Re: "Question on recent discussion"
[QUOTE=CosmicKid;2509661]Couple days ago there was a convo about dominant style with a woman in sex, and one brother had recommended a book on the subject. I totally lost that thread and I want to read that book! Can anyone point me to the correct thread and post? Tried the search function on this site but I'm not good with using those.[/QUOTE]Lonely Smiles recently referenced the book "Sex God Method" by Daniel Rose:
[QUOTE=LonelySmiles;2469982]On that subject, there are many books and resources that talk about tasteful dominance. Not rape, not even S&M. Just the idea that many women find the idea of a dominant, confident man attractive on some level in bed.
An interesting starting point, one that was recommend to me by a woman, is a book called "The Sex God Method" by Daniel Rose (you can get the online version from the Google play store). From his own experience, he writes about Dominance, Emotion, Variety, and Immersion as key factors that can make a great sexual relationship. It's a quick read and I would never take everything in a book like this as gospel, but some of the insights are quite intuitive and fascinating. Some of the concepts have definitely help me become a better sexual partner. Always learning, who wants to just be mediocre at sex?
[/QUOTE]
Hypothetical and Not All But. Relations with Providers
[QUOTE=Makana9;2512586]Not suppose to matter, but as others mentioned in today's generation you better bet others will say something. A ole time senior and I use to talk many a nights, on just his subject bemuse we both dated and were SO to providers. I will just talk for me since he cannot defend himself. So goes life, they think you can help them get out, protect them from their own demons, and or just care for them. I have here posted here in my past (which has deeply changed), I have been an SO to an escort (passed suddenly), a DTSW who did her thing on the side to supplement her income from her real life job (and she had a powder habit), a back in the local stripper from the BI where we really was engaged until I kicked her out bc of her habit, and a couple others (CC MT who now has a beauty parlor in SF and an other provider who frequented Hawaii from the OC / from Seattle). They have their skeletons in their closets, as well as I, but really sweet women who by bad choices or needs took the easier way to make the kala.
Is what it is, in the end, it's about the almighty Euro (dollar worth sucks for years) and their habits. But all were so genuine when the BF / GF living together, making future plans, and hoping for that bright future. I still feel that it is a different generation, minds, and care. Yes, I have gotten close to a couple providers in the last couple, but are currently on retirement status and long extended vaca. Yea, at times heartbreak, but hardcore habits, hardcore. Be safe braddahs, uncle LEO still lurking.[/QUOTE]Shit shouldn't matter when it comes to who one falls in love with amd vice versa but, as previously stated, the mighty dollar is the core influence for the chosen professions many MT chooses. I know of several MT that offer many extras, with or without MT Licenses, majority reported on here amd with legit looking Ads on CL and BP that have told me if the proverbial Knight in the shining armor (Kala laden), they would marry said Knight and have a normal life. They never mentioned about stopping their chosen profession except if the Knight in shining armor can provide for them completely, they might walk away from said profession. Only issue I see is if staying on this small island of the crossing of paths with current customers who benefit from the extras some of these MT give out inclusive to select Clients. Some give um to all for tthe mighty kala. Some act as prides saying they don't indulge in such extra activities but still maintain a stable of inclusive customers who get extras. Whomever choose to get into and maintain relationship with some of these extra giving MT would surely have to be of great understanding and acceptance and tolerance. To each is own but not without challenges. O.