When does No mean Yes ?

[cosmos]

I think the best indications of whether extras or happy ending is on offer is how the ML wants you dressed on the massage table, if she told you to keep your pants on, then good luck Jose, enjoy your legit massage!! If she tells you to take everything off, then again, good luck Jose, only this time she may join you in your total nakedness in the not too distant future after the financials have been sorted out.

Just my two cents

Cheers

I agree with you AHLUNGOR that it is indeed a good indication when the lady tells you to take off all your clothes but it's not always the case you will end up getting what you desire. Only last Thursday I went to a massage clinic for the first time & the masseuse did say take off all your clothes (which made me think this could be my lucky day) yet for the whole 45min massage she showed no interest whatsoever in giving me any extras even though I tried to encourage her during the massage to do otherwise. So it just goes to show it doesn't matter if all your clothes are on or off if the lady is not interested in giving you any extras she won't. Cheers !

[Sextus]

Anyway, the answer is simple. No always means no, whether it's said verbally or otherwise...

According to cmk_76's report, this isn't true.

Nerph, I am bringing up theoretical situations to gauge opinions. I am grateful to receive them.

As I said, the ML scene has more apparent boundaries than fS, re-read the comments I made about that, where I said your and other comments are probably true about that situation. I am talking about fs, where a lot more is always going on than mostly does at boring massages.

Really all I am talking about is the innocent devilish enjoyment to be had from just going a little bit further with the girl. I don't know why so many of you think this is the f**king end of the world if you do this. (KickAss, where are you when I need you?) I haven't ever done it, cmk is the one who apparently has, and yet he's the one getting all the good press, while I have just earned my first ever name call on this forum (he he... don't worry, I can take it.) But I am bringing up the theory of it, and face it, there is an obvious attraction to it. It is what I felt anyway, when I read cmk's report.

(Ps. I've heard of this Polonious guy, I take it he was sometimes controversial?)

[Wayne]

Wayne, I don't know what an "MSM" lemming is, though I do know what a lemming is supposed to do, that is, leap off a cliff in a mass suicide. No-one has ever thought me to be any less than an individual though, never part of a mass movement. My input to the forum I hope is yet more evidence of this.

But I am really interested in your point of view and am grateful to hear it. Not only for its own sake, but like wilisno, I really like to debate. I imagine all those readers out there who never join in, but for whom we all struggle on these pages for the hearts and minds of.

I'd like to know, for example, what point it is that I am missing.

Sextus, the reference to a lemming is to people who simply follow the leader, without contemplating the consequence. Its only the lead lemming who makes the decision to jump off the cliff; all the others mindlessly follow. My reference was to you blindly parroting the main stream media (MSM on all the all political blogs) about Gillard's misogyny speech. They, like you, focussed on the speech being in response to an Opposition motion to dismiss the Speaker of the House. An act that would have been unprecedented in the Australian parliament with all sorts of unpleasant implications to the future of debate in the house. There was no discussion about this in the following days MSM; and I mean none because I monitor these things. All the commentary was about Gillard's supposed hypocrisy. And that is the point. She was not being hypocritical. She was pointing out Abbott' hypocrisy. Listen to the speech and hear the list of on-the-record statements Abbott has made about gender roles. Gillard was not defending Slipper's confidential dialogue with his staffer (who has since been proved to have been slippery with the facts and his motivation). Gillard was defending Slipper's rights as an individual to defend himself. Abbott was the one who was using labels about sexism and Gillard called him out, brilliantly. The MSM is so concerned with the contest of the parliament, and so eager to please their partisan proprietors, that they fail to recognise when there are tidal shifts in public perception of that game. Few would contest that Gillard's speech shifted the perception of her government. She may still be behind in the polls, but nothing compared to where she was prior to the speech; and the Opposition is now scrambling. The silly coverage of Peta Credlin's IVF program is a case in point. These sorts of stunts simply reinforce the perception that Abbott sees gender issues as simply a box to be ticked. He just doesn't get it. Like you with your dismissal of my reference to the Delhi rape.

Rape is the ultimate act in the objectification of women. It is a power trip by men. As is prostitution. Why do fat old codgers pay gorgeous young women to suck their dicks; and why do these women participate in this transaction; and why are they almost all Asian women with limited English speaking skills? It is all about money and power. I lived in India for years so am particularly attuned to the shocking sexism in that society. But I see the same elements here, and particularly on some of the comments on this forum. The question on this thread really got my hackles up because it just demonstrates how vigilant one must be not to descend into that nasty world where men are men and women are their toys. I know that is not your view, but I equally know that many of the working girls in Sydney are subjected to some horrible behaviour by their clients.

[AHLUNGOR]

The question on this thread really got my hackles up because it just demonstrates how vigilant one must be not to descend into that nasty world where men are men and women are their toys. I know that is not your view, but I equally know that many of the working girls in Sydney are subjected to some horrible behaviour by their clients.

I think all we decent human beings should make a pledge and pack right here and now, so that:

1. We will always pay the fair price charged for our punt.
2. Always treat the WLs and MLs with respects and diginity.
3. Be a gentleman at all times.
4. Be hygienic clean and get rid of bad breathe and BO before we visit a shop
5. Take No for an answer and respect No means No !
6. Won't take any performance enhancing sex drug for the purpose of prolonging the fuck time. (Need for V is allowed)
7. Won't get drunk or high before visiting a shop
8. Never trick a WL into a gang rape situation
9. Never take photo or video of WL/ML without their consent.
10. Never have or ask for BBFS and/or BBanal

May be this will minimize the horror and threats faced by the WLs and MLs on a daily basis.

Shall we ??

[Sextus]

7. "Don't get high before visiting a shop."

Just a little teensy, teensy bit high please Ahlungor?

Ahlungor: "Well....alright....I suppose so."

[Sextus]

"My reference was to you blindly parroting the main stream media (MSM on all the all political blogs) about Gillard's misogyny speech.....all the commentary was about Gillard's supposed hypocrisy."

It wasn't that I "blindly parroted" it - perhaps I just agreed with its reasoning? That is a possibilty.

Maybe however, I was also inclined to be annoyed with Gillard for other reasons attached to her speech, and so seized on the Slipper context of her speech to include in my general annoyance. I admit to having little patience with people that are easily personally offended, because my own humour is too strongly a part of me to ever have that profound failing.

I lost patience with Gillard when she said five times, or it might have been more, using the rhetorical device of repeated sentence construction:

"I was offended when you....."

"I was offended when you......"

"I was offended when you....."

"I was offended when you....."

"I was offended when you....."

(I remember that amongst other lightweight and straw clutching examples she quoted was the faux and fallacious "ditch the witch" sign incident.)

Yeah, she was offended all right, and the degree of her offence was decided by a parliamentary committee strategy meeting that very morning. I'm willing to include Abbot's hypocrisy you identify in all this too. As I said, it is a wonder the soaring ceilings of parliament house where able to contain all of it in that day.

"Your dismissal of my reference to the Delhi rape."

I didn't "dismiss" it Wayne, I only called its use overkill in the context of this discussion. Other than that I endorsed your bringing it up. And here are my actual words:

"To use the shocking Indian incident to support an advertising slogan is overkill in the context of this discussion. The slogan sure does apply to that incident of course, but how does [a shocking murderous rape] apply to sensitive and aware - if mildly (or otherwise) - sexually experimental people like myself, cmk_76 and KickAss?"

I can form my own words thank you, rather than have them put in my mouth!

"Prostitution is [also] the ultimate act in the objectification of women."

I'm not qualified to discuss that, but it sounds like you are on the wrong forum and engaged yourself in the wrong activity if you truly hold that view. I commented before that you seem to have a very cold view of this activity, a view that contrasts with the many genuinely warm human moments so many of us have experienced.

I know you have experienced many of these moments yourself with the Heart of Gold Bellevue street ladies, for example. We are all people together, I don't know how many times that is brought up on this forum, and I can only speak from my own experience of this too.

You might also condemn, for example, some of the filth I sometimes talk during sex, but that is just a sexual game for me, taking place during sex, and nothing of it lasts beyond that. Afterwards I am all hugs and affection, after sex - and in life too. All my comments on this thread are in the context of sexual game.We could write encyclopaedias about the range of human sexual behaviours, and all the nuances that give us pleasure. Attempts to hammer people into strict PC behaviours lacks much of the creativity we humans are capable of, and that helps to define us.

[Gucci2012]

No does mean no, if not then you'd probably be 1 of the 6 guys who raped that poor girl in New Delhi on a bus.

For some punters these wl's are just toys to do what ever, but for me my relations with wl's transcend our meeting point and we become close friends, brothers and sisters. If you heard someone forced themselves without permission on your sister what would you do???

No need to call someone out in the forum. Just spread the word to your favorite WL or shop..."hey watch out for this guy he thinks no means yes." These are the customer's who ruin it for other punters because they only see their reality where they are king and can do what ever pleases them.

[Sextus]

It would be handy if you could think in nuances too, and not just slogans.

That sums up the whole theme of the thread in fact.

[Gucci2012]

So thinking and writing fancy makes it ok to be a rapist? Getting high means you have no imagination to do it from pure thought... sad.

While your high does that make it ok to force your hand where ever it wants to go? Or does being high give you another excuse to be a rapist???

[the wizard]

I think all we decent human beings should make a pledge and pack right here and now, so that:

1. We will always pay the fair price charged for our punt.
2. Always treat the WLs and MLs with respects and diginity.
3. Be a gentleman at all times.
4. Be hygienic clean and get rid of bad breathe and BO before we visit a shop
5. Take No for an answer and respect No means No !
6. Won't take any performance enhancing sex drug for the purpose of prolonging the fuck time. (Need for V is allowed)
7. Won't get drunk or high before visiting a shop
8. Never trick a WL into a gang rape situation
9. Never take photo or video of WL/ML without their consent.
10. Never have or ask for BBFS and/or BBanal

May be this will minimize the horror and threats faced by the WLs and MLs on a daily basis.

Shall we ??

well said.........

[Wayne]

ah Sextus, so its nuanced to force a woman into doing something she does not want to do. Good one mate. I humbly apologise for not appreciating such a great mind as yours. Clearly, your humour and wit is beyond such a feeble mind as mine; who sillily believes that the language used on a prostitution forum is literal; was disturbed when the alternative prime minister spoke in front of a "ditch the witch" sign; and who has personally taken a worker, from one of the most discussed shops on these forums, to hospital after being raped in the line of her work (she could not be persuaded to press the matter with police). I bow to your superior intellect.

[Sextus]

They brought the sign in behind him after Abbot had already started to speak. I bet every politician wishes they had eyes in the back of their head, not least to avoid the knives!

No, I just mean to gauge the situation, the individual and evolving situation of any encounter. Remember, I am arguing thereotically here, as a devil's advocate, and I ain't done anything like that myself - though you wouldn't know that from Gucci! But I was provoked to comment on this by cmk76's report which seemed to describe behaviour that was working for both of them, and yet still falls outside your limits of acceptibility.

If that was an exception, a fact, a report, where it was working for both of them, how many other exceptions may there be too? That is all I mean by nuance. Surely that is a reasonable thing? (Cmk is taking a low profile while I do all the hard theroretical legwork!)

I can certainly understand though, how you would be influenced by your experience with that girl you helped. I can see how you would then think of all such ideas as a slippery slope downwards.

[Gucci2012]

They brought the sign in behind him after Abbot had already started to speak. I bet every politician wishes they had eyes in the back of their head, not least to avoid the knives!

No, I just mean to gauge the situation, the individual and evolving situation of any encounter. Remember, I am arguing thereotically here, as a devil's advocate, and I ain't done anything like that myself - though you wouldn't know that from Gucci! But I was provoked to comment on this by cmk76's report which seemed to describe behaviour that was working for both of them, and yet still falls outside your critieria of acceptibility.

If that was an exception, a fact, a report, where it was working for both of them, how many other exceptions may there be too? That is all I mean by nuance. Surely that is a reasonable thing? (Cmk is taking a low profile while I do all the hard theroretical legwork!)

I can certainly understand though, how you would be influenced in your consideration by your experience with that girl you helped. I can see how you would then think of all such ideas as a slippery slope downwards.

Sorry fancy word guy your story too long...do you agree "no means no" because there is no grey area. Or are you still saying "no means yes"???

[rooter]

You're a tenacious bugger Sextus, I'll give you that!
If they're ever gonna pull the plug on me, I want you in my corner.
You're fighting a losing battle here. Let it go mate, let it go ...

[ethanhunter]

Sorry fancy word guy your story too long...do you agree "no means no" because there is no grey area. Or are you still saying "no means yes"???

That's the main point! Can't see why people think no means yes

[Sextus]

You're a tenacious bugger Sextus, I'll give you that!
If they're ever gonna pull the plug on me, I want you in my corner.
You're fighting a losing battle here. Let it go mate, let it go ...

Rooter, if they ever try to pull the plug on you just call on me. Because I've got itchy keyboard fingers....

But you are right. I've got to do much more mating with females, and much less talking, especially about micro subjects like this one.

I can't retire from this thread without saying that I do have a bit of a conscience about it. It seems to be hard to have a discussion on a serious topic on this forum without people considering a counter-view as if it is a personal attack on them, when all it is is an exchange of ideas. I've never used a bad word to describe anyone on the forum, or even used sarcasm, I've always tried to keep things on an even keel.

But under the unconscious influence of Gucci's suggestion that I would be "first in line on that bus" I may have come across as dismissive and arrogant in my one line response to it. Unfortunately gucci is a bit of a firebrand and my response stoked his coals even further. So I must, despite myself, have some human weakness in this regard.

The second thing that is playing on my conscience is that Wayne had been very helpful to me in the past in pm's, as well as volunteering personal information, and I want him - despite my enthusiasm for uncensored debate on the open forum - to know that I remain grateful for it.

Just can't let any of that get in the way of a good debate!

[cmk76]

So thinking and writing fancy makes it ok to be a rapist? Getting high means you have no imagination to do it from pure thought... sad.

While your high does that make it ok to force your hand where ever it wants to go? Or does being high give you another excuse to be a rapist???

Way out of context... accusation or implication that:

1. While your high does that make it ok to force your hand where ever it wants to go?
2. Thinking and writing fancy makes it ok to be a rapist?
3. Being high give you another excuse to be a rapist?

Never did Sextus implied or stated that it was ok to the above acts..

[cmk76]

No need to call someone out in the forum. Just spread the word to your favorite WL or shop... "hey watch out for this guy he thinks no means yes." These are the customer's who ruin it for other punters because they only see their reality where they are king and can do what ever pleases them.

Is this a 'hypothethical' example you are giving or is this an assummed accusation/implication of someone.. I wonder...

[cmk76]

Sorry fancy word guy your story too long...do you agree "no means no" because there is no grey area. Or are you still saying "no means yes"???

Sextus, could you answer truthfully. In simple terms to Gucci's questions above? (to quell his fiery or firey states) I can answer for you, and I know your answer, but I'm too hot and bothered (and lazy) to scroll back to posts to back up your answers here.

[cmk76]

That's the main point! Can't see why people think no means yes

After reading that line over and over and over again, a marketing line that was presented to me by an ex, "no means not now..."