Impossible to review a response to an ad

[BigMadM]

People want to know why most CL girls go unreviewed, or anyone shares info.
When a girl contacts one, like me, through an ad, and its legit, and then we meet, connect,(as far as shes willing to fuck an old fat fart like me), agree on terms, and do the deed.
She cannot be reviewed, She is not aware of these boards, as far as Im concerned. We never discussed them, and I would never let her on as to who I am.
She cannot be reviewed.
Its not an option.
So most guys that see CL girls, dont have this option.
If they post their sites, or *****s in public, then maybe it can be shared.
How can one post a contact of a girl that doesnt have a public website or ***** out there in public view anywhere?
It cant be done.

[Supermong]

Post a review with link to ad.

[BigMadM]

it was my ad, it was responded too.
she has no public site or *****.

[JXM]

Originally posted by BigMadM
it was my ad, it was responded too.
she has no public site or *****.

Girls that answer ads seem to think they are entitled to privacy because they are "non-pros"...whether they should have that privacy has been a subject of debate here and elsewhere, but most guys don't want to share info on the good finds, because they don't want the girls to find out and get pissed.

Additionally, some of the girls really only want to see 1 or 2 guys...and so reviewing them doesn't do much good because unless you posted their ***** address you couldn't find them anyway.

Backchanneling, unfortunately, is the only reliable way to trade info on these girls but you have to find people that will trade honestly and that are seeking the same things that you are...

[travlnman]

Originally posted by BigMadM
it was my ad, it was responded too.
she has no public site or *****.

What ad did you post and where on CL. I trie it a few times without success. Any help would be appreciated.

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by JXM
Girls that answer ads seem to think they are entitled to privacy because they are "non-pros"...whether they should have that privacy has been a subject of debate here and elsewhere, but most guys don't want to share info on the good finds, because they don't want the girls to find out and get pissed.

Additionally, some of the girls really only want to see 1 or 2 guys...and so reviewing them doesn't do much good because unless you posted their ***** address you couldn't find them anyway.

Backchanneling, unfortunately, is the only reliable way to trade info on these girls but you have to find people that will trade honestly and that are seeking the same things that you are...

I think that to a very large extent you are setting up a straw man to knock down. While I don't deny that there are any such women on CL, the vast,vast majority are not so. They are simply like a lot of companies who don't want Consumer Reports to write reviews on them. Anyone who posts more than once a week, and anyone who has sent out more than 100 photos of themselves, has little or no "reasonable expectation of privacy". And if you found out exactly how many photos of themselves many of these so called "non-pros" have sent out, you'd be shocked (as well as how many tricks these "non-pros" have turned).

Try this test: when some "total non pro who doesn't post but only answers ads" writes to you, wait a few days. Then, answer from a different account and say "you wrote to me a few months ago, but we never managed to hook up", and see if she says "I never wrote to you, I haven't been doin this that long", or she simply picks up the beat - because she's written to SO MANY GUYS that she has no clue who any of them are. Every time I've tried it, the result has been the same.

BTW... I think this is a good subject for a poll.....

[xxx_xoxo]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Try this test: when some "total non pro who doesn't post but only answers ads" writes to you, wait a few days. Then, answer from a different account and say "you wrote to me a few months ago, but we never managed to hook up"...Every time I've tried it, the result has been the same.

BTW... I think this is a good subject for a poll..... does anyone else find it a little freakish that the utopiaguide moderator is spending what appears to be a significant amount of time attempting to manipulate girls from another board, by means of deception, to justify publicising their pictures and information amongst ug members?

??? ~ xxx

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
does anyone else find it a little freakish that the utopiaguide moderator is spending what appears to be a significant amount of time attempting to manipulate girls from another board, by means of deception, to justify publicising their pictures and information amongst ug members?

??? ~ xxx

It was down. But now that I'm getting blamed for it anyway.... you've go no one to blame but yourself.

[xxx_xoxo]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
... attempting to ... justify publicising their pictures and information amongst ug members?sweet slinky, i worded this with care, and neither did i mention - nor intend to refer to - the notorious "pics of c/l girls" forum. i mentioned (and meant) the sharing of pictures and information AMONG UG MEMBERS. also known as backchannelling... or gossip.

but thank you for your attention to my posts ;-)

~ xxx.

[xxx_xoxo]

Originally posted by BigMadM
People want to know why most CL girls go unreviewed, or anyone shares info...How can one post a contact of a girl that doesnt have a public website or ***** out there in public view anywhere?...It cant be done. seriously, this is an important topic to me, and i appreciate the thoughtfulness given to it by many members of this board. when i was a true, unsullied, cl girl, the gentlemen whose ads i answered were without exception sensitive to the question of my privacy. even when i placed a few ads of my own, i found that the general attitude was that my actions are not of the public domain. of course there is gossip and chit-chat around the community, but it has never affected me, and i truly appreciate the quality of respect i have received (and continue to receive.)

i think it was bmm that said on another thread that he doesn't care about another poster atttacking his pmb persona on the boards... it is the same for me. xxx is my board persona, not my real life me. for all of the not-necessarily-beloved attention i draw to myself on the boards, i am adamant about the preservation of personal privacy in this life. that means your privacy as well as mine. i give the respect i wish to receive.

i am no longer that sweet cl girl ;-) but, still it is my experience that when i am in the real world meeting dates ~ when we meet as hooker and john ~ we also see the REAL-real person behind the date personas. you all will know what i mean. xxx is the most surface board persona... then there is the real hooker me that you meet on our date... and then there is the REAL-real me.

the problem with sharing information about "non-pros" (as i see it) is that they don't have the intermediary "date persona" (aka hooker) to share information about. basically, information shared about a non-pro is just very REAL-real personal gossip. and that just isn't fair.

i hope i am making sense (by hooker standards!)

~ xxx.

[Slinky Bender]

As justlooking often pointed out to Cat Ballou (with appologies to jl for whatever errors I'm about to make in claiming to state his viewpoint):

That's exactly the problem: that many Cl girls are walking thru a minefield cluelessly, and as a result many will get their legs blown off. And when someone acts as if it's all "swell" and acts as if there really aren't any mines in the field, it really does a disservice to the girls who are ignorant of "the facts of life in hooker land" who end up legless, because they listn o the 'life is wopnderful' speach and didn't watch out where they stepped.

PS

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
for all of the not-necessarily-beloved attention i draw to myself on the boards, i am adamant about the preservation of personal privacy in this life. that means your privacy as well as mine. i give the respect i wish to receive..

You're pretty clueless too.

Scratch that.

You're completely clueless.

[xxx_xoxo]

Originally posted by slinkybender
That's exactly the problem: that many Cl girls are walking thru a minefield cluelessly, and as a result many will get their legs blown off.now that is a very interesting perspective. it is also known as "blaming the victim". some people might say that the problem is actually the perpetrators ~ in this case, the mongers and moderators who are trying to get the best blow job for the least cash, sometimes at the expense of privacy and/or common decency.

~ xxx.

[justme]

As I recall...

In the original context CB had portrayed herself as kind of a happy hooker who often found personal connections with her johns and was able to put much of herself into a session. This is in opposition to prostitutes who put a huge personal barrier between there personal and professional personas. At one point CB admitted that she used fairly stringent screening to insure that she didn't get sleazy customers that would take advantage of her not enacting such a barrier.

The minefield comment was directed towards posters, both johns and prostitutes, that created an atmosphere in which a novice to the scene would think that all you had to do was make a CL connection and you were guaranteed these rich fullfilling experiences. JL felt that these people did not adequately explain the long process of insuring that the person you were dealing with was not scum. He felt that there were many women who went into CL type semiprodom thinking it was something completely different from sleay prostitution and that there was a segment of the PMB community that exacerbated the problem.

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
it is also known as "blaming the victim".

You really are degenerating into more and more meaningless bullshit.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
now that is a very interesting perspective. it is also known as "blaming the victim". some people might say that the problem is actually the perpetrators ~ in this case, the mongers and moderators who are trying to get the best blow job for the least cash, sometimes at the expense of privacy and/or common decency.

~ xxx.

It's not that I can't see your side of this, because I can. It's simply that your side in this is wrong headed and I feel compelled to say so for the many that might benefit from the reading.

There is a stark difference between taking for granted certain concepts that are well given and expecting things to play out in the terms those concepts dictate.

I.E. That a well lit city street, in an area that is well populated, should be safe enough to walk down.

So, you can't blame the mugging victim for the fact that he was robbed when taking into account the 'givens' he was working under. He had the right to certain expecations.

Now if that same guy walks down a really dark, deserted, street in what every with any common sense can tell just by looking at it that it's probably the worst part of town and he gets mugged, while you might feel symapthy for the guy some part of you is saying, "While it shouldn't have happened you are one dumb fuck who certainly added to your situation by making at least one very bad choice."

Common sense has to come into the situation at some point.

Your argument is the same one that allows for dopey people to place a cup full of scolding hot coffee in their lap, try to drive a car, get badly burned, and then sue the fast food company for not telling them that doing something that dumb was going to end up that badly.

You are pointing out that you one of the protagonists for the "dumbing down of America".

[jseah]

or it's the woman's fault for being raped because she's walking around wearing a miniskirt and a tight tank top with her tits bulging out.

[xxx_xoxo]

Originally posted by Thorn
"While it shouldn't have happened you are one dumb fuck who certainly added to your situation by making at least one very bad choice."i agree 100% that consequences in this business come in part from poor choices and stupidity. i know this from personal experience, of course! i did not mean to sound sanctimonious. i think i just overstated my point.

i was objecting to a general attitude that CL girls are are dumb bitches and deserve what they get. i was objecting to the lack of culpability this implies for men on the boards. is it really the case that because i am stupid it gives you (you of this opinion) a sense of permission to interfere with my life?

i have had the pleasure to meet quite a few men of this life. if they are a good cross-sample (i.e. if i was not just extraordinarily lucky) then most men are respectful of the privacy of non-pro CL girls (or at least this one!) as a no-pro, i did not have one bad experience in this area ~ but don't worry slinky! with your repeated warnings, i cannot claim i didn't know it was coming when my legs get blown off as a pro ;-)

~ xxx

ps. thorn, i loathe those people who sue for coffee spills. that is crafty opportunism, not stupidity!

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by jseah
or it's the woman's fault for being raped because she's walking around wearing a miniskirt and a tight tank top with her tits bulging out.

It's not her "fault" for "getting raped".

but she shouldn't expect the neighbors not to talk about her wearing slutty outfits. And that's much closer to what we're talking about. No one is saying that guys should be taking pics of women who repsond to "Women seeking men" ads, and falsely claiming that they are hookers. What we are talking about is discussing/reviewing people who actually are doing what they are doing. That's not "blaming the victim".

[JXM]

Originally posted by slinkybender
I think that to a very large extent you are setting up a straw man to knock down. While I don't deny that there are any such women on CL, the vast,vast majority are not so. They are simply like a lot of companies who don't want Consumer Reports to write reviews on them. Anyone who posts more than once a week, and anyone who has sent out more than 100 photos of themselves, has little or no "reasonable expectation of privacy". And if you found out exactly how many photos of themselves many of these so called "non-pros" have sent out, you'd be shocked (as well as how many tricks these "non-pros" have turned).

Try this test: when some "total non pro who doesn't post but only answers ads" writes to you, wait a few days. Then, answer from a different account and say "you wrote to me a few months ago, but we never managed to hook up", and see if she says "I never wrote to you, I haven't been doin this that long", or she simply picks up the beat - because she's written to SO MANY GUYS that she has no clue who any of them are. Every time I've tried it, the result has been the same.

BTW... I think this is a good subject for a poll.....

I'm not saying that I expect that I'm the only guy these girls have ever fucked...and I'm not saying that they really have a reasonable expectation of privacy, although they think they do...I'm just saying that it is pointless to review most of them because unless you post a pic and and an ***** address no one can contact them anyway, and the majority of them wouldn't bite on an unsolicited *****.

I've posted M4W ads consistently for about a year now...and I've gotten at least 200 responses with pics from different girls. About 20 of those were repeaters and the other 180 only responded once. Since my ads vary but are similar in tone I would expect more repeaters if the "average" CL girl was constantly answering ads.

What the girls expect and what really happens is an interesting topic...but BMM is right--reviewing them doesn't help because if a girl has only seen 4 guys and isn't interested in expanding her world because she makes enough cash--what good are reviews going to do...for people that can't see the girl anyway?

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by JXM
I'm just saying that it is pointless to review most of them because unless you post a pic and and an ***** address no one can contact them anyway, and the majority of them wouldn't bite on an unsolicited *****.

1) Why would you have to post a pic?

2) You really didn't read the portion of the post which started with "try this test", did you?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by jseah
or it's the woman's fault for being raped because she's walking around wearing a miniskirt and a tight tank top with her tits bulging out.

That isn't what I am saying and you know it.

Just when was it that we totally stop taking responsiblity for how our actions contribute to what happens to us?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
is it really the case that because i am stupid it gives you (you of this opinion) a sense of permission to interfere with my life?


Not at all. I am a proponent of "The Golden Rule". Anyone who has read my posts for any length of time knows that. I have said, and precisely in these words, that somone donning a 'kick me' sign does not give anyone the right to start kicking.

That doesn't mean that it gives folks to start donning kick me signs willy nilly either. It would be great if people could walk around in a fog and others wouldn't take advantage, but this is the real world we live in. People of common sense acknowledge this and act accordingly.

[xxx_xoxo]

thorn,

i am sorry if i wasn't clear ~ i KNOW you are not of the opinion that "CL girls are are dumb bitches and deserve what they get". i was addressing persons who DO have that outlook (and the question you quoted was facetious!)

i like your golden rule almost as much as i like golden showers... and fools gold ;-)

xoxo

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by Thorn
Not at all. I am a proponent of "The Golden Rule".

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by xxx_xoxo
(and the question you quoted was facetious!)

I didn't realize that questions could be facetious.

[xxx_xoxo]

adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French facétieux, from facétie, jest, from Latin factia, from factus, witty.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,

[jseah]

Originally posted by slinkybender
I didn't realize that questions could be facetious.

but my remark...that Thorn also quoted...was facetious......

I'm disappointed....he should know me better than that....

[Thorn]

Originally posted by slinkybender
He who has the gold, makes the rules.

In real life it works out that way more.

Realists have to acknowledge, and make provisions for, the differences between what we'd like the world to be and the way it actually is.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by jseah
but my remark...that Thorn also quoted...was facetious......

I'm disappointed....he should know me better than that....

Sorry.

You are dealing in a two dimensional medium. It is sometimes hard to pick off when people are being serious vs. jocular.

With my peculiar, dry, style I have been victim of that myself more then once.

[theladiesman]

BMM, give us an example of how you worded your ad and in which section of CL did you post it?

[BigMadM]

well, Im not going to make a mistake here, but I will give a general idea.
Married man willing to help out college student(female) with expenses.

Thats close enough, and basic and simple.

[tomatopony]

98,674 long winded sentences you've written over the past few years and that's your ad??????