Long-distance Matchmaking
posted by Aggie
I've been asked to be a matchmaker for people who live thousands of miles apart. One of the matchees (who lives far far away) is a friend of mine who, I believe, does not really want a relationship, but a week of intense shaggery. She has asked me to get in touch with the other matchee who lives here in Ottawa, and, in a very subtle way, to suggest to him that he needs to buy himself an airline ticket, arm himself with a week's worth of condoms, and fly off into shaggerama paradise.
I'm having trouble figuring out how to do this in a subtle way --- ie. without saying "Get your ass off to (redacted) because (redacted) wants to (redacted) your brains out with no strings attached."
Come to think of it, this scenario doesn't really fit into the traditional matchmaking model in which the two matchees are equally ambivalent. The out-of-town matchee is lusting after the Ottawa matchee. So, we're starting out with an imbalance.
As you can see, I need some advice here about how to proceed. Should I:
1) Try to find a subtle way to convince the Ottawa matchee that he needs to head south.
2) Be direct with the Ottawa matchee and tell him that he has great potential for action in foreign lands.
3) Encourage the distant matchee to be her own matchmaker.
4) Encourage the distant matchee to find action in her own town.
5) None of the above.
Labels:
matchmaking
Posts
6 comments:
#2 - tell the matchee that he might get a chance to raise his colours in a foreign port.
The lass fears rejection and so doesn't want t'ask herself.
Like as not, he's given her reason to think he's not inclined to sail into her harbour, but if his compass is pointing that way, he'll thank you for clearing away the fog.
Of course, there are always strings attached and sometimes it's heavy cables, but if your friend here in Ottawa is any sort of sailor, he knows how to deal with knots.
Did not the once all knowing Madonna say "Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."
I think a business model is in order for both parties. It has been my experience that sex that you pay for is in both the short and long term much cheaper than free sex. I also believe that while there is always some novelty in amateur episodes it never hurts to go the professional route. That would be Route 66 where of course one gets what one pays for as well as a few kicks.
Anon aka benwaydr@yahoo.com
So Benwaydr advocates escort services over actual buddy lust. Talk about commitment issues.
But Aggie, nuthin' wrong with just letting the gentleman know that if he wishes to become a gentleman caller, looking up the lady in question is a strong option. Then step back and let him take his own steps. Or not. If he's, um, up for it, it could be beneficial for all involved.
I fondly recall flying into this very city from a remote South Pacific paradise one February long ago under similar circumstances. Insert your own witty clichés about tropical heat and paradise here...
To be fair the good Doctor Benway merely advocated free enterprise over free sex; the Doctor who sadly is always out of it has few commitment issues that he is aware of...
Four immediate and obvious advantages of such sex:
4: The satisfaction from supporting local entrepreneurs.
3: No lawyer fees, messy custody fights, support payments, treatment for depression (if you are male) etc. Just one reasonable up front fee jointly agreed upon by the agents involved.
2: You have change left over for the great $2.99 all day breakfast at the Venus Cafe - a mere hop skip and a jump from free enterprise central.
1: No need to send flowers, write, call, or otherwise follow up.
Ya, but what about:
- unintended diseases
- pimps
- prostitutes with sad stories
- jealous husbands of prostitutes
- sting operations
Unintended diseases and jealous spouses/lovers turn up on the free side of the fence as well. As for the rest they would disappear if like some civilized countries we legalized this long standing (no pun intended) profession.
Besides good manners dictates safe sex anywhere and my original point stands: sex you pay for is cheaper than free sex.
Post a Comment