RE: Monopoly Hookers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

RapierFugue -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 10:30:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue

Does that explain my point a little better? I'm concerned I didn't express myself clearly the first time.


Better yes. Though that brings up a different point of why. I, for example, have no problem with sex work and there is a good chance (at least as good as that I would take any job) that I would take such a position at least for awhile at some point in my life if it were legal and if society didn't bring such heavy social and legal consequences upon the 'tarnished' - term used very sarcastically - and those affiliated with them. If, for example, I were to become a whore and you dropped me off a house where a client was waiting for me you could be charged with the felony of pimping, despite having arranged nothing. And if I were raped or beaten, say because I refuse to work without a condom, I would have have little ability to seek justice.

So if we are going to look at it in the context of "most who could do something else, do", we also have to look at the variables that influence someone to choose a different trade. Similar to how a person may choose to carry on a family line of work despite not being particularly interested in it themselves, may choose a career simply because it's good for money or family, etc.

I suppose it may boil down to if you consider the above factors to be something that goes hand-in-hand with sex work and completely unavoidable or if these factors could be removed - or at least significantly reduced - through legalization and protection. The latter is what I happen to believe.

I know this sounds glib, but I don't actually care enough to bother thinking too much about it :)

I don't use prostitutes, never will, and I'll never be one, so while I'm sort of "interested" in a vague way about the subject, it's not fascinating enough to hold my world-famously short attention span :)



AquaticSub -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 10:47:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue
I know this sounds glib, but I don't actually care enough to bother thinking too much about it :)

I don't use prostitutes, never will, and I'll never be one, so while I'm sort of "interested" in a vague way about the subject, it's not fascinating enough to hold my world-famously short attention span :)



*laughs* I can understand that. This is simply a subject that I've looked into for a variety reasons, including an eye to how to reduce the dangers that women face in this profession.



ranja -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 11:07:51 AM)

ah yes, the Dutch and all other foreigners in Holland absolutely cherish the word *fuck* and use it as often as possible it seems

The Dutch equivalent would be *neuk* which does not sound half as satisfying



agirl -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 12:17:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

Right, now what I don't get is why it should be in some private home? Admittedly I am damned picky about who I have sex with and the whole idea of feeling like a prostitute or having sex with several guys (with or without monopoly money) just doesn't appeal, but if somebody is into that, why would they not simply go to a swinger club?


If I wanted to take part in something like this then I would prefer the private home aspect. I would prefer to only encounter the people involved and wouldn't want to just go and have sex with people in a club, with other people unconnected to me milling around.

The scenario described isn't swinging.

If I wanted this experience, the one described would be the one for me.

Of course there's always trillions of ways things could go wrong in any situation. To be honest , I *could* have been murdered quite a few times because at some point you *risk* the fact that the person you're with could kill you once you begin to trust them enough to climb into bed, or anywhere else, alone with them.

As for serial killers or psycho's of any kind, they gain your confidence and trust in exactly the same way nice guys do, but unless you want chaperoning your entire life, you get on with it and make your own mind up what's risky to you and what isn't.

agirl






hausboy -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 1:08:13 PM)

all hijacks aside, I found myself surprisingly taking the side of our OP on this one.

I know, I know....I didn't think I would. And when I first read the idea, my thought was that this was not a good idea, but after reading John's respectful responses to some very pointed (and sometimes not very nice) remarks, I'll play devil's advocate here.

Anyone, anytime can claim that they were forced into something.  It's a risk any top/Domme/Dom takes when they invite someone into their personal space.  We've all read the court cases, and it can happen to the most highly respected, highly reputable people.  A very close friend of mine was accused publicly of doing something non-consentual and while completely untrue, and was never charged, that story followed her for many, many years.  So before we accuse John and his merry lot of boardgame pimps of anything, or warn them that they are placing themselves at risk--remember that it is a risk many of us already take.  Yes--arranging this scene a public play space will alleviate that risk-so there's my vote.

As a bottom/sub, I take a calculated risk any time I go visit a new Dom/Domme.  Yes, I screen them. Yes, I meet them publicly first.  And....yes...from all things I have read, most serial killers are charismatic and charming.  So I have to just go on instincts sometimes.  There's no difference between me negotiating a SM only scene at a person's home....or a woman negotitating out a sex scene with monopoly money.  We both place ourselves in a position of risk. I have been very fortunate in this regard--there is nothing to say that the attractive, charistmatic and intelligent Dom I meet with, chat with, connect with won't commit rape/violence once I'm back at his or her house, or end up in their freezer.

The OP is a new poster it seems--and I truly don't believe his post warrants some of the hostility that has reigned down upon him, but I have to admit, CollarMe is ROUGH on new posters.  This probably would have faired better in the "Introductions" section, but regardless, unlike most new posters, he has been polite and respectful answering questions, seems to have thought out most pitfalls, has not been venomous, and it sounds like he is enjoying himself as well as engaging the fantasies of others.

So John/OP--just be careful out there....and hopefully all of you have a safe, good time.



RapierFugue -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 1:21:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
The OP is a new poster it seems--and I truly don't believe his post warrants some of the hostility that has reigned down upon him, but I have to admit, CollarMe is ROUGH on new posters. 

CM is not at all "rough" on new posters compared to many forums on other subjects elsewhere on the net. Interestingly, this very point came up earlier today on another thread. What there certainly are, are a number of people who think that everyone should be treated with kid gloves. Needless to say I don't agree with that methodology.

I look at this thread and all I see are people having a laugh at something funny, and a few voicing concerns, which they're entitled to do. Don't want responses? Then don't post anything. Simple.



hausboy -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 1:35:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
The OP is a new poster it seems--and I truly don't believe his post warrants some of the hostility that has reigned down upon him, but I have to admit, CollarMe is ROUGH on new posters. 

CM is not at all "rough" on new posters compared to many forums on other subjects elsewhere on the net. Interestingly, this very point came up earlier today on another thread. What there certainly are, are a number of people who think that everyone should be treated with kid gloves. Needless to say I don't agree with that methodology.

I look at this thread and all I see are people having a laugh at something funny, and a few voicing concerns, which they're entitled to do. Don't want responses? Then don't post anything. Simple.



Hi RF
well, I've enjoyed all the monopoly puns too...and I agree with your comment that if one doesn't want comments (which includes criticism) that one shouldn't post.  Seems like the first run of posts did get a bit accusatory.  To be fair, I've torn up a few new posters myself--so maybe I'll check out that other thread you mentioned.



RapierFugue -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 1:40:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
well, I've enjoyed all the monopoly puns too...and I agree with your comment that if one doesn't want comments (which includes criticism) that one shouldn't post.  Seems like the first run of posts did get a bit accusatory.  To be fair, I've torn up a few new posters myself--so maybe I'll check out that other thread you mentioned.

Genuine comment (because you generally seem a pleasant, well balanced sort) ... Do you honestly think anyone "tore up" the OP? Seriously? You also previously used the word "hostility" - really?

As I say, genuine question; show me the post(s) (mine or anyone else's) where you think the poster was either "hostile" or "tore up" the OP. Please. I'm beginning to think I'm developing sociopathic tendencies, coz I just can't see it myself :)



SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 1:43:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
well, I've enjoyed all the monopoly puns too...and I agree with your comment that if one doesn't want comments (which includes criticism) that one shouldn't post.  Seems like the first run of posts did get a bit accusatory.  To be fair, I've torn up a few new posters myself--so maybe I'll check out that other thread you mentioned.



So telling the OP risks he might not have seen is being hostile?

Or the op telling people who can and cannot post on his thread... that was the hostile part No?

show me wheres the accusations and the hostility is,,,, I just see people mentioning hey this might not be the best idea... this is why i think that...



hausboy -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 2:25:43 PM)

Hi SpiritedRadiance and RapierFugue..

Okay, I'll state that I do not believe that either of you are sociopaths.  And one of the risks of an all email forum is that it is very hard to discern tone--personally--and obviously--I may be the only one here--I understand that mentioning the serial killers was giving an example of the risks of online encounters, but I guess I misinterpreted the tone.  It struck me as attacking the OP.  So if that wasn't the intent, my apologies--because I have also been told by others on this forum that I have responded in a hostile manner when it was not my intent.  (well, okay...a few times they were right.)



RapierFugue -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 2:56:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
Okay, I'll state that I do not believe that either of you are sociopaths.  And one of the risks of an all email forum is that it is very hard to discern tone--personally--and obviously--I may be the only one here--I understand that mentioning the serial killers was giving an example of the risks of online encounters, but I guess I misinterpreted the tone.  It struck me as attacking the OP.  So if that wasn't the intent, my apologies--because I have also been told by others on this forum that I have responded in a hostile manner when it was not my intent.  (well, okay...a few times they were right.)

No need to apologise, old sport. I was merely curious as to what you considered "hostile".

For the record, it will be apparent if I ever become "hostile" (although for the life of me I can't imagine why I would around these here parts); I don't tend to leave a lot of grey area in there. Phrases such as "you fuckwitted, cock-sucking whore's son" and "you worthless, piss-stained spunk-bubble" will tend to make an appearance.

Until and if they do, you can safely assume I mean no-one any harm ;)

On a broader theme (and please note I genuinely couldn't give a flying fuck about the OP's proposals, firstly because they'll be happening far, far away, and secondly because I believe personal risk is a matter for the individual's own choices, and if we eliminated all risk from BDSM there would be no BDSM), all I would add is that it's possible to a) rip the piss out of someone for humorous reasons and b) disagree with a person's POV or proposed actions, without "attacking" them or being "hostile" to them. The fact the OP didn't pitch a fit would tend to support the theory that they got that.



hausboy -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/5/2011 8:03:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
Okay, I'll state that I do not believe that either of you are sociopaths.  And one of the risks of an all email forum is that it is very hard to discern tone--personally--and obviously--I may be the only one here--I understand that mentioning the serial killers was giving an example of the risks of online encounters, but I guess I misinterpreted the tone.  It struck me as attacking the OP.  So if that wasn't the intent, my apologies--because I have also been told by others on this forum that I have responded in a hostile manner when it was not my intent.  (well, okay...a few times they were right.)

No need to apologise, old sport. I was merely curious as to what you considered "hostile".

For the record, it will be apparent if I ever become "hostile" (although for the life of me I can't imagine why I would around these here parts); I don't tend to leave a lot of grey area in there. Phrases such as "you fuckwitted, cock-sucking whore's son" and "you worthless, piss-stained spunk-bubble" will tend to make an appearance.

Until and if they do, you can safely assume I mean no-one any harm ;)

On a broader theme (and please note I genuinely couldn't give a flying fuck about the OP's proposals, firstly because they'll be happening far, far away, and secondly because I believe personal risk is a matter for the individual's own choices, and if we eliminated all risk from BDSM there would be no BDSM), all I would add is that it's possible to a) rip the piss out of someone for humorous reasons and b) disagree with a person's POV or proposed actions, without "attacking" them or being "hostile" to them. The fact the OP didn't pitch a fit would tend to support the theory that they got that.



Don't know if this was your intent--but your post almost made me spray my monitor with tea!  well done.

cheers



JOHN2289 -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/6/2011 1:16:02 AM)

Hey it's the OP back again......

Seriously, I posted this stuff because I wanted opinions.. and I got them.  I also got a lot of humour and enjoyed it.

I am only a newbie on CM.
My home, if you like, is Fetlife where I am sadistic_prick.
I have been around for quite a while, and I understand protocol.  I just don't always follow it. lol

I find all the discussions and definitions of what is a hooker etc to be interesting.  I chose the word 'hooker' because it goes well with the word 'monopoly'. 'Monopoly whore' and 'monopoly prostitute' just did not scan.

I should also point out that, while interesting, the reasons why real whores 'do it' have nothing to do with fantasies held by BDSMers.  It is not the cash, it is the experience.

And, BTW, I do not feel I have been flamed or attacked in any way.  But who knows, there is still time.

Thanks for the comments.




RapierFugue -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/6/2011 1:31:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy
Don't know if this was your intent--but your post almost made me spray my monitor with tea!  well done.

It is my general drive in life to bring sunshine to the world, so if people enjoy what I post then that's fine by me.



AquaticSub -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/6/2011 11:03:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JOHN2289
I should also point out that, while interesting, the reasons why real whores 'do it' have nothing to do with fantasies held by BDSMers.  It is not the cash, it is the experience.


Never said it did, did I? [;)]

Conversations do drift a bit around here, just FYI.



daddysprop247 -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/6/2011 11:48:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja
anyway, the few hookers i have known were not very picky at all... they weren't very smart either or good at acting really

Well, thinking about it, for most people, you would imagine if they had genuine intellectual talents then they wouldn't have to fuck strangers for cash?

I accept there must be a very small proportion who enjoy their work, but for the overwhelming majority I doubt they dreamed of being a prostitute as a child.

Or maybe I'm very naive :)


why the assumption that one would only be a prostitute out of financial necessity or desire? also why do you assume that it would involve the fucking of random strangers?

as someone who has been and likely will in some fashion or other continue to be a whore (no monopoly money included), for me it has been everything from yet another way to serve and please my Master and his perversions, to the fulfillment of a life-long desire and drive to be of service to those in need. the "clients" were always carefully selected based upon their personality, nature, and need (as opposed to fleeting horny desire). all were long-term relationships, and all involved real intimacy...meaning a genuine human connection and touching of spirit to spirit, not merely (or even necessarily) flesh to flesh. frankly, it was/is quite awesome.






bloomswell -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/6/2011 6:00:13 PM)

When I was much younger I would play with all manner of strangers. I was aware of the risks and part of me was always as prepared as possible to make a hurried exit. I agree that this is sometimes a tough call if one is tied up but fortunately most of my scarier playmates indicated instability way before we got to the tying up part allowing me to slip away unmurdered.
The thrill wasn't only in the sex and submission. It was in the adventure of the unknown.
This monopoly harlot deal sounds like a very exciting adventure.



allthatjaz -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/7/2011 12:50:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247



why the assumption that one would only be a prostitute out of financial necessity or desire? also why do you assume that it would involve the fucking of random strangers?

as someone who has been and likely will in some fashion or other continue to be a whore (no monopoly money included), for me it has been everything from yet another way to serve and please my Master and his perversions, to the fulfillment of a life-long desire and drive to be of service to those in need. the "clients" were always carefully selected based upon their personality, nature, and need (as opposed to fleeting horny desire). all were long-term relationships, and all involved real intimacy...meaning a genuine human connection and touching of spirit to spirit, not merely (or even necessarily) flesh to flesh. frankly, it was/is quite awesome.



From what you have just described I feel that all comes under the heading 'desire'
Desire to please your Masters perversions,
The desire and drive to be of service to those in need,
Desire for genuine human connection and touching of spirit to spirit.

It doesn't sound like you did it out of financial necessity (and if no money changed hands it isn't prostitution)
but if it wasn't desire, what was it?



DMFParadox -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/7/2011 2:07:46 AM)

Cool idea. Two additions to it.

Shouldn't be publicly advertised though; by invitation only. Make it a vetting process, and feel like an exclusive, 'jet set only' kind of experience for the women. etc. etc. Like they're participating in a secret world, and who knows who they might meet? Captains of industry, rock stars, secret puppet masters, Don Corleones. If it's a fantasy, everyone involved - the dudes included - should have fantasy 'identities' too. There might be rumors that one of the guys is a wanted bank robber, but he's going under cover as an 'insurance salesman'. And you'll only know him because he has a little shoe as a calling card. :P Another one is that rock star who's just divorced and looking for some hot hooker to go on tour with him, movie style, and he has a little scottie dog piece with him to identify him by. And so on. And if a rumor slips in that one or two guys really are princes undercover, then who's going to blame anyone involved for being more excited to be part of it?

So a) private vetting of the women, and b) male 'player' roles too.

Curious to know how it all works out. Cheers.



crazyml -> RE: Monopoly Hookers (1/7/2011 3:17:22 AM)

Quality response, quality attitude.

Welcome to the boards John, you're going to be just fine.

ML



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875