It doesn’t matter; he laid out the actual text in black and white, which proves her wrong. So his actual *post *agrees with me. Further obfuscation is irrelevant.
Aw, someone’s upset they haven’t been the subject of a thread recently.
Wrong in that you didn’t say “the women were horrifying”?
Here’s a quote to refresh your memory:
And yes, we’re all very impressed with your vocabulary.
His desires are more important than the clients’ desires. He is not obligated to see male clients and the notion that this is bigotry is just ludicrous. His business model may very well fail, but at least he will have failed on his own terms.
This thread will be handy to have if/when someone posts about how male Dopers are so shallow and female Dopers aren’t. Sweet.
So . . . three out of what, 60,000 members of this board can’t read for comprehension, and I’m supposed to find that relevant exactly how?
The reason I don’t jump right away to explain something that shouldn’t require explanation, being right there on the page, is because I have too much respect for the construct I think of as “the average doper.” I always feel like I’m being patronizing and dumbing down the obvious when I’m forced to explain something to whatever tiny minority simply refuses to make an effort to reconsider their interpretation after having it pointed out by the writer of the original post–in this case me–that no, their interpretation is incorrect.
Most people would go back, reread, and go, “Oh, yeah, sorry, I read that too fast.” But the bewildering minority who, instead, try to convince ME, through their magic powers of mind reading, what I REALLY meant, is just mind boggling. I know of no other context where that kind of bullshit is given the time of day. If I were having this conversation IRL, I would make a mental note that this person is not capable of holding an intelligent conversation and would never broach any subject beyond the weather with them, if that.
However, 3 out 60,000 notwithstanding, those three are the squeaky wheels, so I’ll patronize them and explain what’s right there in English for anyone who wants to read it.
FEMALE CLIENTS OF MALE SEX WORKERS
!=
the women who did contact them
The former is, presumably, a largeish group of whom I have no direct experience or knowledge, and have claimed none; the latter is an anecdotal sample of, IIRC, two individuals. There was no generalization extrapolated from that by me, but only by the 3 posters who choose non-sensically to attribute that illogical leap to me, despite my assurances that I intended no such extrapolation. BUT EVEN IF I DID–even that would not justify the even more non-sensical leap of illogic, promulgated by eleanorigby, that it could in any way be inferred to be a generalization about the vice-versal (to coin a phrase) gender situation of a female sex worker and her male clients. That particular situation was not addressed, explicitly or implicitly, by me or, as far as I can see, anyone else in this thread. So laying this preposterous leap-frog clusterfuck of illogic at my doorstep for me to justify and explain strikes me as one of the more bizarrely surreal situations I’ve been involved in lately.
For further clarification, please refer to your ESL textbooks. Thank you. That is all.
**Translation, without condescension: Lissener **said “They got into it thinking they would get female clients, but first of all it just doesn’t happen very frequently, and secondly, the women who did contact them were horrifying.” The few (two, as it turns out) women who contacted them were horrifying. Not all women, just the ones who contacted them. It sounds as if **eleanorigby **thinks they think that all potential women clients are horrifying. They don’t, or at least not that we’re aware of.
Can we move along here to more important stuff? Like, doesn’t $300 for an hour of “surrogate loving” seem a bit steep? Does he have outfits?
Again, if you’ll note, my post on the subject was an attempt to interpret the female sex worker’s quote; I was not speaking for myself. And of course I could very well have been wrong in my interpretation; she could simply be a loon.
Lissener, if you’d given that explanation first, then it might have been clearer that you were talking about a small and not necessarily representative sample, rather than that you were trying to deny using the word horrifying, which is what it looked to me like you were trying to do.
That’s ridiculous. If you think that it’s more likely that I would be telling a delusional lie that’s contradicted in the text that I wrote–while at the same time insisting that you read what I wrote–well I have nothing to say to that. Other than that strikes me as a thought process that I would not be interested in engaging with. As in not to be dignified with a response. The mistake that I keep making, apparently, is to assume that I’m dealing with rational people.
Make that four people. I’m reading through that exchange, and I don’t understand your contention that we’re all egregiously misreading it.
Er, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of ugly male prostitutes.
No, no, you are understanding it perfectly. Now **Lissener **can play the poor bullied martyr act that he loves to pull so much. It’s typical of him.
Five - particularly considering how his own words are being quoted back at him. Oh no, wait, we just didn’t understand what he meant. :rolleyes:
So . . . you didn’t read the totally unnecessary explanatory post, or needscoffee’s “translation?” Or even LouiseE’s followup acknowledging the misconstruction?
And you’re saying that “all women everywhere who have ever hired a male escort” is interchangeable with “the couple of specific, individual women who contacted the couple of specific, individual male escorts that I know”? Those two phrases are indistinguishable to you?
A reasonable response to “my aunt is a census worker,” in other words, is “why are you insisting that all aunts are census workers”?
Priceless. Another thread to be bookmarked for a short list of people not to bother engaging with.
And once again, you come down like a ton of bricks on someone for misconstruing something you’ve said, without acknowledging that you might be guilty of the same thing.
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to. I admit that my frustration at eleanorigby’s refusal to go back and reconsider her misconstruction led me to get sarcastic, and I apologize for the tone I took. But it still utterly bewilders me beyond my capacity to express it that to those of you who’ve participated in this hijack, it makes more sense that I would be trying to prove I never used the word “horrifying” by directing you to a post in which I said “horrifying.” How can that possibly make sense? How can you see the original post I referred you back to, the subsequent reiteration and quote of that very post, and not say to yourself, “well he’s obviously not talking about the word ‘horrifying,’ maybe I should give this a second’s more thought, rather than utterly refuse to consider anything other than the most insanely irrational construction.”
And if I am guilty of a miscontruction, as you say in your above post, I’d appreciate your pointing out, so that I can acknowledge my mistake and apologize.
But yeah, bottom line, I suppose, is that it’s probably always going to be a little difficult for me to maintain a perfectly cool decorum in the face of a handful of posters who would rather believe that I’m utterly insane and lying to their faces than go back and re-read for an alternative interpretation. I’m still bewildered how **eleanorigby **can take " the women who contacted them," a very specifically delineated group of individuals, to mean “all women everywhere.” And to stubbornly refuse to reconsider that. Utterly, utterly bewildering.
Lissener, you may be right, but you don’t have to be a dick about it. FTR, I thought what you wrote was completely clear the first time, but obviously, it wasn’t clear to others. Instead of just answering the misconception, you really came across like a jerk from the get-go. You could have cleared it up in a simple post instead of being flip and then all put-upon.
Again, doesn’t $300 per hour seem steep? He’d better be really good, is all I can say.
LOL! That’s a good one. 
Hahahaha! Again, thanks for the laugh.
You’re probably right. But it bristled me no end that **eleanorigby **extrapolated her “double standard” out of thin air, and then accused *me *of it. And then refused to go back and reconsider her misinterpretation. Her tone of selfrighteous indignation–“What on earth do you think it is for female prostitutes?”–was entirely uncalled for, and didn’t put me in the most accommodating mood. The evidence being already there on the page, I didn’t feel compelled to bend over backwards to help someone whose accusations were extremely offensive to me, and invented out of whole cloth. If she’s going to accuse me of that kind of aggravated misogyny, the burden of proof is on her; not on me to defend an unfounded accusation. There’s enough bullshit on this board without that kind of blindly kneejerk ignorance. I probably should’ve just gone with the “unworthy of response” thing, but that doesn’t work so well around here either.
I’m still a bit flummoxed that this whole thing started with the selfrighteous indignation and utterly unfounded–and offensive–accusations made by eleanorigby, but it’s still being placed in my lap, as if I’m the one responsible. I started out mildly snarky–“read for comprehension”–and only escalated to fullblown sarcasm with eleanorigby’s continuing refusal to take responsibility for her accusation.
Anyway, although I find it difficult to promise I won’t respond to any followup to this, I’m done with it unless someone says something that requires a response.
(A mea culpa from eleanorigby would fit quite nicely right about here.)
It’s whatever the market will bear. According to my friend “Victor,” the going rate in Portland is $150; in Seattle it’s $250; in NYC and LA it’s $250-$500. With pornstar name recognition it can be $1,000 to $5,000. If he can get $300, that’s what he should charge. If he can’t, he should lower his price until he has enough clients to live on.
A lot of men who hire female prostitutes do so for fellatio, so I imagine a certain amount of women would hire a male prostitute for cunnilingus.