The Woodshed

[QUOTE=RickDugan;3005757]Then by your logic, if a Walmart employee uses part of her paycheck to feed a drug habit, then Walmart is an enabler too. It just doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Yep

Let say Walmart employees exhibited addiction rates of 80-90%, which resulted in much higher death rates, say nothing of the other broader societal issues. Lets say, you could watch in "real time" their physical deterioration. Lets say the primary (if not exclusive) source of income is derived by the sales from a very narrow product set wad highly correlated to the well being of their employees. Such that: Walmart Sales to Employee Pay to drug addiction, incarceration, and even death.

How might that affect your patronage of Walmart? Some might (say BearB) decide that the total cost (nominal and real) exceed the benefit. He may not derive the same benefit at Target or Sears, but hey sleeps better at night. Or he can push through it and decide that given the benefits Walmart is the place for him.

(BTW BearB best of luck in your decision. But like so many others, the "hunger always returns".)

It's a choice we all have to make.

My point is that the cause and effect are highly correlated, and to suggest otherwise seems to me like saying. It isn't a duck. Even though it quacks, waddles, and looks like a duck.

Its a fuckin' duck.

Don't believe me. Try compensating a provider with clothes and / or food, rather than hard cash. And see how quickly your status with her drops. Just sayin'.

Risk adversely selects the reckless and uniformed.

My last post on this subject. And Rick D I appreciate your comments on this matter. In a way it helped me with my own clarity on this issue. Thank you.

J4 me.

Despite a great wariness of self-revelation in a public fuck forum, I simply must wade into the swamp of monger moral philosophy. Like my brother bruin, I also lean in the direction of Socrates' "the unexamined life is not worth living". (And look where it got him.) I think about this shit too. I've said it before: when it comes to moral culpability of mongering, maybe you don't want to think about it too hard.

That may be particularly difficult for those engaged in professions with a perceived moral basis higher than that of simply turning a buck & making a living. Basically, from a traditional, simplistic perspective, how does one simultaneously do the work of the angels while playing with demons?

I really try to have no illusions about all this. I do try to relate to providers as the kind, compassionate, decent guy I am while recognizing that, at least in some cases, I am doing them no real favor in buying what they are selling. I try not to be a sucker for a hustle, not entirely successfully, mostly because I really don't mind a request to pick up food or give her a ride if I've got time to do it & we have an established relationship. I don't confuse the weird visceral affinity that fucking produces with actual emotional bonding, though I do understand why many folks don't make that distinction.

Compartmentalization & rationalization are probably important skills here. I have honed those skills through self-bargaining, from making deals with myself. For example, I really do prefer sticking with married / committed providers who are happy swingers and / or self-described nymphos who enjoy having fun for money. There really are unicorns out there & I hunt them hard.

Also, I was enough of an outlaw back in the day to learn how to walk the wild side while avoiding the thornier thickets of introspection & moral discomfort. But enough about that.

As to the question of whether one's mongering has led you into a dangerous moral morass, ask yourself a simple question: can you walk away? As anybody who has ever worked a 12-step program can tell you, if you think you have a problem, you do. And if you want to know for sure, see if you can stop.

It would be one of my most greatest accomplishments! It is so much easier to hit it and move on rather than deal with these crazy ass relationships in our private lives. I've been doing this long enough and it's about time I make a better effort. Anyway, here's to putting your best foot forward!

Apparently JSO has been conducting in-call stings on providers as of yesterday, so be extra careful in case you are heading to one & they might be monitoring the in-call locations. Just got a message from a provider who was informed by one that was recently scooped.

[QUOTE=Jayse;3006313]Apparently JSO has been conducting in-call stings on providers as of yesterday, so be extra careful in case you are heading to one & they might be monitoring the in-call locations. Just got a message from a provider who was informed by one that was recently scooped.[/QUOTE]Yeah, looking at some arrests for the past few days something is def up! Thanks for heads up!

[QUOTE=Jayse;3006313]Apparently JSO has been conducting in-call stings on providers as of yesterday, so be extra careful in case you are heading to one & they might be monitoring the in-call locations. Just got a message from a provider who was informed by one that was recently scooped.[/QUOTE]Just where did you hear about the incall stings? I am very curious how that went down exactly. Any more info. Would be appreciated.

[QUOTE=Quebec;3006334]Yeah, looking at some arrests for the past few days something is def up! Thanks for heads up![/QUOTE]Yes, looking at JSO's intake sheet shows they were even working on Saturday. But so far it's only the ladies, not their clients (not yet anyway).

NMJ.

If you are shopping in a marketplace where the addiction rates are really as high as 80-90% and it truly bothers you so much, then maybe you should draw them from a different pool. I do (as I discussed amply below), which is why I am not confronted with this as much and perhaps makes my perspective different. As I said before, selling sex is not inherently destructive and plenty of girls who do so use the money for legitimate purposes, including supporting kids and extended family in other places.

But with all of that said, do some % of the girls that I pay for sex have addictions and just hide them well? I wouldn't be surprised. But at the end of the day, each person has the free will to make his or her own choices and she has as much free will as I do. It is utter "the world revolves around me" hubris to believe that any one of us is going to change the choices that these girls make, whether by offering a payment for sex or not. Seriously now, do you really believe that your $60 QV payment is the difference between whether a girl goes on to be a Rhodes Scholar or instead sucks your dick for a fix? And sure, maybe she has a harder time paying for her fix if you decide to boycott prostitutes, but it also makes it harder for her to buy her next meal and to keep a roof over her head. How exactly would that help her?

Oh, and to get ahead of the next "but I don"t want to contribute to the problem" argument, which is an extension of the theory that this would all go away if we all stopped buying, I say bullshit. For starters, it is an irrelevant point as guys have been buying sex since forever and that will never stop, so whether you "contribute" or not is meaningless in the broader scheme of things. Perhaps as important though, this assumes that many, if not most, of these girls would not find some other means of accomplishing the same ends, which is a goofy assumption to make.

This is not rationalization, but rather simple common sense. In my humble opinion, seeing it this way just requires one to shake off the arrogant and false belief that he has the power to influence these girls' choices, along perhaps with whatever latent guilt he carries around with him about the morality of paying for sex in the first place.

Anyway, just my two cents for what it's worth and this will be my last post on this matter as anything else I say will just be repetitive.

[QUOTE=JaxForMe;3005799]Yep

Let say Walmart employees exhibited addiction rates of 80-90%, which resulted in much higher death rates, say nothing of the other broader societal issues. Lets say, you could watch in "real time" their physical deterioration. Lets say the primary (if not exclusive) source of income is derived by the sales from a very narrow product set wad highly correlated to the well being of their employees. Such that: Walmart Sales to Employee Pay to drug addiction, incarceration, and even death.

How might that affect your patronage of Walmart? Some might (say BearB) decide that the total cost (nominal and real) exceed the benefit. He may not derive the same benefit at Target or Sears, but hey sleeps better at night. Or he can push through it and decide that given the benefits Walmart is the place for him.

(BTW BearB best of luck in your decision. But like so many others, the "hunger always returns".)

It's a choice we all have to make.

My point is that the cause and effect are highly correlated, and to suggest otherwise seems to me like saying. It isn't a duck. Even though it quacks, waddles, and looks like a duck.

Its a fuckin' duck.

Don't believe me. Try compensating a provider with clothes and / or food, rather than hard cash. And see how quickly your status with her drops. Just sayin'.

Risk adversely selects the reckless and uniformed.

My last post on this subject. And Rick D I appreciate your comments on this matter. In a way it helped me with my own clarity on this issue. Thank you.

J4 me.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RickDugan;3006937]If you are shopping in a marketplace where the addiction rates are really as high as 80-90% and it truly bothers you so much, then maybe you should draw them from a different pool. I do (as I discussed amply below), which is why I am not confronted with this as much and perhaps makes my perspective different. As I said before, selling sex is not inherently destructive and plenty of girls who do so use the money for legitimate purposes, including supporting kids and extended family in other places.

But with all of that said, do some % of the girls that I pay for sex have addictions and just hide them well? I wouldn't be surprised. But at the end of the day, each person has the free will to make his or her own choices and she has as much free will as I do. It is utter "the world revolves around me" hubris to believe that any one of us is going to change the choices that these girls make, whether by offering a payment for sex or not. Seriously now, do you really believe that your $60 QV payment is the difference between whether a girl goes on to be a Rhodes Scholar or instead sucks your dick for a fix? And sure, maybe she has a harder time paying for her fix if you decide to boycott prostitutes, but it also makes it harder for her to buy her next meal and to keep a roof over her head. How exactly would that help her?

Oh, and to get ahead of the next "but I don"t want to contribute to the problem" argument, which is an extension of the theory that this would all go away if we all stopped buying, I say bullshit. For starters, it is an irrelevant point as guys have been buying sex since forever and that will never stop, so whether you "contribute" or not is meaningless in the broader scheme of things. Perhaps as important though, this assumes that many, if not most, of these girls would not find some other means of accomplishing the same ends, which is a goofy assumption to make.

This is not rationalization, but rather simple common sense. In my humble opinion, seeing it this way just requires one to shake off the arrogant and false belief that he has the power to influence these girls' choices, along perhaps with whatever latent guilt he carries around with him about the morality of paying for sex in the first place.

Anyway, just my two cents for what it's worth and this will be my last post on this matter as anything else I say will just be repetitive.[/QUOTE]But I hate Mondays. I'm in a crabby mood. So apologies for responding.

Let me get this straight. My opinion may be skewed by an adverse sample (I'm selecting from the wrong pool); my hubris neglects to take into account "free will"; and why fight it because it will never go away. Did I get that right.

Ok. Adverse sample. Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Get yourself a legal pad. Every day look at the daily arrest reports for the tri county area. Note names and offenses. Do that for awhile. You may discover a couple of things. First the Jax market is smaller than you might think and its highly interconnected. Girls go from strippers to BP to street walking then back to stripping. In other words, the segments are dynamic. Also the longer the time horizon, the less likely the sampling will be adverse. Why because providers jump across segments. And LEO could give a fuck about market segmentation.

So are my percentages off? . maybe, but the National Average of Drug Abuse among Providers is 70%. And as a well traveled and experienced monger, you even admitted that Jax's drug use among providers is high. I don't think my numbers are materially high. But don't take my word for it. Do your research.

(BTW, the single most important risk mitigant for a providers / hobbyists, maybe be drug use, particularly opiates IMO).

Free Will. I would wager that you (Tricky Dicky) would suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the physically excruciating pain of drug withdrawal. Yep even you. That's the nature of addiction, it robs the addict of free will. They will beg, borrow, steal, and suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the withdrawal. So the notion that these addicted girls have free will. Is absurd. They may have chosen the first time they stuck that needle in their arm. But once the body is addicted. The battle for free will is squarely on the side of addiction. If you've ever had someone in your family who suffers from addiction, then you know.

As for the "its always been here. Its never going away". Rings of "everybody does it so why shouldn't I" bullshit. Like dude, wasn't that debunked in kindergarten, c'Mon.

Look. Your free to do what you want I could give a fuck. But own it. Like don't hide behind flimsy rationalizations. A pussy does that.

A few months ago, some on this forum were leaning into PoniBoi for barebacking chicks. In true PB fashion he crafted a response, a poetic verse that might appear on his headstone. It was classic PB.

But here's the point. PB owned it. I may disagree with his choice to go into battle without a shield, but I respect him for owning it. He knows the risks and consequences. And he sure as shit isn't blaming anyone or anything else. His choice. His outcome.

So dude. Grow a pair.

J4 me.

[QUOTE=JaxForMe;3007175]But I hate Mondays. I'm in a crabby mood. So apologies for responding.

Let me get this straight. My opinion may be skewed by an adverse sample (I'm selecting from the wrong pool); my hubris neglects to take into account "free will"; and why fight it because it will never go away. Did I get that right.

Ok. Adverse sample. Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Get yourself a legal pad. Every day look at the daily arrest reports for the tri county area. Note names and offenses. Do that for awhile. You may discover a couple of things. First the Jax market is smaller than you might think and its highly interconnected. Girls go from strippers to BP to street walking then back to stripping. In other words, the segments are dynamic. Also the longer the time horizon, the less likely the sampling will be adverse. Why because providers jump across segments. And LEO could give a fuck about market segmentation.

So are my percentages off? . maybe, but the National Average of Drug Abuse among Providers is 70%. And as a well traveled and experienced monger, you even admitted that Jax's drug use among providers is high. I don't think my numbers are materially high. But don't take my word for it. Do your research.

(BTW, the single most important risk mitigant for a providers / hobbyists, maybe be drug use, particularly opiates IMO).

Free Will. I would wager that you (Tricky Dicky) would suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the physically excruciating pain of drug withdrawal. Yep even you. That's the nature of addiction, it robs the addict of free will. They will beg, borrow, steal, and suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the withdrawal. So the notion that these addicted girls have free will. Is absurd. They may have chosen the first time they stuck that needle in their arm. But once the body is addicted. The battle for free will is squarely on the side of addiction. If you've ever had someone in your family who suffers from addiction, then you know.

As for the "its always been here. Its never going away". Rings of "everybody does it so why shouldn't I" bullshit. Like dude, wasn't that debunked in kindergarten, c'Mon.

Look. Your free to do what you want I could give a fuck. But own it. Like don't hide behind flimsy rationalizations. A pussy does that.

A few months ago, some on this forum were leaning into PoniBoi for barebacking chicks. In true PB fashion he crafted a response, a poetic verse that might appear on his headstone. It was classic PB.

But here's the point. PB owned it. I may disagree with his choice to go into battle without a shield, but I respect him for owning it. He knows the risks and consequences. And he sure as shit isn't blaming anyone or anything else. His choice. His outcome.

So dude. Grow a pair.

J4 me.[/QUOTE]After a topic, any topic, is commented on more than twice, I stop reading ANY of the follow-up opinions, arguments, or whatever you want to call them. Also, if a post is longer than a paragraph my limited attention span can't digest it.

The only exception is if someone wants to start a fight thread of how my LARGE penis is stretching out all of the girls! I will read every word!

I'll ignore the "grow a pair" comment, even in the face of a very melodramatic post no less, and get right to the random points.

Baloney on the notion that addicts don't have free will. She makes a choice every time she brings a needle to her arm. They may take the path of least resistance most times, but that doesn't take away their ability to make alternate choices. Many eventually do. If they commit a crime, they still go to jail because (of course) they are still responsible for their own actions. To say that she loses her free will because you are waving $60 in one had while you hold your dick in the other is ludicrous.

All we really "own" is our own behavior. My responsibility ends at paying her for what she freely provided and treating her kindly in the process.

And please enough with the goofy stats. There is no way to accurately poll this population, which by its very nature is underground. These are probably from the same people who publish those absurdly high human trafficking stats. But even if there was some element of truth in them, I can tell you that a far smaller % of my partners were addicts and that, overall, there are still plenty of girls out there who offer sex for money without drug addiction as the impetus for doing so.

Now having said all of that, I will grant you that the drug problem in Jacksonville is particularly acute and I am well aware of the crossover here between strippers and escorts. Yet even here I am still able to find partners who do not seem to use, though my success rate has not been 100% as a couple have initially fooled me and eventually couldn't keep up the pretense any longer. But did I writhe in emotional pain when I learned that I had been duped or feel like I somehow contributed to some greater problem? Of course not. Their choice to do drugs had nothing to do with me. Now I do try to avoid drug users for health and safety reasons, but that has nothing to do with any absurd moral reasons.

But if you morally superior nanny types feel the need to wallow in some manufactured guilt over something that you really have no control over then have at it. It won't change anything, but I'm sure it will make you feel a little better about yourselves. But please limit your efforts to drug addicted prostitutes. Nanny types all too often feel the need to try to protect others from themselves in all sorts of things, including gun ownership and other individual freedoms.

Now that was really my last post. If you want the last word the floor is yours. :)

[QUOTE=JaxForMe;3007175]But I hate Mondays. I'm in a crabby mood. So apologies for responding.

Let me get this straight. My opinion may be skewed by an adverse sample (I'm selecting from the wrong pool); my hubris neglects to take into account "free will"; and why fight it because it will never go away. Did I get that right.

Ok. Adverse sample. Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Get yourself a legal pad. Every day look at the daily arrest reports for the tri county area. Note names and offenses. Do that for awhile. You may discover a couple of things. First the Jax market is smaller than you might think and its highly interconnected. Girls go from strippers to BP to street walking then back to stripping. In other words, the segments are dynamic. Also the longer the time horizon, the less likely the sampling will be adverse. Why because providers jump across segments. And LEO could give a fuck about market segmentation.

So are my percentages off? . maybe, but the National Average of Drug Abuse among Providers is 70%. And as a well traveled and experienced monger, you even admitted that Jax's drug use among providers is high. I don't think my numbers are materially high. But don't take my word for it. Do your research.

(BTW, the single most important risk mitigant for a providers / hobbyists, maybe be drug use, particularly opiates IMO).

Free Will. I would wager that you (Tricky Dicky) would suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the physically excruciating pain of drug withdrawal. Yep even you. That's the nature of addiction, it robs the addict of free will. They will beg, borrow, steal, and suck the dick of a donkey to avoid the withdrawal. So the notion that these addicted girls have free will. Is absurd. They may have chosen the first time they stuck that needle in their arm. But once the body is addicted. The battle for free will is squarely on the side of addiction. If you've ever had someone in your family who suffers from addiction, then you know.

As for the "its always been here. Its never going away". Rings of "everybody does it so why shouldn't I" bullshit. Like dude, wasn't that debunked in kindergarten, c'Mon.

Look. Your free to do what you want I could give a fuck. But own it. Like don't hide behind flimsy rationalizations. A pussy does that.

A few months ago, some on this forum were leaning into PoniBoi for barebacking chicks. In true PB fashion he crafted a response, a poetic verse that might appear on his headstone. It was classic PB.

But here's the point. PB owned it. I may disagree with his choice to go into battle without a shield, but I respect him for owning it. He knows the risks and consequences. And he sure as shit isn't blaming anyone or anything else. His choice. His outcome.

So dude. Grow a pair.

J4 me.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RickDugan;3007262]I'll ignore the "grow a pair" comment, even in the face of a very melodramatic post no less, and get right to the random points.

Baloney on the notion that addicts don't have free will. She makes a choice every time she brings a needle to her arm. They may take the path of least resistance most times, but that doesn't take away their ability to make alternate choices. Many eventually do. If they commit a crime, they still go to jail because (of course) they are still responsible for their own actions. To say that she loses her free will because you are waving $60 in one had while you hold your dick in the other is ludicrous.

All we really "own" is our own behavior. My responsibility ends at paying her for what she freely provided and treating her kindly in the process.

And please enough with the goofy stats. There is no way to accurately poll this population, which by its very nature is underground. These are probably from the same people who publish those absurdly high human trafficking stats. But even if there was some element of truth in them, I can tell you that a far smaller % of my partners were addicts and that, overall, there are still plenty of girls out there who offer sex for money without drug addiction as the impetus for doing so.

Now having said all of that, I will grant you that the drug problem in Jacksonville is particularly acute and I am well aware of the crossover here between strippers and escorts. Yet even here I am still able to find partners who do not seem to use, though my success rate has not been 100% as a couple have initially fooled me and eventually couldn't keep up the pretense any longer. But did I writhe in emotional pain when I learned that I had been duped or feel like I somehow contributed to some greater problem? Of course not. Their choice to do drugs had nothing to do with me. Now I do try to avoid drug users for health and safety reasons, but that has nothing to do with any absurd moral reasons.

But if you morally superior nanny types feel the need to wallow in some manufactured guilt over something that you really have no control over then have at it. It won't change anything, but I'm sure it will make you feel a little better about yourselves. But please limit your efforts to drug addicted prostitutes. Nanny types all too often feel the need to try to protect others from themselves in all sorts of things, including gun ownership and other individual freedoms.

Now that was really my last post. If you want the last word the floor is yours. :)[/QUOTE]Spot on! You cannot protect people from themselves. Truth be told, a persons problems have nothing to do with me or you.

Just curious. How many of you are legitimately concerned about being set up by LEO? I would probably partake in 90% more encounters if I wasn't always thinking of LEO. I know is a concern, just wasn't sure if I'm always overreacting. Just a thought.

[QUOTE=Jamb123;3008315]Just curious. How many of you are legitimately concerned about being set up by LEO? I would probably partake in 90% more encounters if I wasn't always thinking of LEO. I know is a concern, just wasn't sure if I'm always overreacting. Just a thought.[/QUOTE]If you are having girls come to you and come alone, then the risk of getting into trouble is greatly minimized. Sure it reduces your opportunities with these girls, but most of them are a disappointment anyway.

[QUOTE=Jamb123;3008315]Just curious. How many of you are legitimately concerned about being set up by LEO? I would probably partake in 90% more encounters if I wasn't always thinking of LEO. I know is a concern, just wasn't sure if I'm always overreacting. Just a thought.[/QUOTE]My number 1 concern! I play with that concern in mine and how to minimize it.