Most people fear spiders and snakes more than they fear guns
> and automobiles, even though guns and automobiles are hundreds
> of times deadlier in modern societies than spiders and snakes.

That's strange.  Most people I've seen who've encountered snakes
and spiders were largely unafraid (provided either weren't
in their lap.)

> Humans have not had time to evolve instinctive fears of guns
> and automobiles because these threats have only been present
> for a few generations, and it takes much longer for the slow
> process of natural selection to change the gene pool.

Most people are generally afraid of guns if they are pointed in
their direction (even unloaded) which is a good thing.

Automobiles are another kettle of fish altogether because
it's a necessity for most people's daily existance.
If you told people of the accident statistics for people drowning
in bathtubs, they might be shocked but still think little
of them because they need to take a bath on a daily basis.

On the other hand, they needn't encounter snakes or spiders
or even guns so such phobias are largely tolerable.

> > I don't.  I think it's probably in my best interest to avoid johns
> > as sex partners.  For one thing, there's the disease risk.
>
> That argument also applies to humans as sex partners.

One admirable trait about Johns is they are honest.
Many women have found the notion that men are
giving them lines to get them into bed disgusting.
Yet, a man who never sees prostitutes and has sexual
needs he can only fulfill by saying what women want
to hear has a strong motivation to be less than honest.

"Tell me lies.  Tell me sweet little lies..."

> I would be surprised if disease risk has much to do with
> your choice of partners. Very few people reason that way.

Indeed.  Fundamentally, GoddessBaybee prefers
all the benefits of prostitution (special treatment
and resources given to her by horny men) without
what she considers the sleazy notion of actually
giving men what they pay for.

> > Also, a man who
> > doesn't view sex as an experience involving mutual affection,
mutual
> attraction,
> > and normal human interaction, probably aint the right guy for me.
>
> Why wouldn't a john view sex this way?
>
> If a person has eaten Mexican food, would that somehow preclude
> him from also appreciating Chinese food? Maybe he strongly
> prefers Chinese food, but in a town where only Mexican food
> was available, he went for the Mexican.
>
> As far as "normal human interaction" goes, prostitution has
> been pretty "normal" throughout history, as normal as warfare
> and exploration and urbanization and any other sort of event
> that disrupts the availability of women. Whenever the supply of
> women becomes insufficient to allow men to obtain sex through
> the mutual attraction channel, men tend to compensate by paying
> women to have sex with them.

Not only that, but what's so great about normal anyway?  Isn't
that also a synonym for "mediocre?"  Most normal marriages
end in divorce.  Does she want that?

What's the expression about idiots expecting superior
results from normal thinking?

Not only that, but most "normal" people who play the meal
ho' game are engaging in continuous dishonest behaviour with
each other prevents intimacy.  The "asker pays" game is
about playing hard to get, or treating the man poorly, just
so she has an emotional edge to get him to buy her
a feedbag.  Is that the way people treat someone they
want as an intimate partner?

> Where do you think "hookers" got their name? That dates from
> the Civil War; prostitutes followed the army led by a General
> Hooker, and the name stuck. After the war, millions of johns
> went back to their farms and factories and raised families.
>
> If you think men value all that mutual affection stuff so much
> they will put their need for sex on hold when the mutual affection
> thing isn't happening, then you don't know much about men.
> A few men will do that, but not all men.

Women usually do not have strong enough sex drives that would
push them to pay for it.  So in a way, women should be thankful
that men are so horny they're willing to pay and lie for women.

> But the same women who feel disgust at johns expect men to tolerate
> all their flaws. I never met a woman who seemed entirely
> comfortable with the various traits of women that can cause
> men to feel disgust.
>
> -- the Danimal

I know some very attractive men and they often have women
hit on them and offer to buy them dinner.  However, even
these star struck women would quickly lose interest if the man
actually welcomed that kind of relationship.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/13/05 4:57:04 PM ---