help me think this through

[KimGordon67]

1978??? 43 years ago!

Remember how this started:

[Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
"... but I'm NOT a sex worker".

You live in a long bygone age. Today we all can self-identify. If she says she's not a sex-worker, she's not.
Yesterday 03:39 PM]

I was suggesting that you don't observe contemporary standards of sensitivity and respect. The world has moved on.

Think of how we refer to people who are not white today; compare it to usage 43 years ago, then 70 years ago.

If you said of a housewife, married or unmarried:

" 'She's engaging in sex work - I'm simply stating a fact', without making any claim to a resultant identity as a result of that."

would you deny their right to take offence.

The OP is contemplating such a relationship. She rightly rejects your labelling her exclusive relationship as 'engaging in sex work' simply because she'll be economically dependent, like many housewives.

Oh for god's sake. I can only assume you haven't actually read anything I've written in the last five or so posts. And now you're falling back on the 'if that's prostitution, then wives are essentially prostitutes' argument. I honestly cannot be arsed addressing that, given that you've ignored literally every other response I've given, and reinvented things the OP to suit your own weird perspective.

The OP literally referred to what she was contemplating as 'cashing out her body' in the very first post. Even I don't refer to sex work as 'selling your body', because you aren't - that's what she said, not me.

I give up. If you want to think that exchanging sex for money, and calling that what it is, is somehow offensive, that's your choice. Have fun.

 

[XerXesXu]

Oh for god's sake. I can only assume you haven't actually read anything I've written in the last five or so posts. And now you're falling back on the 'if that's prostitution, then wives are essentially prostitutes' argument. I honestly cannot be arsed addressing that, given that you've ignored literally every other response I've given, and reinvented things the OP to suit your own weird perspective.

The OP literally referred to what she was contemplating as 'cashing out her body' in the very first post. Even I don't refer to sex work as 'selling your body', because you aren't - that's what she said, not me.

I give up. If you want to think that exchanging sex for money, and calling that what it is, is somehow offensive, that's your choice. Have fun.

"If you want to think that exchanging sex for money, and calling that what it is, is somehow offensive, that's your choice."

Can unnecessarily and gratuitously offend, yes, I believe that.

'Oh for god's sake. I can only assume you haven't actually read anything I've written in the last five or so posts.'

I don't believe you assume anything of the sort. I believe you know I've read everything you said with great care.

The exception proves the rule. (tests the rule and finds it wanting ie: there is no rule.) I've simply given you 2 exceptions to your - 'it's a fact' rule. I can do no more. It's your stigmatic social construct.

My choice is to allow others to self identify.

You've described yourself as a person 'who can't be arsed, twice.' I accept your self identification.

 

[KimGordon67]

"If you want to think that exchanging sex for money, and calling that what it is, is somehow offensive, that's your choice."

Can unnecessarily and gratuitously offend, yes, I believe that.

'Oh for god's sake. I can only assume you haven't actually read anything I've written in the last five or so posts.'

I don't believe you assume anything of the sort. I believe you know I've read everything you said with great care.

The exception proves the rule. (tests the rule and finds it wanting ie: there is no rule.) I've simply given you 2 exceptions to your - 'it's a fact' rule. I can do no more. It's your stigmatic social construct.

My choice is to allow others to self identify.

You've described yourself as a person 'who can't be arsed, twice.' I accept your self identification.

If that's making you happy, goodoh.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

If you'd read the thread (yes I know you have a bit, but lets not bandy snarks) you would have seen that she said:

'Well I'm NOT a sex worker. I go to school, live at home, well I used to have a job. I don't hang around a street corner at night. I mean how would I do that, sneak out of my room and sneak back in? So as soon as I take money I'm a sex worker?'

You seek to assimilate her to a label she does not accept. She says she isn't a sex worker. You conflate her with streetwalkers, she doesn't self identify with them.

What you say above doesn't accurately reflect your contribution. Your words are morally charged, saying you're not moralising doesn't change that.

Here’s the part you should have quoted:

Oh look QUEEN KIM has spoken, let us all stop and listen.

So I play 2 songs on the piano so to you I'm a piano player. I smoked weed maybe 2/3x in my life so to you I'm a pothead. I had sex with this guy 3x so I don't have to ask my hard working dad for as much school fees. He's the first one I met, I thought I got lucky, now I'm not so sure. So to you I'm a full on prostitute. You think I'm just money hungry greedy little bitch, that is NOT the case, you don't know my home situation. Go ahead and call me a whore. I don't care what you think.

Aside from Firebird’s deleted derogatory name calling, this is the only comment in this thread making any negative assertions about sex work.

 

[XerXesXu]

The term sex worker is not anything I look down on. I’m now saying this for the third and last time.
You are making assumptions that aren’t there.
I’m not going to beleaguer a point you don’t seem to get.

I understand.

You're all me, me, me, and the point you don't get is, no, it's all her, her, her.

I'm sorry that I have to make the point so forcefully, but it's pleasing that you'll no longer be rehearsing your obtusity.

 

[wicked woman]

I understand.

You're all me, me, me, and the point you don't get is, no, it's all her, her, her.

I'm sorry that I have to make the point so forcefully, but it's pleasing that you'll no longer be rehearsing your obtusity.

Buddy, there is no 'her'. The OP is a figment of another poster's imagination so he could pretend to be all wise. Please go protest your agenda some where else and let this thread die like the OP and actual person posting as the OP have.

 

[sub2femdom]

The problem is it's not a 'job'. She would be getting paid thousands of dollars, and wouldn't be free to spend whatever she earns however she sees fit - it's all on credit cards and 'expense accounts' that he controls, and I would guarantee that there'll be a limit on how much she can spend, and probably on what she can spend it on. Most sex workers actually value their independence, and I can't imagine many would opt for this, as they'd be basically walking away from their established lives to be at someone else's beck and call.

She said she's seen this guy a few times - it doesn't sound like they've had an ongoing relationship at all, and she's given no indication that she actually likes him.

I think you're right that being judgemental and condescending isn't helpful, but it's probably not great to overly romanticise things either. This situation, as it's been described, is NOT giving her financial independence.

Isn't there a website where rich old men get paired up with young college-aged women to be their sugar-daddies? I believe it's a very similar arrangement. Maybe it died out when the federal laws changed - I don't know, I don't exactly keep up on this stuff.

You are correct that as much as I push being non-judgmental, I also need to push caution and not assume it's a fairy-tale arrangement, but the OP's description (in her original post) suggested that a relationship was already formed and had history at that point.

I haven't read the 2 pages of responses since my last visit, so there may be more revealing details that I'm not aware of at this moment. I will read them when I have more time and edit / respond if more information challenges my perceptions.

I've always been about safe play above all else, meaning safewords, at least one friend who knows exactly where you are and who you are with, etc.. and I suggest no less for the OP. Truth is, every time we hook up from a dating app or swinger site, we take that small risk of meeting a psycho. Always take precautions.

(EDIT)
Ok, I read through this and it seems like the topic went off the rails many posts ago. I'm bowing out as the OP's identity as a female has been called into question. I don't know if this is a catfish, troll, or both, and don't care. Drama free is the best way to go, I'm out.