MightyPen

The key difference RG between Twitter and e-mails or PMS is that e-mails are (generally) one-to-one, private communication. Twitter is about one-to-many, semi-public broadcasting. "Semi" public, because only the people subscribed to your feed will see what you tweet. Now imagine a whole bunch of those networks intersecting (everyone you follow, to you; and then you, to everyone who follows you) and you have the Twitter universe. Twitter often gets maligned as a means for boring people to share what they've just had for breakfast. But it doesn't have to be that at all. Lots of things people share on Twitter aren't about themselves specifically, but rather about something they saw that interested them -- either someone else's tweet (which you re-tweet to share with your community), or a link to something you found on the web. If you're plugged via Twitter into a community of like-minded people (you following some of them, some of them following you) then Twitter gives you a means to express short ideas and impressions and share things of interest quickly and easily. You don't have to be living the life of James Bond or the Dos Equis guy in order for it to be worth people's while to follow you; just use it as a means to share stuff that interests you with a lot of your friends and acquaintances at once. If they've subscribed to your feed, then they're already interested in what you care about and have to say about stuff. After all, it's a lot of those little "hey, whatcha thinking?" exchanges that cement friendships in the first place. Twitter is just another channel for the same stuff, quick and easy.

It's because for a very long time women WERE considered the father's property, and if she was "sullied" she'd be almost worthless in those terms. So protecting the daughter's virginal state was important -- not so much for HER sake, but for the benefit of the family that "owned" her and was counting on marrying her off profitably someday. The idea of the woman as property has been mostly (mostly!) glossed over these days, but the wedding transaction still has some of those anachronistic elements in plain sight -- the father still "gives away" the bride to her new owner after all. (Were I in that circumstance, I hope I'd tell my father to mind his own business and give myself away, thanks very much.) The conservative elements in our culture still cling to these hopeless and backward attitudes in the form of "cherished traditions". It's nice to see the dad in the article with a level head. I like his approach. Arm your children with good judgement. When it's time, have some frank and non-creepy, unashamed talks with them about sexuality, its psychological context, and its pitfalls as well as rewards. And build a relationship such that you don't constantly impose your "help" and "advice", but your kids still know they can come to you those times they decide they need it. Then they can enter relationships and sexual situations with their eyes open... and you need to trust them to use that judgement on their own behalf. Inspecting every prospective partner and presuming to bestow a "guess I'll leave the shotgun over there this time" approval will just cause a daughter to hide her boyfriends as long as she can.

Neapolitan here! And I guess that's just about right too. :)

No. I'm really not. So there, we've established that much. I originally found the board when simply looking for ads. I spent some time reading recommendations, but they never really influenced my decisions. My tastes and interests are my own, and eclectic, so I rely on my own instincts and impressions when choosing who to see. You could delete every single recommendation from CERB, and it would not change the board's value to me in the slightest. They have nothing at all to do with why I spend time here, or how I choose my companions; in fact I don't think I've read even one in the last year. When it comes to choosing a companion, I'm much more interested in providers' ads and profiles, and often something intriguing about their participation in the many fascinating threads here. So, having established that recommendations are a trivial feature of CERB for me, here's what I *do* get from the board: information about SPs in several forms, from the providers themselves really interesting discussions about sexuality and the sex-work industry different viewpoints about the industry and the experiences that come with it a fascinating community of interesting people with at least one shared interest, but other than that an incredibly diverse group with wide-ranging discussions that often have nothing at all to do with sex or its industry. On the other hand, I recognize that the recommendations are a big draw for at least some clients who come here (but far from all, as we can see from the poll), and have value for those providers who benefit from them. So I'm glad for those folks. But gee whiz Pete... you've got to recognize that no matter what the board may call itself in its banner, or what those who run or old-time regulars may imagine CERB to be, or have been... others can legitimately value different things from this place. It's cool that you value the recommendations so much. But there's no basis for faulting those who never read them and really don't care about them at all. It's not necessary, or reasonable, to expect that we'd all be "here for the same thing". Plainly your interests are not my interests; the things you value aren't the things I value. But so what? As long as CERB's core business of ads and traffic chugs along, we can each take what we need from this place, and leave others to find value their own way.

I think you're right that B-Bob was under the impression that the CBC had been instructed to, and had agreed to, not mention B-Bob's film career at all, and then B-Bob took offense when he heard it mentioned in the introduction and decided to sabotage the whole interview. Now the question becomes: can publicists legitimately instruct the CBC not to mention a glaring subject, and can the CBC legitimately agree to such a stipulation? Jian's position was that that's not the way it works; the CBC is granting the band publicity, and it's on the CBC's respectful but not deferential terms. Jian was going to mention the glaringly obvious film connection in the introduction, but move onto the music from there... but B-Bob wouldn't let him. Instead he falls into a ridiculous funk (and perversely will talk only about "monsters of movieland" or something,... WTF?), then insults Canadians as "mashed potatoes with no gravy" just to try (and fail) to get a rise out of Jian. Silly power game. And I think B-Bob clearly lost. Jian stayed classy and forthright. B-Bob then doubled down and lost again during that evening's performance (where he and his band were pelted with gravy packets). They never played in Canada again. As Jian mentioned in the interview, once he and B-Bob start to tackle the issue head-on: the band wouldn't even be in the studio if it wasn't for the film-star connection. They can't ride on B-Bob's stardom coat-tails to undue prominence, and then insist it never be discussed. To pretend B-Bob isn't a film star and never mention it at all isn't a film star would be ridiculous. Core of the issue: B-Bob thought that his publicist could "instruct" the CBC what to talk about and what not to. Jian disagreed, since he knows his job as a responsible interviewer and journalist on behalf of his listeners. Maybe B-Bob's is now the American standard for journalism, where the powerful subject calls all the shots. I hope we stick to Jian's.

Absolutely not. Two examples that come immediately to mind, from two of my all-time favourite tv shows: 1. Nathan Fillion (Firefly, Castle, etc.) Everyone on Firefly talked about Nathan's profession abilities mixed with good humour and his leading role in creating a supportive, family-like atmosphere on set. The guy just seems as genuine and giving and committed to his work AND the people around him. I'm a great admirer. 2. Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) Once again, the guy put in the grind of acting work for 20 years before attaining the summit of television acting fame, and the cast and crew all cite him as a guiding, steadying, giving influence on the set with absolutely no sense of ego or an image to protect. Once again, I'm taking notes from this guy. I think that fame gives lots of power and wealth to those who have achieved it, and that lets them express who they truly are once no restraint is required of them. And "stars" are prone to enormously inflated egos, just from the dynamics of their central, prominent position; so if they have an inner demon, it's awfully easy for it to come out. You'll find all kinds of people in the famous circuit, and some of them will be atrocious human beings who can act on every whim. Business is the same; enormous wealth can flood into the hands of people who have one narrow set of skills, but that doesn't guarantee any others or any special self-awareness as human beings. So it goes.

aHAHAHAHA... sorry, I'm just trying to imagine that conversation. GUY 1: "Hey, whatcha doin'?" GUY 2: "Playing Killzone 7... just came out." *pew pew boom* GUY 1: "Huh, cool." (pause) "Hey, you know what GUY 2? You should totally get out of here and go to a brothel." GUY 2: "WTF?" GUY 1: "Seriously. You've captured the other guy's flag, like, three times while I've been watching. Knock that off. You need some action." (pause) "At a brothel." GUY 2: "Dude, my girlfriend will be home in, like, an hour." GUY 1: "Look, here, take this..." *gives paper* "Just call this number and go to this address. Seriously. You should totally do it." GUY 2: "Uhhh...." LATER: GUY 2: "Dude! That was awesome!" GUY 1: "I told you! Now... make sure you go back several more times this week." GUY 2: "You know what? I'm totally doing that, because you've just convinced me that I should." HANDCUFFS: "Click!"

Yup, I didn't for a moment think the "weird" was intentional on your part. Maybe it's a good sign that these questions just struck me as already a bit dated, which I suppose is what I was getting at with "weird vibe". Anyone who has a problem in 2013 with anything you list (a woman paying for dinner, a woman who's successful and talented at work) has... issues. I'm sure such guys are out there, but there will be steadily fewer of them as the years and decades pass.

Huh... I'm sure your heart's in the right place Pete, but I gotta say the thread gives me a bit of weird vibe. If you read your post again but put "black person" in place of "lady" or "woman" you'll probably see what I mean. ("Let's answer a poll honestly: would you let a black person pick up the tab?" "I'm so glad for them when they do well!"). The question automatically has some patronizing built right into it, and the fact that we can ask the question without it seeming weird tells you all by itself that we have a long way to go. I work in a profession with an almost-equal mix of men and women. I get along well with everyone, because I just treat all my male and female colleagues as fellow professionals while we're doing anything involving work, wherever and whenever that may be. I can promise you that all the women I work with would much prefer that, rather than being "turned on" by being around a successful woman, I just deal straight with them: do what I promise when I promise, and pay them or bill them on time. End of story. For myself: I very seldom let anyone I deal with professionally pick up my tab unless I know we'll switch next time around. Gender doesn't enter into the equation. I'm not threatened by anyone at work who seems especially capable; I've known both men and women who knew how to do some things better than I did, and I respected their talents and always tried to learn from them. I'm optimistic the situation in North America will be different in 50 years, and certain it will be in 100 years. Today women outnumber men in university, so within a generation qualified professional women will outnumber qualified men. Prejudices notwithstanding, I think the dam must finally break and simple talent and training will win women the high-level positions they've been largely denied by men and male networks 'til now. And our grandchildren will regard the honest questions you've raised here to be as bizarre and archaic as an equivalent racial poll seems today. Finally, I'll echo goldandrocks and add that some of the SPs I've met are among the smartest and hardest-working people I've ever met, and much more balanced and successful than many I meet who identify as "business people".

Thanks for posting that. I agree; "men are just all about sex" is the equivalent of "women are just all about babies", and neither one is always true. That said, each is a pervasive idea in our culture and we see examples of people who match that expected behaviour all the time. So when you're in your teens or twenties and trying to plumb the mysteries of the opposite gender (and even ourselves), they're easy placeholders to start with -- but should be replaced with something more nuanced the more we learn and experience. As for the original "why is getting laid hard" ... that's a complex one. A good starting point is: sex isn't always simple. Sometimes it's quite complicated, and sex with the wrong person can lead to drama, or worse. So lots of people, especially as we get older and some of the mystery and driving urge for immediate sex dissipates, tend to choose partners carefully. Prospective partners want you to be reasonably attractive, seem generally capable and to have a handle on stuff, and promise a positive experience that's worth the investment and risk. Everyone's got their own way of measuring those things, and their own set of priorities in that calculation (and this can be different at various times for the same person). This has long been a deeply interesting subject for me: what is sex to each of us? What do we think it means to have sex, or not to, and with whom? Why exactly is it important to us, and what parts of us respond to the idea and to the the act of sex? Why do we respond to particular people or things? The variety is enormous. But I could go on for pages and pages.

I always send a brief thank-you note afterward (well, unless the thing went disastrously, but that's almost never happened). If I try to break down my reasons for it, I guess it's a combination of: - a nice way to add a little "P.S." to the encounter, during that period afterward when I'm still thinking about it and smiling; essentially, "even though our time is over I'm still carrying the memory with me, so thank you for that too." - a way of saying "I know I said thanks while I was there in your presence, but that could have been mere politeness because we were in the same room; let me thank you once more now that we're apart, so you know the feeling is genuine." I suppose it's part of the way I manage the emotions involved in the experience, putting the last feelings away somewhere safe and then moving on.

Oddly enough, "Sigh No More" from Joss Whedon's new Much Ado About Nothing (which opens at last in Ottawa this weekend at the Bytowne): Every time this play is done, the director gets to decide what to do with this key little song... and what they choose tells you a lot about the tone of the whole endeavour. In this case it's simple and understated, just like the production itself (it's a great story how this film came to be at all).

"OMIGOD! The moon is plummeting toward the Earth!" Absolutely the LAST thing I want to hear before I go to sleep. (Yeah, others beat me to it, but I couldn't help myself.)

I always hope the pleasure goes both ways. But mostly I'm posting with a chuckle because I misinterpreted the thread title at first and thought it was about something awful. It's the difference between: "A client turned me on!" (awesome!) and "A client turned on me!" (oh no!) I thought it was the second one. Ah, language.

Oh no! That's far, far too young. I felt like he'd only just established what he was capable of, and would have a really cool post-Sopranos life ahead of him. Terrible shame. EDIT: brief article by the best TV journalist I know of: Sepinwall on Gandolfini

It's even clearer if you flip it around and asked "Hey ladies, who is your worst client in Ottawa??" and then try to reassure guys by saying "no, no, it's okay... she's not saying who's THE worst, just HER worst."

First, my heart goes out to you. I've known a version of some, though not all, of the things you're describing. I'm truly sorry your life's path has brought you to this unhappy point. Second, it's VERY good that you're reaching out for advice, and CERB is a great community, but I don't think you can find what you really need here. You need to talk with someone, for a long time and in great detail, about: - what's going on, exactly - how you feel about all the various parts of it - you're wife's circumstances and what has brought her to this point and how capable and likely she is to change - and what's important to you You can find a bit of solace and comfort through CERB but really you need to talk to a professional about this. Find a therapist for yourself; this is what they're for, and they can help you work through your thoughts and feelings on this. It's commendable that you're looking for help in this difficult time. I just advise you to go one step further and consult someone who can help you properly in this terribly complicated situation. I can understand that for those who married young and built their whole lives as a couple, letting go of that vision and contemplating any other is deeply painful and terrifying. It challenges your entire perception of the world, your life, and your place in it. What I can tell you is that, unless you do something about it -- no it won't get better, it will just carry on, unfold into a crisis, or you'll become deadened and resigned to the situation. Don't let those things happen. With some professional gudance figure out what you really want next, and then make changes of some kind in line with what's really important to you. You're not alone. Good luck and heartfelt best wishes.

That's cool. :) I think our views on the issue are more similar than different. I don't think the outcome of the poll was entirely foreseeable. While I do feel we could be sure almost nobody would choose Berlin's first two options, I think the split between the third and fourth is unpredictable and has a lot to do with how the two options are presented and perceived -- which varies widely. Berlin's post examines that difference closely. That's where the value lay for me. Plus, the poll format might seem odd, but we know it wasn't out of the blue -- it was an attempt to re-frame the options in response to another, uh, less successful attempt. It'll be a long time before the general public sheds its preconceptions about the sex industry, and their responses to polls like this one start to resemble anything like what we're seeing here on CERB. But if it happens, it'll be thanks to stepping stones like these kinds of private discussions; the public conversation surrounding the case now before the courts, thanks to the uncommonly brave representatives of the industry who have gone public; and, someday, people realizing they already know both clients and sex workers among their friends and members of their own family, and they're actually fine, normal people. Here's crossing my fingers.

I think you're right about everything except the circle jerk part. The denizens of CERB are an outrageously biased sample, IF the objective of the poll was to determine "what do Canadians as a whole think about this?". I don't really think that's what Berlin was trying to do. On the other hand, I think the poll IS a useful way to get this particular community, who is not only more interested in the subject but also (presumably) better informed, thinking about the issue more precisely -- and that's particularly handy when it's before the court. I wish I could say that being so invested meant we would all be going out and pressing the case to the others in our lives, but... that doesn't really follow, does it? ;) Maybe that can change someday, too. I do like that, at the moment I write this, we have one vote for full criminalization and one for partial. :) Provocateurs! Or just jolly teasing, more likely. But there's also a healthy split between the last two options, and that's probably the part that's most interesting to we CERBites. In my spare moments today I've been conducting a little debate inside my own head about the virtues of legalization & regulation versus simple decriminalization. So far it's a draw. The definitions Berlin provided have a clear idea which is best, and I understand the reasoning presented; but I can think of other factors at play too. My internal arguments are too complicated, with examples and counter-examples, to post here. But I wouldn't have had that internal debate if I hadn't read Berlin's poll this morning, so in my case I think it's probably served just the purpose she was after. Thanks again, Berlin.

Thanks Berlin! I found the descriptions you included really helpful, particularly those exploring the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Looks like I learned my new thing for the day. (Guess that means I have bad news for my colleagues when I get to my desk shortly! :) )

Sorry to hear about this recurring problem, Cristy. Seems to me the thoughtless, self-centred guys who do this won't change until there are some consequences for their actions. Maybe SPs and MAs could maintain a "gray list" of known time-wasters. That way you all could, say, require guys on the list pay a booking fee up front due to their known history of cancellations. Once the guys realize there's some kind of coordination among SPs and a penalty for their thoughtlessness, maybe they'll finally think twice about wasting everyone's time?

Two hours. That's enough time to talk for a while first (honestly, not just a brief, polite prelude to getting naked), then play, laugh, talk some more, play some more, and then ease gently into that sweet sorrow of parting. Cramming that into an hour doesn't work. I've had three-hour sessions with a few SPs after we've already met and clicked well, and it's always been a delight well worth the expense.

I think Summer has hit on the core; out culture, like others, reveres youth and dynamism. One of the problems with our particular culture is that we get most of our cues from media: tv shows, movie, and especially ads of all kinds. These things chase money, and the youthful set have the most to spend on consumer goods. So all of our cultural messaging is about them, their awesomeness, their privileged position and their material desires. Past cultures had that same reverence for youth, even if it was less pervasive and less scientifically targeted at us. But they also had different cultural messages transmitted through mutually-dependent families, communities, and even shared social institutions like churches, that gave us a different perspective and reminded us how valuable wisdom and experience can be. But, with the erosion of these influences, almost all that's let for us today is the media and its cultural message of youth and consumption. Not a very healthy or realistic sole focus, but that's something we often learn too late.

I'm not a widower, but I think that (as Cristy said already) a lot of guys are moved by similar reasons to seek out an SP's companionship, widowers or not. Let's put aside for now those times the client is simply looking for sex -- more sex, different sex, mysterious sex, whatever. That's a perfectly good reason to seek out an SP; and sometimes it's my reason and it's gone very well. But another reason is to capture, for a couple of hours maybe, the special sense of intimacy and connection we normally expect from our conventional relationships. All relationships have peaks, valleys, and a wide middle area where people end up a lot of the time: - The peaks are those special moments of passion, of mutual attraction and lust; of mixing your bodies together in a pool of uninhibited and wordless desire and action; of deep sharing, honesty, willingness to reveal and explore each other's deep desires without fear. This kind of sharing leads to those moments of real trust, love, and sense of deep emotional and spiritual connection to your partner. - the valleys are those times you're completely out of synch; frustrated, resentful, bitter about something, and the slightest setback brings out a wave of anger that feeds of those slow-burning embers of discontent. These are the worst times, and they're corrosive to the whole relationship if they last too long. - the wide middle band is all that time you both spend just busy taking care of daily stuff that needs to get done: washing dishes, taking out garbage, working on finances, sorting out obligations to family and in-laws, whatever -- all those hours and hours and days and days that you hardly even notice go by because they're so routine and don't have any special emotional significance. I think most of our time is, by necessity, spent in this zone of neither good nor bad, but just getting stuff done. It can still be fulfilling in its way -- moving things forward, your long-term plans unfolding. The meat and potatoes of living a life together. But it's mundane. Over time, lots of relationships get stuck in this zone and stop rising above it. People are bruised and distrustful from past valleys, get preoccupied with daily necessities, and the peaks become distant memories. I think that for a lot of guys, not just widowers but people stuck in those not-awful-but-not-great patterns in their relationship, seeing an SP is an attempt to recapture those peak moments of passion and intimacy when their partners are gone, or just unavailable. Being able to revisit those summits of passion and intimacy from time to time keeps you sane, reminds you of your own sexual worth, and provides something like the feeling of connection you're missing. It's not quite the real thing -- there are real boundaries -- but it can help get us through those long rough patches, and regain some perspective. Sometimes, revisiting that place is what we need to remind us, and convince us, that we need to make some changes in our "real" lives so we can find our passion there once more.

Oh, I remember her well... Barbara Feldon from Get Smart. So "first" that I didn't understand what parts of me were responding.