Not exactly

Follow up to that entry about the anonymous rant and the reaction on ASPD.  I just read Jayden’s response in the ASPD thread, including:

I don’t think she’s burned out at all. I just think she’s tired of putting up with shit some guys give us. More times than not, common sense does NOT come into play and we deal with alot of BS. Do other guys care? Nope. As long as they get what they pay for it’s all good. And that is the way it should be.

(emphasis added)  Well, not exactly.

Minimal screening

Early last year I blogged about ladies who saw me based on minimal or no screening — a short phone conversation or else a P411 code, which she apparently never verified with P411.  I’ve seen other comments on ASPD and AHC over the last couple of years (but I’m too lazy to track them down) expressing concern about ladies who don’t screen adequately, and I guess I’ve expressed the same attitude.

But the other day, someone brought up a couple of points related to this in an email.  First, the ladies may be “screening” us well before we even contact them, just based on our participation on P4P discussion boards.  A long time participant, with several reviews under his belt, is almost always legit; his “posting demeanor” (literate, no flaming, etc.) and/or comments to/about him by others may indicate a personality conducive to an enjoyable (or at least not unpleasant) encounter.  Second, even if a lady agrees to see us without what might be considered “adequate screening,” that should not be a cause for concern.  We know we’re legit, and if we’ve investigated her, we know she’s legit.  What’s the problem?

Can’t find it

I vaguely recall from a few years ago a comment on ASPD — perhaps by CK1942?  perhaps in a discussion of ladies writing reviews of their clients? — that I have been unable to find.  (If anyone reading this can provide a link, I would be greatly appreciative.)

Anyway, to paraphrase significantly, the comment was something along the lines of:  The only thing more sensitive and hair-trigger prone to explosion than a nuclear weapon . . . is the male ego.

I always liked that; fits P4P (and life in general?) very well. Wish I could find the exact quote, because it was likely much better than the paraphrase.

Aha! At last!

Long ago, Nia started interviewing bloggers in the P4P community about themselves and their approach to blogging.  An outstanding idea (how does she think of all this?), and I learned about all sorts of interesting folks.  Not to damn the others with faint praise, because they were very interesting as well, but I particularly enjoyed the interviews of The English Courtesan (aka Livvy), Gillette, CaitieMae, J*oanne of L*eeds [link removed, no longer active], Mandy, and Mercurial Girl.  OK, so I enjoy listening to women more than to men . . . so sue me. And I may have missed one or two

BUT . . . there was a glaring omission in the roll-call of interviewees; someone all of us wanted to know more about!!!  Until today.  When Nia interviewed . . . herself.

Do go visit and read the interview(s).  And their blog(s).  Join in the conversations.  You’ll have a marvelous time.

Surprising

From an “announcement” screen at P411 (you can only view it after logging in, but I’m fairly confident this is the sort of thing that Gina would not consider confidential):

It is one thing to ask for bbfs, and then respect the provider’s decision if she says no. It is a whole other thing to sneak the condom off and pretend it slipped off or broke, after she says no. I consider this sort of thing to be a very serious incident, in effect rape. I would suggest being VERY careful when it comes to your condom usage, lest you have your membership revoked and you be reported to the bad date lists out there. This is NOT a joking matter and is taken very seriously around here.

OK, that’s not too surprising, although some ladies would be less tolerant of those who ask but then respect a “no.” (first sentence)  But this I found surprising and/or depressing:

If they only knew

Some commentary by an anonymous escort on what she doesn’t like about clients.  A few people, in this thread on ASPD, seemed more critical of her attitude than I was.  It actually sounded as though it would be fairly easy to avoid offending her.  We might not be one of her favorite clients, but we wouldn’t be inspiring a rant, either.  Virtually everything there, when I read it, seems obvious “bad client behavior” and certainly worthy of complaint.  Not surprising at all.

Communication and technology

I am an old fogey.  I admit it.  Hell, I didn’t even own a cellphone until maybe 5 years ago.  (The lack of such complicated my life immeasurably when I wanted to schedule with ladies who ask clients to drive to a specified location and call again for final directions.)  I’ve gotten a little bit better in recent years.  I have a cellphone and a Blackberry, so I can receive phone calls and email when I’m out and about.

My communication methods are still not in sync with many of the ladies, though, although I am beginning to figure out some alternatives that might work.

A big difference

It amused me a bit when I glanced at a review recently.  It listed the lady’s age as 21, then in the description of her appearance said

Great muscle tone. You will think she is just out of high school.

Whew!  What a relief!  I might have worried that she had gotten all flabby and worn-looking . . . like most 21-year-olds.

Just kidding.  I’m an old fart and unable to identify such small distinctions.  There probably are guys who can tell the difference between an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old, but I’m not one of them.

I guess I was right :(

Awhile back, I posted an item about whether it was rude to send an email inquiry about a potential appointment to multiple ladies in the same email.  It was a matter of efficiency, when it was short notice, because emailing and waiting to hear back, with one lady at a time, may take too long and result in missing that unexpected (but welcome) window of opportunity.  I wondered whether some ladies would find it offensive to be included on such a mass (well, to two or three recipients anyway) email.  When Nia posted an item about the subject, in the comments Compartments concluded it wouldn’t be offensive to her:

Sorry, but I am NEVER jealous or feel disrespected if a john contacts another lady on the same day. . . . if a john thinks I’ll be hurt if I know he’s contacted somebody else, he’s a tad deluded.

Well, most ladies might not be offended, but I thought some might.  And now . . .

Definition of a working lady

Not so much a definition, I guess, as a lyrical rumination [link removed, no longer active] on their nature, by J*oanne of L*eeds.  (From three weeks ago — alas, there is simply too much interesting reading out there and I never seem to get around to it.  Joanne, though, is certainly a worthy addition to the other fascinating lady bloggers I’ve run across and whom I try to visit at least occasionally.)

Anyway, here is the passage I particularly enjoyed: