Do twink escorts exist?

[Walt]

8 hours ago, DFdub said:

Absolutely agree with the sentiment for “boy” in contexts intending paedophilia/hebophilia role-play but… it seems questionable to always force the word into that box.

Ever called a lover “baby”? What of a 25yo man calling his 50yo lover “daddy”? Is “loverboy” always in the boy-cringe category? What about “sweetie” or “cutie” in sexual context even though frequently pet names for children? I say I’m going out with the “boys” sometimes when referring to a night out with males friends in mid-30s to 60s.
 

My point is, if the person saying “boy” truly means a playful word applied only to legal adults, perhaps any cringe should the responsibility of the listener not the speaker. Or, should we purge all word usage where literal meaning would be wildly different and abhorrent compared to informal common usage? Just something to think about.

Yes, its good to think about common usage. I think maybe in the context of two people having  pillow talk and private chatter about role play all bets may be off -- but beyond that it's a very slippery slope.  So what are your thoughts about speakers using "girl" to refer to women. using "boy" to refer to Black men, and using "sweetie" and "dear" to refer to senior citizens?

While those other groups have spoken out clearly about avoiding terms that infantilize them, why do so many gay men continue to mindlessly reinforce the idea that that they value being silly, vapidity, ageism, mindless nights out, and valuing skin tone over maturity simply because common usage allows for it? Just something to think about.

 

[DFdub]

4 hours ago, Walt said:

Yes, its good to think about common usage. I think maybe in the context of two people having  pillow talk and private chatter about role play all bets may be off -- but beyond that it's a very slippery slope.  So what are your thoughts about speakers using "girl" to refer to women. using "boy" to refer to Black men, and using "sweetie" and "dear" to refer to senior citizens?

While those other groups have spoken out clearly about avoiding terms that infantilize them, why do so many gay men continue to mindlessly reinforce the idea that that they value being silly, vapidity, ageism, mindless nights out, and valuing skin tone over maturity simply because common usage allows for it? Just something to think about.

 

Perhaps. Agree that context is king. (Common usage, not a pro-monarchy stance 😉). Also agree that things uttered across sheets are often ill-advised across the dinner table.

That said, adding racially-charged slurs to the mix seems quite an escalation and significant scope creep from a discussion on terms of affection in sexual/ romantic context. Referring to black men as “boy” is really just a euphemism for much more egregious words intended to place them as lesser overall societally. One could easily demonstrate this as consensus among the target population too (i.e. black men). But, I am open to objective evidence demonstrating that twinkish 18-24 yo men as consensus are offended by being called “boys”. My personal experience is quite the opposite though.

As to “girl” - I regularly hear men refer to female partners as “my girl” and have never thought “he’s a paedo/hebo”. To my ear, “my woman” strikes as more red-flaggish because it sounds possessive while “my girl” rather is accepted commonly to convey affection. What of “girl”-friend and “boy”-friend widely accepted as valid for adults too? Further, the wide usage of “my girl” and logic described for “boy” usage implications might suggest straight men also mindlessly reinforce the idea that that they value being silly, vapidity, ageism, mindless nights out, and valuing skin tone. Interesting position to contemplate.

Consider this: I refer to my 30yo female partner to my 35yo male close co-workers by saying, “Heading out early boys. Taking my girl out tonight. I like to spoil my baby every now and then.” Are these 3 references icky/ cringey/ sexualizing children? Or are they all 3 commonly understood ways to simply convey affection? I posit the latter.

As to seniors - I am not bothered by it but have not experienced “sweetie” or “dear” illiciting strong negative reaction from seniors. But, alas, I am a Southerner and we regularly call absolutely everyone “sweetie” or “dear” without insult taken (except to our Yankee friends of course 😉). But - a man who calls all women and only women “dear” or “honey” is probably guilty of a micro-aggression meant to diminish their stature comparatively to his own (reinforced by not doing similar with all other men).

Again, intent and context should ideally prevail over hyper-literalism - including relevant cultural norms. Great discussion 🤓 particularly when we focus on sharing ideas/thoughts and avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language with thinly veiled insults to those with the counter-perspective (e.g. “50yo men calling 20yo lovers ‘boys’ sound like paedos/hebos… I mean, to me, anyway”).

I can feel the admins about to remind us the thread is getting far afield from the topic though. 🤣

[twinkielover]

No no…not at all….you fine gentlemen have completely convinced me …there are very very few twinks worth trying to hire.  I thank you for reminding me it is 2024 and not 2010.  

Edited 8 hours ago by twinkielover