To Miitch,What does that mean to you?John
PS (to John Bechtol)...
Another frame of reference:
"To live outside the law one must be honest;
On this you always say that you'll agree --
So where are you tonight, sweet Marie?"
Bob Dylan
Meaning... Another aspect of being spread too thin: here today, gone tomorrow, with seeming depth and sincerity that prove ephemeral.
Mitch,
If you would include the text of the messages to which you are responding in your replies, it makes the thread of conversations easier to follow.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Re: "Meaning... Another aspect of being spread too thin: here today, gone tomorrow, with seeming depth and sincerity that prove ephemeral."
Starchild asks: " If you would include the text of the messages to which you are responding in your replies, it makes the thread of conversations easier to follow."
Sorry... That was in response to John Bechtol's question "What does that mean to you?," with reference (in turn) to the Bob Dylan lyric (as quoted again below). More broadly, it's a critique of "love for sale":
"To live outside the law one must be honest;
On this you always say that you'll agree --
So where are you tonight, sweet Marie?"
Bob Dylan
Again, regarding the Bob Dylan lyric:
"To live outside the law one must be honest;
On this you always say that you'll agree --
So where are you tonight, sweet Marie?"
Starchild's response (on behalf of sex workers, aka "Sweet Marie) seems to be "Well, it's a complicated subject...."
Complicated? What part of "weasel" don't you understand? 
Re: "Well, it's a complicated subject..."
As I wrote elsewhere (regarding the question posed by the Dylan lyric, "Where are you tonight, sweet Marie?"): Complicated, Marie? What part of "weasel" don't you understand?
Re: "It's... about enhancing the experience by sharing it."
This gets to the heart of the issue, which is shared affect. Sharing an experience is not an enhancement; it's about an experience as jointly "owned" (or jointly [i.e., commonly] experienced).
Re: "How would you define 'sociopath'?"
Already answered: a condition stemming from an inability to recognize and to experience [or to feel] life as shared.
Re: "People commonly speak of men "performing" when they have regular (unpaid) sex."
I don't accept that frame of reference, nor do I use that terminology.
Re: "I thought you were arguing that professions, starting with prostitution, have commodified life, [though] I myself have been a harsh critic of extending the 'marketing paradigm' to politics and other areas of life. On the other hand your critique seems to be singling out prostitution from among all the other professions as uniquely objectionable."
I'm not singling out prostitution in that regard -- not by a long shot! If I had my druthers, every televised ad (whether via a dramatization or spokesperson) would be accompanied by a disclaimer declaring, "I was paid to say this," or maybe even, "I've said this because I was paid to do so." For that matter, we once had a discussion where I deplored the labeling of cranberry juice "cocktails" where microscopic print is used to indicate the (often greater presence) of numerous other "juices that dare not speak their names."
My problem with prostitution (as sex work) is merely a subset of this objection to prostitution (in the broader sense of the term). As the oldest profession, prostitution (as sex work) merely forms a prototype or template for the marketing paradigm that now infests all of society -- and operates in the most intimate sphere of life.
Nonetheless, as I wrote (and have learned the hard way), sooner or later, one has to come home.
Is that really so complicated, after all?
Mitch,How is it a critique of prostitution, much less, a support of your theme?
The meaning is unclear to me so I check with others. This came up:
"Jonathan Lethem, in an article in Harpers magazine in February 2007, notes that the line is very similar to a line in the 1958 film The Lineup,“When you live outside the law, you have to eliminate dishonesty”.
With Dylan it was ever thus.The lyrics of Sweet Marie are an upbeat version of the woman’s gone but with infinitely more positive energy than “My Baby Left Me”, and without the aggression and annoyance. He’s waited for her, she’s betrayed him or left him, or abandoned him half way through some dodgy and illegal scheme, he’s in prison, he can’t get to her, when he does get out she’s left home."
Mitch,
A few more thoughts interspersed with your comments...
Re: "Well, it's a complicated subject..."
As I wrote elsewhere (regarding the question posed by the Dylan lyric, "Where are you tonight, sweet Marie?"): Complicated, Marie? What part of "weasel" don't you understand?
Attempting to look up the meaning of the lyrics in Bob Dylan's "Absolutely Sweet Marie", I could find no indication that the song is about prostitution. The reason "Marie" isn't present may just be that she has another lover -- or the letdown could have some other cause entirely.
Re: "It's... about enhancing the experience by sharing it."
This gets to the heart of the issue, which is shared affect. Sharing an experience is not an enhancement; it's about an experience as jointly "owned" (or jointly [i.e., commonly] experienced).
Re: "How would you define 'sociopath'?"
Already answered: a condition stemming from an inability to recognize and to experience [or to feel] life as shared.
When you're parsing the difference between "enhancing the experience by sharing it" on one hand, and "shared effect" or "jointly owned" experience on the other, I don't see how you can credibly claim that the subject is not complicated! 
This whole line of argument (the Dylan song lyrics, etc.) seems as much a critique of polyamory or promiscuousness as it does of prostitution, and there you would run up against irony. To use the need for sharing as an argument for monogamy (a system in which people monopolize each other's affections) would be not just ironic, but nigh on Orwellian!
Re: "People commonly speak of men "performing" when they have regular (unpaid) sex."
I don't accept that frame of reference, nor do I use that terminology.
I've never cared for it much myself. But if you're going to criticize prostitution as being just performance, it seems fair to point out that this term is commonly applied to the sex act in general.
Re: "I thought you were arguing that professions, starting with prostitution, have commodified life, [though] I myself have been a harsh critic of extending the 'marketing paradigm' to politics and other areas of life. On the other hand your critique seems to be singling out prostitution from among all the other professions as uniquely objectionable."
I'm not singling out prostitution in that regard -- not by a long shot! If I had my druthers, every televised ad (whether via a dramatization or spokesperson) would be accompanied by a disclaimer declaring, "I was paid to say this," or maybe even, "I've said this because I was paid to do so." For that matter, we once had a discussion where I deplored the labeling of cranberry juice "cocktails" where microscopic print is used to indicate the (often greater presence) of numerous other "juices that dare not speak their names."
My problem with prostitution (as sex work) is merely a subset of this objection to prostitution (in the broader sense of the term). As the oldest profession, prostitution (as sex work) merely forms a prototype or template for the marketing paradigm that now infests all of society -- and operates in the most intimate sphere of life.
Yes, I was thinking of our discussion about cranberry juice! If your real beef is with the marketing paradigm, the sex trade is a strange place to focus your efforts. A criminalized and socially marginalized area of commerce seems unlikely to be representative of the way that products are typically marketed in our society, even if we were just talking about interchangeable widgets and not individuals.
There's usually no motive to attempt to deceive someone about what's in a container of juice unless one is attempting to sell it, making it easy in that case to correlate the commercial nature of the transaction with the dishonesty. But when it comes to people attempting to make themselves look more attractive/desirable than they "really" are via various forms of deception (makeup, driving a nicer car than one can readily afford, padded bras, not saying what one is really thinking, etc.), this phenomenon extends way beyond the context of prostitution!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
The Dylan song, of course, isn't (necessarily) about prostitution; I was merely invoking the lyrics in that context, where, taken at face value, they seemed to make the appropriate statement.
As for the rest of your remarks, I'm frankly tired of chasing around in response to your bobbing and weaving.
For instance... My discussion of empathy or shared experience (or shared affect) isn't "parsing"; it's about a blatant and obvious aspect of existence (or of consciousness), of how one experiences life itself. If that isn't obvious to you, so be it; I've tried expressing the point poetically (in my description of how I experience sex) and philosophically. I've discussed this with many people in many contexts, and few if any have such a problem recognizing what I'm talking about. (Then again, try describing the color "blue" to another person: ultimately, either you "get" it or you don't.) At this point, I can only again recommend the Cleckley book, which (unfortunately, perhaps, in a highly clinical style) includes many (extreme) case studies of people who conflate empathy with performance." Parsing," my ass!
To some extent, the same consideration applies to my approach to monogamy. While I (at least) question whether coupling ought to be legally privileged (as in marriage), I can understand why (beyond reproductive biology) it's regarded that way. Here, again, I speak in terms of the way I experience life and intimacy: as I've said, I'm a one-person person. Speaking of "a system in which people monopolize each other's affections" strikes me as tantamount to speaking of one's lungs (deplorably) as being "monopolized" by air. Again: sooner or later, one has to come home.
Obviously (again), I'm far from the only person who feels this way. If you want to engage in hair-splitting, please take it to Justice Kennedy. As for whether a child's love for two parents is problematic or might involve being spread too thin, I refer you to the story of Oedipus as interpreted by Dr. Freud. While I have my own problems with both of these alternative interlocutors, I must leave you to the tender mercies of such inferior minds if you want to engage in further hair-splitting -- given that, at the moment, I (albeit not a prostitute) value my time too much to bother responding any further on such matters.
Prostitutes have for too long had a free ride among anti-authoritarians and countercultural radicals regarding broader questions of ethics -- because the trade, however unfortunately, is criminalized. Even in the larger society, a certain risqué glamor and urbane worldliness attaches itself to the industry. If anyone, it's the client, not the object of his desire, who's socially most marginalized -- and every hooker knows it, since desirability is, after all, his or her would-be stock-in-trade!
The sex trade isn't really such a strange place for me to focus my efforts. After all, I've been bamboozled by the glamor (the notion that someone's so desirable that they can expect to be paid for intimacy itself); if you'll pardon the expression, I've got skin in the game.
More to the point (as I've repeatedly indicated) prostitution forms a prototype or template for the marketing paradigm that now infests all of society -- a world in which most people prostitute themselves merely to survive.
If one is looking for a haven in a heartless world, the prostitute is the first, most intimate imposter that one encounters-- before even leaving home. That much should be as obvious as encountering a pickpocket or burglar in a world of white-collar crime.
If it's taken me this long (at age 65) to realize that, that's my problem -- but then, I've thought highly enough of many practitioners to have felt them worthy of luring out of the trade. I've had some interesting times (however expensive), and I've even found some genuine friends. Nonetheless, seeking the proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" may be the ultimate fool's errand in a world of whores.
In any event, after all the bobbing and weaving, it's as straightforward as that.
Mitch,
If you object to what you call my "bobbing and weaving" (i.e., my continuing to hold a view of the matter which differs from yours while approaching it from a number of different angles?), I in turn find it somewhat ungentlemanly of you not to include in your responses the remarks to which you are replying after this has been mentioned. You may analogize it to listing the ingredients on a label in an easy-to-read font size -- when people can see the message being responded to, they can more readily see to what extent the response they are getting addresses previous countervailing points and does justice to opposing argument(s). Besides, of course, the previously noted fact that it makes threads easier to follow, it also spares your discussion partner(s) the trouble of having to go back and pull up the previous message when responding, as I'm having to do here. Nevertheless, some further thoughts below...
The Dylan song, of course, isn't (necessarily) about prostitution; I was merely invoking the lyrics in that context, where, taken at face value, they seemed to make the appropriate statement.
Disclaimer noted.
As for the rest of your remarks, I'm frankly tired of chasing around in response to your bobbing and weaving.
For instance... My discussion of empathy or shared experience (or shared affect) isn't "parsing"; it's about a blatant and obvious aspect of existence (or of consciousness), of how one experiences life itself.
If that isn't obvious to you, so be it; I've tried expressing the point poetically (in my description of how I experience sex) and philosophically. I've discussed this with many people in many contexts, and few if any have such a problem recognizing what I'm talking about. (Then again, try describing the color "blue" to another person: ultimately, either you "get" it or you don't.) At this point, I can only again recommend the Cleckley book, which (unfortunately, perhaps, in a highly clinical style) includes many (extreme) case studies of people who conflate empathy with performance." Parsing," my ass!
I didn't say that merely discussing empathy or shared experience was "parsing". That word was a reference to -- now let me go find the other message and open it again, so that I can get the wording! -- your trying to draw a distinction between "'enhancing the experience by sharing it' on one hand, and 'shared effect' or 'jointly owned' experience on the other." I still maintain that's a very subtle distinction worthy of the term "parsing".
To some extent, the same consideration applies to my approach to monogamy. While I (at least) question whether coupling ought to be legally privileged (as in marriage), I can understand why (beyond reproductive biology) it's regarded that way. Here, again, I speak in terms of the way I experience life and intimacy: as I've said, I'm a one-person person. Speaking of "a system in which people monopolize each other's affections" strikes me as tantamount to speaking of one's lungs (deplorably) as being "monopolized" by air. Again: sooner or later, one has to come home.
Being polyamorous won't kill you. Lack of breathing will. Big difference! Nor is monogamy equivalent to "home" (whatever that word means in this context). Certainly some people including yourself may feel that way about it, but that's subjective, not a universal. In the June 2013 issue of Reason magazine (p. 60), Ronald Bailey writes, "A 2012 study in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B noted that the 'anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 percent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife.'"
Obviously (again), I'm far from the only person who feels this way.
I've always taken that as a given.
If you want to engage in hair-splitting, please take it to Justice Kennedy. As for whether a child's love for two parents is problematic or might involve being spread too thin, I refer you to the story of Oedipus as interpreted by Dr. Freud.
I'm not the one arguing that one can't love more than one person at a time!
While I have my own problems with both of these alternative interlocutors, I must leave you to the tender mercies of such inferior minds if you want to engage in further hair-splitting -- given that, at the moment, I (albeit not a prostitute) value my time too much to bother responding any further on such matters.
Entirely your choice, of course.
Prostitutes have for too long had a free ride among anti-authoritarians and countercultural radicals regarding broader questions of ethics -- because the trade, however unfortunately, is criminalized.
Prostitution has a long history of association with bohemians and the counterculture, even in times and places when/where it has not been criminalized, so I think the cultural/political affinity goes deeper than the mere circumstance of criminalization. I suspect it has to do with prostitution being widely perceived as a threat to the established order of things, in societies dominated by monogamy and/or by sexually conservative religion(s).
Even in the larger society, a certain risqué glamor and urbane worldliness attaches itself to the industry. If anyone, it's the client, not the object of his desire, who's socially most marginalized -- and every hooker knows it, since desirability is, after all, his or her would-be stock-in-trade!
I actually agree with you that clients are more marginalized than erotic service providers -- the term "hooker" is considered derogatory -- but unfortunately, I don't think sex workers are universally aware of this. And in many cases, it's easy to see why not. If a prostitute who is struggling to keep a roof over his/her head has clients who hold high status positions in society and are living amid relative wealth and luxury, it may be understandably difficult for some of them to grasp the socio-political reality of those clients being highly marginalized as clients.
The sex trade isn't really such a strange place for me to focus my efforts. After all, I've been bamboozled by the glamor (the notion that someone's so desirable that they can expect to be paid for intimacy itself); if you'll pardon the expression, I've got skin in the game.
Expression more than pardoned -- it's quite apropos. Again though, desirability is subjective. If someone is willing to pay for an experience -- if the exchange is worthwhile to them, from their point of view -- shouldn't that be enough to silence ethical objections? Do you say of writers, that you've been "bamboozled by the glamor that someone's mind is so wonderful that they can expect to be paid for reading a portion of its contents" (i.e. the thoughts they take the trouble to transcribe in writing)? After all, what is more intimate than a person's thoughts? Why should you find it so audacious that some people's bodies, or other personal characteristics, are similarly valued?
While your focus on prostitution may be understandable in personal terms, in intellectual terms it seems somewhat misplaced given your stated objection to people selling their bodies and talents in all the various ways that they do in society to make a living.
More to the point (as I've repeatedly indicated) prostitution forms a prototype or template for the marketing paradigm that now infests all of society -- a world in which most people prostitute themselves merely to survive.
As I wrote in my last message,
"...when it comes to people attempting to make themselves look more attractive/desirable than they 'really' are via various forms of deception (makeup, driving a nicer car than one can readily afford, padded bras, not saying what one is really thinking, etc.), this phenomenon extends way beyond the context of prostitution!"
In other words, I think that to find an original "template" for marketing, one has to look deeper into human nature.
If one is looking for a haven in a heartless world, the prostitute is the first, most intimate imposter that one encounters-- before even leaving home. That much should be as obvious as encountering a pickpocket or burglar in a world of white-collar crime.
It seems unfair to hold against us the fact that many of us are among the professionals who still make house calls. With lots of other services, you have little choice but to deal with an impersonal institution and employees who robotically recite corporate or government policy. That seems more alienating to me.
If it's taken me this long (at age 65) to realize that, that's my problem -- but then, I've thought highly enough of many practitioners to have felt them worthy of luring out of the trade. I've had some interesting times (however expensive), and I've even found some genuine friends. Nonetheless, seeking the proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" may be the ultimate fool's errand in a world of whores.
In any event, after all the bobbing and weaving, it's as straightforward as that.
"Luring out of the trade" -- now who is talking about being an imposter, lol! While knowing someone hiring me had that in mind wouldn't bother me as long as I knew I hadn't given them reason to expect it to be a likely outcome, some prostitutes with whom I've spoken would probably not see a client who expressed such an intention up front, as it would make them feel uncomfortable, and/or they would be concerned the person wouldn't respect their boundaries.
If in your paragraph above you replace the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold" with "unpaid, monogamous relationship with a promiscuous person whom many find physically desirable enough to hire for intimate companionship", calling it "the ultimate fool's errand" might still be unduly pessimistic, but it would be closer to the truth!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I don't know how to set up indented and interspersed quote-backs of an entire posting, but no matter. I've always quoted the passages or points relevant to my responses. For that matter, when you've quoted me in full, you've consistently evaded for ignored my context in your response anyway, when it doesn't suit you. At least I've avoided such clutter. So much for obstructionist and diversionary procedural claptrap. Now, on to my first quote...
You write "'Luring out of the trade' -- now who is talking about being an imposter, lol"
As I've written before (numerous times), I've been quite up-front about my needs and desires - to the point where I've even been known to announce (in advance) that I'd pay the "provider's" fee in order to be auditioned by him as a prospective partner. Some have chosen to take me up on that; others have declined -- just as I've had to make such a decision as to whether to spring for a potential encounter.
There's been no subterfuge on my part. Meanwhile, it's in the hooker's interest to disclose as little about himself as necessary, until he's on-the-clock. It's all about marketing, after all.
I've met some people "whom many find physically desirable enough to hire for intimate companionship" who've ultimately chosen love (for a partner) over commerce (or love for their "work") as the preferred channel for their sexuality -- or as a preferred way of life. (Occasionally that partner's even been me; more often it hasn't been. A good match doesn't come along every day.)
Meanwhile, all the hokey incense and candles in the world don't make for the sort of encounter I'm seeking; they're (all-too-obviously) mere props for a performance.
To some (indeed, to many), a partner's willingness to share his life in all its fullness is worth more than all the paid encounters in this world -- props notwithstanding.
You'd replace the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold" with "unpaid, monogamous relationship with a promiscuous person whom many find physically desirable enough to hire for intimate companionship."
Where's the heart in that?
You keep your candles, and I'll keep my money. I have nothing more to say to the Chamber of Affection-as-Commerce. I'm outta here!
John Bechtol asks: "How is [the lyric to "Absolutely Sweet Marie"] a critique of prostitution, much less, a support of your theme?
The Dylan song, of course, isn't (necessarily) about prostitution; I was merely invoking the lyrics in that context, where, taken at face value, they seemed to make the appropriate statement -- about the betrayal of trust one feels at being left in the lurch.
I don't know if this helps, but "Absolutely Sweet Marie" was thought, in the '60's, to be about a heroin addict.Such Americans have terrible problems caused by criminalization, far beyond sex. "Horse" was a slang termfor heroin. Railroad "tracks" referred to needle marks. Hepatitis, a common affliction of IV drug users, causesyellow, jaundiced, skin. The singer is only "half-sick" waiting for Marie because he has not jumped overthe "railroad gate", to a place where life revolves only around obtaining the next dose at any cost.
Harland Harrison
FASCINATING ANALYSIS, HARLAND HARRISON!
I wasn't aware of this when I quoted the lyric -- which I was using in the more-generic sense (taking that stanza at face value) to describe a seemingly sincere, deeply committed encounter between renegades that proved ephemeral, leaving the narrator feeling betrayed and in-the-lurch.
I'd imagine the heroin-addict interpretation would be avidly supported by "Dylan garbologist" AJ Weberman, an acquaintance of mine back East who delighted in finding such themes in Dylan's work. Indeed, it's plausible; now I feel compelled to listen again to the entire song. Nonetheless, one of the wonderful things about Dylan's lyrics is the way they can often apply (and seem profound) in different ways and different contexts.
With 20/20 hindsight, of course -- seeing the turn my dialogue here with Starchild has taken -- perhaps I should have chosen to quote a different line: "Her profession's her religion..."
Mitchell Halberstadt
---In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, <harlandh5@...> wrote :
I don't know if this helps, but "Absolutely Sweet Marie" was thought, in the '60's, to be about a heroin addict.
Such Americans have terrible problems caused by criminalization, far beyond sex. "Horse" was a slang term
for heroin. Railroad "tracks" referred to needle marks. Hepatitis, a common affliction of IV drug users, causes
yellow, jaundiced, skin. The singer is only "half-sick" waiting for Marie because he has not jumped over
the "railroad gate", to a place where life revolves only around obtaining the next dose at any cost.
Harland Harrison
In response to:
Even in the larger society, a certain risqué glamor and urbane worldliness attaches itself to the industry. If anyone, it's the client, not the object of his desire, who's socially most marginalized -- and every hooker knows it, since desirability is, after all, his or her would-be stock-in-trade!
Starchild writes:
I actually agree with you that clients are more marginalized than erotic service providers -- the term "hooker" is considered derogatory -- but unfortunately, I don't think sex workers are universally aware of this. And in many cases, it's easy to see why not. If a prostitute who is struggling to keep a roof over his/her head has clients who hold high status positions in society and are living amid relative wealth and luxury, it may be understandably difficult for some of them to grasp the socio-political reality of those clients being highly marginalized as clients.
First off, you apparently missed the irony in my deliberately using the (casually dismissive) term "hooker" with regard to those whose very stock-in-trade is desirability. You should be laughing, not scolding!
I take personal offense, however, at your trivializing what I've said about the marginalization and stigmatization of clients -- viewed as so undesirable they "have to pay for it," at a rate of hundreds an hour (far more than I ever made in my working years) -- where the money's gone long before the evening's out (let alone the rest of the night).
As for the precariousness of freelance income (often invoked in defense of the "escort's" high hourly charge): I've never billed out my time as a copy-editor or graphic designer at anything approaching a call-boy's rate. Ironically, one of the reasons is that to this day, I've never taken a job where (in the broader sense) I felt I'd be prostituting myself. So much for "luxury" and "high status"! Indeed, I even tried turning tricks once or twice -- but I didn't feel right, feigning affection. So much for integrity....
How did I start dating hookers, in any event? At a time when all my friends were struggling to get laid, I'd encounter other guys on the street, presumably so desirable that they were actually being paid for it. Enticed by the opportunity to experience sex (and sexuality) at its (presumed) best, I'd ask them home, but they'd tell me they couldn't take off "work" because they needed to make money -- and I'd run off (perhaps even for a day or so) to scrounge up enough money to cover them for the night, so they wouldn't be broke in the morning (clearly presenting that [i.e., "taking off work"] as the context and intention of my proposition).
Eventually (when I was 31), one such person moved in with me (a brilliant artist at 20, thrown out of his parents' house for being gay), and he proved to be the love of my life. Unfortunately, confronted by his parents after about a year, he committed suicide -- and I spent decades trying to replicate the situation, hoping to fill the hole in my heart.
Around the time I turned 60, I came into a small inheritance -- enough to buy up a one-bedroom apartment, where I live (with my cat) in very modest, middle-class comfort (albeit with a spectacular view).
This brings us to the predicament of the prostitute "struggling to keep a roof over his/her head."
I'm reminded of one "provider" who was staying in a basement apartment with an abusive roommate (and sometime boyfriend -- another, older hooker, to whom he was probably paying rent). I had him over a few times; he was fun in bed, and he had his own fun, too. I treated him with respect, as an equal, and he eventually told me I was "the only real friend" he had in San Francisco. One day, I heard that his roommate had hit him over the head with a broken glass, and that he'd needed stitches -- so I invited him to stay over, rent-free (emphasizing that there'd be no sexual obligation), so that he could heal and put together enough money to rent a room of his own somewhere. (After all, I, too, considered him a friend.) He didn't take me up on my offer at the time, but he called me a month later, in the middle of the night, to tell me he'd been thrown out by his roommate and was stuck on the street -- and if I could please lend or give him a couple of hundred dollars for a hotel, he'd be right over to pick it up.
I reminded him of my offer, emphasizing that he didn't have to worry about sleeping out on the street, that I'd paid good money for my apartment, and that as long as it was mine, he could count on having a roof over his head -- and that (with an extra bed) I had no intention of "taking it out in trade." (Indeed, I expressed the hope that after a week or two of "work" [charging hooker's rates] he could put together the money for a place of his own.) He pretended not to hear me, and repeated his request. I said I was offended (as his "only true friend") that he'd be so quick to take my money, but equally quick to refuse my hospitality. Nonetheless, I told him that I'd stay awake for another hour or two, and that he was welcome to think about it, and call me back if he wanted to come by and stay the night. He never called that night -- but he called again, weeks later (still homeless), seeking business. I told him that although he was fun in bed, I wasn't interested. He wasn't interested in anything else. So much for being his "only true friend."
The poor prostitute, "struggling to keep a roof over his/her head"? I'm sure I'm not the only lonely old man who'd open his heart or his door, possibly even to help someone get on their feet. My heart doesn't bleed for anyone who'll only accept a roof over their head if they're the one to collect the rent (for the privilege of having them as a guest) -- generally at an asking price of $1,000 a night (with the caveat that "payment is for time only"). LOL -- sardonically!
Finally, I previously wrote, "I've thought highly enough of many practitioners to have felt them worthy of luring out of the trade."
"Luring" was obviously a bad choice of words -- particularly since it can be taken [as you were quick to pounce on it] to imply some manner of subterfuge or deceit, which is not the case. Indeed, my context was that "I've thought highly enough of many practitioners to consider them worthy" of a different way of life. For that matter, I'm not even sure I'd demand (or necessarily expect) monogamy from a partner -- or even that he quit "the business" -- as long as he's fully open with me about his encounters, and knows that when he's with me, he's home.
It's more like, "You can lead a horse to water" -- only to find the Chamber of Affection-as-Commerce warning, "Don't drink from there; it's bad for business!"
It's my fondest hope that I'll find myself -- better still, arm-in-arm with a lover -- walking off into the sunset, finally turning around and declaring, "We don't need your steenking boundaries!"
I continue to read with interest! The writing is lyrical and the concepts,
delusional or not, novel to me.
My knowledge on the subject is limited to what I perceive on
my occasional visits to a non-profit located in San Francisco’s Tenderloin for
whom my business provides services. If
the prostitutes I see in the Tenderloin busy early in the day make $400 -
$1,000 an hour, I would be very surprised.
I would wager they make a lot less, and are soon dead either by violence
or ravaged by drugs or alcohol. Or, if
fortunate, they plug themselves into the generous San Francisco system. Those are the ones I see among the seniors
that come into the aforementioned non-profit for a free breakfast.
It could be, however, that smarter prostitutes that develop
efficient ways of self promotion and self protection do make the kind of money
other members of the self-employed community can only dream of. Able to spin tales more engaging than Scheherazade’s
– tales of mutual affection, companionship, glamour, liberty, you name it –
these professionals might even have 401-K’s for their inevitable more unglamorous
years.
I sincerely hope there are more prostitutes in the latter
category than in the former. Just thought I would offer a thank you for the insights, as well as provide an additional view on the subject. Marcy
In response to:
"A good day is $6-900 Union Square top spot..."
and
"If the prostitutes I see in the Tenderloin busy early in the day make $400 - $1,000 an hour, I would be very surprised."
I was referring to the rates advertised on Rentboy.com -- the venue that set off this entire discussion.
The same sorts of rates continue to apply on Rentmen.com and Men4RentNow.com, which remain online.
The rates vary surprisingly little from city to city.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I admit I am not familiar with the venue in question. However, I believe the discussion so far perhaps would apply to prostitution in general.
Marcy
Check out "Rentmen.com" or "Men4RentNow.com". A glance at the listings will add depth and dimension to what I've been saying about marketing and promotion, as well as clarifying the sorts of rates touted on the Rentboy site. All told, such empirical investigation is likely to be both enlightening and entertaining.
Thank you for the further information, Mitch. The venues from my perspective are the proverbial "too much information!" So I only Googled the sites but did not click the "I Agree" in order to enter.
If I may, here is my interest in this discussion: Are the folks I see at the Tenderloin non-profit I mentioned earlier typical of the profession? Now I know that is apparently not. Is there room in the profession for affection and companionship. I still maintain, apparently not. Is this trade a business like any other which the Libertarian Party of San Francisco should feel comfortable supporting. I would say "yes!," as long as the LPSF is aware that -- given the graphics on websites such as you mention, as well as vision of folks that end lining up for a free breakfast at a non-profit -- the average voter (the LPSF is a political party) would probably view our principled stance with a jaundice eye.
I apologize for being my usual curmudgeon self and perhaps bringing this discussion from its initial poetic plane down to such a mundane level. But, please, nobody be discouraged from returning to the lyrical stage.
Marcy