www.CostaRicaTicas.com

Obviously, a small minority's impression that the terms "monger" and "hobbiest" are somehow unnacceptably imprecise are moot.

Moot adjective: according to MerriamWebster.com: deprived of practical significance: made abstract or purely academic.

Moot. That's the word.

To coin a catchy term, say a widely acceptable replacement for our commonly used and accepted, "monger" or "hobbiest," I don't believe the most pragmatic frame of reference is indo-european etymology.

Take a lesson from two of the most wildly-successful, commercial Web sites: Yahoo and Google. Their handles in NO way describe what they are about.

If you want to coin a catchy new term don't look to etymology unless you are an ENtymologist naming a newly descovered bug in the rain forest. In that case it's helpful for ENtymologists to know at least a little latin and greek etymology.

But for us, if we want to coin a new, catchy term, like the founders of Yahoo and Google, we should rather look to the academic and practical discipline: MARKETING.

Yahoo!

Ringo

YO Grammer Geeks:

I really thiink too much thought has gone into what we should call our selves around here. Hell, make it simple. Do it porportionately....

Little Phucker, Average Phucker or Big Phucker.

See how easy that is.

_________________
Damn if I'm going to repeat this shit again. I need a drink.
I've been drinking vodka every day for 45 years and I have certainly never found it to be habit forming.

Ringo,
All I can say is -huh!?!? Actually, being Prolijo, I have a few other choice comments. What the Phuck are you talking about? I'm still trying to figure out what's your point. Your latest post doesn't make ANY sense at all to me. Perhaps the sleeplessness you alluded to in your first post has caused you to wake up on the wrong side of the bed. For a guy who formerly kept his dictionary buried in some stack under the yellow pages you seem to be making up for lost time. Are we now reduced to looking up words that are a best only tangentially related to the discussion, rather than words that are synonyms or potential replacement terms for the expression in question. And what is the point of bringing in a relatively obscure term referring to the study of insects just because it is spelled similarly to a word I used (both correctly and relevantly)? For that matter, what was the point in providing a precise definition of the word "moot"? Was the meaning of that word ever in dispute?

I'll grant you the exact meanings of the terms we use are not particularly important to a significant number of members here or, as you phrased it, I may be part of a "small minority" (did you do dome sort of survey). But apparently it DOES hold interest to many. Witness all the discussion and heated debate we had concerning the term "Whore", a word that sometimes gets applied to our "novias" in CR. Is a discussion about a term we apply to OURSELVES really any less significant? But let's say few do really care. Again what's your point? Does that mere fact make this discussion moot or meaningless? Apparently not to everybody. It may seem abstract or purely academic but that does not make it insignificant. To you and Circus and anyone else that are so easily offended (or who are too closeminded to consider new ideas), if it doesn't interest you just don't click on the thread.

But getting back to the original discussion at hand. I NEVER said the term monger was imprecise. Actually the problem with that term was that it has a quite precise meaning and a negative connotation. It derives directly from the term whoremonger, which an apparent majority of members here would heartily disapprove. What I DID say was the term hobbyist (the correct spelling) was imprecise. Imprecision is not a capital crime, although my preference is usually for words that more accurately depict exactly what I'm trying to say. However, in this particular circumstance, the vagueness of that term reflects a conscious effort on our part to gloss over exactly what we do, as if we are trying to hide or at least camouflage our actions. In other words, it reflects some sort of collective shame or acceptance by our own "small minority" of the disapprobation (look that one up in your funk and wagnall's) of the larger majority of general society. I say lets embrace what we do, but do so in a positive sense. Which is why I took the term whore, intended in the less loaded historical sense of the word, and paired it with culture, which has only positive connotations. Certainly it does not apply to most "hobbyists" out there, but IMHO it does reflect the attitude towards this "hobby" of a small but significant minority.

So Circus is absolutely right. Call yourselves whatever you want. I've presented to all of you in some detail my reasons for adopting the term I use. Others are welcome to use it or not as they see fit.

A few last points. You twist my argument when you say "I don't believe the most pragmatic frame of reference is indo-european etymology." I was not presenting that as a basis for using the terms I do. I presented that as counterargument to those questioning the exact meaning of the word whore. My point was that while whore certainly has some negative contemporary connotations, it was not always that way and it doesn't always have to be that way.

And for your other point about using meaningless terms. Duh!! That's old news. Why didn't you cite the classic example from marketing 101 which is Xerox, the grand-daddy of that marketing strategy? It is meaningless in any language and doesn't even have any homonyms. How many dictionaries (or other candidate names) do you think they went through before they were certain Xerox had no other meaning anywhere in the world? Don't you think the marketers WISHED they had been so careful and at least took a look in a spanish dictionary when they tried to introduce the Chevy Nova to latin america (No va = doesn't go)?

Yahoo actually does have another definition (a crude or brutish person, a hick or simpleton). Where do you think they came up with the Yahoo yodel? I'm not sure how that is supposed to aid their marketing except perhaps to suggest that any simpleton can figure out how to use their website.

Google is actually a variation of another word that IS directly relevant to its marketing message. "Googol" is a math term meaning 10 raised to the power of 100 or 1 followed by 100 zeros. In other words, a very large number like the number of results that one gets when one does a search on Google.

So you can see contrary to your assertions that only geeky entymologists have any use for the precise meaning of words or their origins, it is a actually of HUGE significance for marketing experts as well, BOTH in selecting words that have extremely carefully crafted connotations or ones that are equally carefully devoid of ANY associations. In any event, there's nothing to say that the relative success or failure of these various enterprises has much to do with their choice of brand names, maybe they just have good products and did well in spite of their names. Who knows? It is just as valid to say that there have been many successful enterprises that used completely different strategies in their choice of brand names. How about Intel, General Motors, Apple, Target, just to name a few?

I started mongering w/o knowing there was such a hobby. Dang! I thought I was the only one doing it! HAHAHAAH... then I read Bawna's report on Rio, then I learned about WSG, CH and CRT. Then I met many of you who share same interests. Call it whatever, it is what it is.

I also post on WSG (now ISG?). I'm too cheap to join CH. Now from what I've seen the guys on WSG tend much more often to be REAL mongers. Most of the talk is just about banging chicas and posting unnecessarily graphic pornographic photos that are at least sometime acquired under less than ethical means. I recall seeing at least one copy of one of Mighty1's photos taken from here. Many of the pics are of girls that are totally unrecognizable and therefore solely of prurient rather than any informative value. Discussions like the one in this thread would probably get howls of protest by many more members. Discussions of other admittedly more interesting topics like what restaurants are best, or where to go to learn spanish or dance, would get a yawn by most of their membership. That is one of the things that makes this board so special and why I've been trying to create a website that focuses on that side of our "hobby".

But getting back to WSG, I'd be extremely curious to hear other member's reactions to the recent scandal surrounding photos posted on that website. The link again is http://www.brusselsjournal.com/comment/reply/66. Do you think this has any potential bearing on our own policy of photo posting here at CRT? Maybe we should require all members to subcribe to a certain code of conduct as laid out by El C in his post http://www.costaricaticas.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5520 or as I laid out in an earlier lost. Maybe the rules of the board should go beyond how we post here but in how we conduct ourselves over there. And if it can be proven that a member has violated that code and acted in a way that reflects poorly both on our hobby in general and CRT in particular, their membership should be subject to recision. The board membership has grown and there have been some recent arrivals that don't seem to conform to our unwritten code of gentlemanly attitudes. The board's owners may feel otherwise, but I'd rather see this board stay small and keep its special character than see it become just like another WSG. We should be prepared to act proactively rather than wait for the next incident.

Once again, our man in the Pits of Jax has chopped through the bullsnot and has come right down to the ideal conclusion: What we call ourselves or our activity is less important in the long run than how we choose to do the activity.

Prolijo...sir... you're beginning to live up to your name. Wow.


Here are a few suggestions for alternative terms (as if enough haven't been suggested already):
Poon-hound, fuckwit, pussydog, john, man-slut, dawg, trick (the consumer as well as the act, from the wh*re's perspective)
For her:
Prostitute, hooker, pavement princess, lady of the evening/night, courtesan (I personally like that one!), sex worker, provider, paid date, genital therapist, ramera (Spanish, softer and much more archaic than "puta").

Now, can we get back to the bouncing tits, big dicks and throbbing clits stories that make this board such a meaty joy to read? I'm really tired of the linguistics/semantics/etymology lessons.

_________________
Pura Vulva! Wandering through the dark, I am El Ciego.

In CR there are no Whores and there are no Mongers, They all exist in the US. SEAHAWK

_________________
DO WHAT YOU LOVE AND LOVE WHAT YOU DO

First of all, where the hell have you been? Those are hardly my first or even my longest posts.

Secondly, Circus was right, but you said it best. What we call ourselves or our activity is less important in the long run than how we choose to do the activity.

That was sort of where I was going in my last post and I'd be extremely curious to hear your thoughts and reactions to the "Agadir Scandal" and how it and other offensive (albeit less extreme or widely publicised) acts reflect on our "hobby".

Hey Prolijo...

I was just giving you a small ration of mierda, mi amigo! You've actually been pretty restrained in your past few posts, while still making your points quite clearly. As always. Mucho respeto...

Photo-posting scandals and the like are disturbing, not just because they draw unwanted attention to the hobby of play for pay, but because they demonstrate a serious lack of class among many of us.

I have a gringa associate who decries our activities, claiming that we're too emotionally immature to handle a "real" relationship; I of course disagree completely, but her comments made me think about how some of us choose to comport ourselves.

Before losing my eyesight, I was an avid amateur videographer and photographer, with a collection of materials spanning twenty years and thirty different women. I recently discarded all of my work, because I felt that I could no longer protect my models from being viewed by uninvited eyes.

Posting a photo of a woman's face to aid in identification, and with her permission is quite different from posting photos of her naked and/or in the midst of sexual activity without her permission. The crux of this issue comes down to respect for her rights, balanced against the photographer's right to free expression. A gentleman would not post photographs that might endanger the reputation, livelihood or legal liberty of anyone, including our paid playmates.

I posted for quite awhile on WSG, under the name "Blind Lust." I left for a variety of reasons, including the apparent lack of decency demonstrated by many of the members, and while I think Jackson continues to run an interesting forum, I would prefer to be associated with this group of gentlemen at CRT.

Should we ostracize any member who fails to live up to some sort of code of conduct? That's really up to the administrators of CRT. We should not be reluctant however, to call out a fellow member, if his conduct or posts become patently offensive or if they give the rest of us a bad reputation.

I have a gut feeling, based upon my interaction with many other members of CRT, that we have very little to worry about in terms of the "gentlemanliness" of the membership.

Look at the way the ladies smile at us at ZB when they realize that we're V.I.P. members of CRT. Notice how the waiters at Costa del Sol treat us. See how many positive fchanges have taken place at places like the Presidente, partly because of our intelligent and thoughtful input. Our reputation I believe, is good and growing. If we each voluntarily agree to abide by a gentleman's code of conduct, we'll soon see the fruits of the respect we show for local people and for each other. That's not blue-sky bull, nor is it wishful thinking. We can and will grow in good repute, because we are gentlemen.


Furthermore, anyone who would suggest that we cannot be gentlemen for the very fact that we are whoremongers, I suggest that he suffers from some sort of guilt complex or misplaced shame and self-loathing. Sex is legal. In Costa Rica, selling sex is legal. We've nothing about which to be ashamed, and I further suggest that we can and must continue to strive to be gentlemen.

Whatever we call ourselves.

Now, I feel like quoting Circus' signature line...I certainly do need a drink.

_________________
Pura Vulva! Wandering through the dark, I am El Ciego.

EL Ciego,
As usual, very well put. Also this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I would venture to say we have a tremendous economic impact on the CR economy, drinks, food, hotels, money for the chicas which they in turn spend, yada,yada,yada. Someone asked me to post a trip report of mine on the WSG forum, so I joined up and what a difference in the two boards. I can say I don't believe "gentlemen" is a requirement on that sight. I'll just hang out here.
Sparky

_________________
Sparky
Get in line to ride the lightning!!!


Almost legally single again! Voy a Colombia otra vece!!

Point: the topic is moot.



My unabridged dictionary is under my yellow pages phone book--I have more than one dictionary in addition to the several scholarly versions available free, on line (e.g. note the source for the definition of "moot" above). My Webster's unabridged is now back home, under the yellow pages.



The question is moot. The term "moot" is central to the discussion.



Call it a matter of style.



Word definitions vary, sometimes widely, in different dictionaries. I think the merriamwebster.com definition of "moot" is appropriate for the moot question.

Ringo

That's how I understood it: Even if, as I maintained, "[whore]monger" is not appropiate as a term, if people use and and others understand it, the point is moot, it doesn't matter.

Actually, according to the OED, which is the dictionary of final authority, whoremonger always means lecher, etc., and the sense of "pimp" is not attested. And I acknowledge that terms of negative connotation can be adopted by their bearers in a proud and positive way. Recent examples are "dyke" and "queer". So continue to use it if you must.

While you're at it, how about these?

Definition as per dictionary.com: A statement conveying fundamental character. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

Definition as per m-w.com: a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol.

The words may vary but the essential meaning is the same. We could go on and throw out definitions of all the words in this thread. What would be the point? The original issue at hand in this thread was the meaning of the word "monger" and that of potential substitutes. "Moot" is not a potential substitute and NO ONE had expressed ANY question about its definition. The term "moot" is definitely not "central to the discussion". The definition of the "Moot" would be "appropriate to the moot question" if there were a "moot question", but there wasn't. Throwing that in was clearly not intended to clear up any confusion but it was clearly a "matter of style", intended to mock those of who were trying to have a serious discussion and shift the direction of the thread even further into the absurd. We have a special section for those who prefer that style. Its called the smack talk section. Spare us the disingenuous claims of innocence

I can understand RingoG's comment, although it is expressed in a confused and ungrammatical manner. ("impression...are moot.") "It's a moot point", he means, whether or not "monger' is used correctly, if we agree on what it means.

Well, I'm a confused and ungrammatical guy!

Apologies for any of my typos mistaken for actual confusion re: grammar--which I do also make, on occasion (including the beginning of this sentence, which is not "complete," but rather "telegraphic," omitting certain words that are understood to be part of the beginning of this sentence, although not actually included as part of the beginning of this sentence; e.g. "My" which should be at the very beginning of this sentence, which is actually a run-on sentence).

But my run-on sentence above, as verbose as some posters prefer in their posts, is moot just like arguments favoring a new term for "monger" in the absence of no obvious alternative, and silly suggestions for alternatives.

THAT BEING SAID; HOWEVER, WE DO NOW ACTUALLY HAVE A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED ALTERNATIVE FOR OUR BELOVED TERM "MONGER:" NEWS FLASH!:

Under my guidance our team of PhD's from the BLAND corporation, Santa Monica, CA, in collaboration with J.D. Powers and Associates, including sociologists, political scientists, doctors of womens studies, and dirty old men did perform extensive, costly research for the purpose of finding an accurate, universally acceptable replacement for the term "monger."

Our conclusions were presented to several marketing focus-groups in the United States and Costa Rica, in multiple, discrete, double-blind studies. After a half-million dollars US spent, we found a term that shuts-down "whorticulture." Are you ready?

"Putameisterism."

Gives you the shivers, no?

Our team has mucho venture capital behind Putameisterism.com and eventually plans to go public (negotiations with NASDAQ already in progress). To get in on the ground floor, please e-mail ringoG@putameisterism.biz for a prospectus. Serious inquiries only.

RingoG