How would they choose?

A suggestion posted on ASPD for ladies to improve their business by approaching “well-known, respected reviewers” and asking them to see her and write a review.  With a not-so-subtle implication that she persuade him to do so by offering a discount or freebie.  *groan*

Well, I’ve said many times before that I think it’s inappropriate to trade a review for a discount or freebie.  Exception for relatively small discounts offered to the general public (rather than targeted to a few specific clients) that are advertised openly, such as the $50 “frequent reviewer” discount that Private Connection used to offer, since everyone is aware of that and can take the possible “review inflation” when reading it.  But that’s not what prompted me to post this blog entry.

The course of a P4P relationship

Some clients don’t establish a “P4P relationship” with any of the ladies they see.  Perhaps they search for variety and almost never see a lady more than once or twice.  Perhaps they just want to maintain more distance.  And of course even those of us who do establish a P4P relationship, or have a few “regulars” whom we visit many times, don’t establish that with all the ladies we see.  Unless we have the luxury of meeting a lady for an extended period of time before ever having an appointment, how could we?  You never know with whom you’ll click and will want to see again — just as in civilian life when you ask someone out on a date, you probably don’t know beforehand whether you will want to continue that past the first two or three dates.

But . . . for some clients . . . with some of the ladies they see . . . it turns into something longer lasting than one or two appointments.  Call that a “P4P relationship” or being a “regular” or whatever you want.  And what I started thinking about recently was — how does that end?  Because rarely are such relationships permanent.

Cheap? Possibly :)

A couple of recent polls over on ASPD about tipping (here and here).  Unfortunately, they will probably lead to some of the typical unpleasantness for discussions of such.  *sigh*  But this started me thinking about how tipping may (or may not) compare to other aspects of participation in P4P.

Random (and not all that coherent) observations

On Saturday ASPD banned Deuce Bigalow, not only one of the Old Guard but a staff member for oer 5 years.  (Deuce’s comments on his blog here.)

Any time there are differences between someone who is a valuable contributor and the staff, and those differences cannot be resolved, resulting in a ban . . . well, no matter who you think bears the blame, it’s sad, isn’t it?  That’s my first reaction whenever a prominent, contributing member is banned.  So, a sad occasion . . . and, in retrospect, perhaps inevitable.

Do you tell?

An interesting question in a thread over on ASPD:

If you meet a woman you would like to have a relationship with (outside the hobby) how important is it for you to know she had been a provider?

Do you feel that honesty is the best policy or would you rather not know? How should she go about telling you?

AND on the flip side, if you expect honesty above all else, would you tell her your past hobbying habits?

It’s a fairly common question, of course.  But, although it was easy enough to realize how I would feel about that, I still haven’t completely figured out why.

How to run a P4P board — Access to reviews (thirteenth in a continuing series)

A frequent debate on P4P boards concerns the extent to which those reading the site should be able to see the information in posted reviews.  That is, whether and to what extent (either in total or for specified portions) access to the reviews should be restricted for certain classes of potential readers.

The discussions often get rather confusing because they mix up different classes of potential readers: the ladies, non-member lurkers (assuming that such non-members have access to the site at all), and members who do not have “higher-tier access.”  (With respect to this latter class, some P4P boards give some members greater access, to portions of reviews and/or separate forums not viewable by most members, on the basis of their contributions to the board, whether that be financial or by posting useful information in the form of reviews.  For simplicity, I refer below to this distinction using ASPD’s terminology — “BCD members” who have the greater access or “non-BCD members” who do not.)  The discussions also get confusing because people don’t focus on all the potential effects of a given policy, including secondary consequences, or jump to conclusions about the net effect.  So there’s a lot of talking past one another, making it difficult to explore for possible areas of agreement.

And I just as well contribute to the confusion.

Had me going for a second there

So, I log on to ASPD this morning.  I don’t often look at the ads, but this morning I did just out of curiosity.  And the first one that I look at offers, as she puts it in the thread title, “FREE FUCKING !!!!!!!!”  And the ad says she’s offering one hour free, MSOG, and all you have to do is complete a simple nursery rhyme.  “One, two, buckle my shoe, Three, four, shut the door, Five, six, pick up sticks, _________________”  I know that rhyme.  (Hell, everybody does, don’t they?)

I’m sitting there thinking to myself:  Must be a catch.  Maybe one hour free only if you schedule for two hours?  But she doesn’t say that.  Damn, she’s hot.  And a lot of fun, although it’s been several years since I’ve seen her BCD.  I know I’m semi-retired from P4P, at least restricting myself to one UTR ladyfriend (whom I’m seeing this week).  Should I make an exception for a freebie?  I did plan on seeing this lady before I retired, although the plans fell through.  God, that’s tempting.  Probably a catch, and I’m not sure I would even if there’s no catch.  But maybe it wouldn’t hurt to just email her with the rest of that nursery rhyme and see what happens.  I wonder . . . .

And then I remembered today’s date.  April 1st.  [And her ad does reference it near the end.]

Another illustration of how the higher brain functions in men are temporarily disabled by thoughts of sex.