I know you like to consider yourself a man of words, what with your unbounded mastery of adjective and all, but this post alone is riddled with the kind of lazy, self-contradictory rhetoric an apathetic 17 year-old puts into the first community college paper he'll ever fail.
First paragraph: you are all for discretion, but only as an abstract concept, I guess, because it only takes a couple of punctuation marks for you to go on to say that you refuse to practice it in any kind of practical sense with people you just don't want to.
Second paragraph: you go on to justify this exclusion from your personal definition "discretion" with a favourite of yours, "integrity." This is a very interesting choice on your part, as you use it to mean an unyielding sense of moral and ethical guidelines, but its original sense is meant to convey a that something is intact, and could just as easily mean intact physical and economic safety for an SP. Your disregard for the latter is made clear when words such as "betrayal", "nasty" and "bold-faced" are piled opposite "farfetched," "unlikely" and "paranoid" to describe your situation vs. the concerns of an SP. This is despite admitting later on (in a portion that will definitely be analysed in detail further on) that you have no actual knowledge of the issues surrounding working in a condo.
Third paragraph: Your friends are better than ours, because you would never be so careless as to associate with those who oppose free exploration of the erotic (more likely, his inexorable blathering on the subject dissuades all but the bravest from getting within 10 feet). You know none of them would ever do anything to jeopardize an incall, or tell anyone who would, or would tell anyone who would tell anyone who would. More damned "low-risk" (because repetition makes things true) lies. And how convenient for you that the risk you take is to others. How sad it would be if you had to risk something of your own for integrity! So great is your honesty that you never even hint at the possibility of lying by omission and just saying that you are visiting a friend. Lies by omission are still LIES!!! after all. Presumably when an acquaintance asks you how you are the day after a trip to Taco Bell, you see it as your moral obligation to tell them all about the wicked case of the squirts you experienced that morning.
Fourth paragraph: the word lie again, now with a "principled unwillingness" to do so. You apologise, not for what you have said, but for the reactions other people had to it, as though this were not the most half-assed type of passive-aggressive non-apology that ever existed. Then, so plainly-stated that I really have nothing to add, a full admission of ignorance about the issues at hand for people that are not yourself. Because you're what it's all about, really. Not the comfort level and safety of others, but about what feels best for you. The shallowest and most obvious type of philosophy, no matter how you dress it up.
Fifth paragraph: This is the cherry on top of it all, the nonobligatory little something extra. After exposing your lack of knowledge, rather than going out and, I dunno, maybe doing a search on Google, you ask if maybe someone else could start a thread and educate you? All the appearance of being conciliatory and learning the other side, none of the effort.
