WARNING: CINDY NJ PLAYGIRLS INC

[guy catelli]

a well known hobbiest (who himself has been well reviewed by escorts) recently posted to a widely read asp-board that Princess Claudia is 'very pretty' and 'intelligent', but that, because of issues in her personal life, withholds the 'GFE' the reviewer has found typical of his experience with indy's.

'cindy NJplaygirlsinc', purporting to be proprietess of NJplaygirlsinc replied with an excoriating attack on this client, including what she *claimed* to be the client's personal information, and, as if this were not enough, threw in a gratuitous racial dig, for bad measure.

2/17/01 follow-up (i'm glad i used the word 'purporting' in the paragraph above): http://209.164.24.17/newyork/posts/21426.html



[Edited by guy catelli on 02-17-2001 at 04:35 AM]

[frog]

off topic: should that thing of yours be spelled 'hobbyist'? or should we try to differentiate from real hobbies?

[HornDogBuddah]

I think "hobbiest" is a hobbyist who excels or exceeds or excesses the most.

[justme]

Spelling aside, how long before the offending information is removed?

[guy catelli]

see 'follow-up' in 1st post in thread.



[Edited by guy catelli on 02-17-2001 at 05:14 AM]

[pswope]

Justme
as racist,sexist,and just plain idiotic(I'm not a madam,just a companion) her post was,shouldn't it stand as a warning and reminder to future prospective Johns of just what type of person they would be sharing their $$$ with.

of course,redacting the info identifying the customer.

[Edited by pswope on 02-15-2001 at 05:40 PM]

[justme]

Well, the customer's name is procisely what I had in mind with 'offending information'

Anyhow, you'd have to erase just half the posts on a hobby board if you wanted to eliminate sexism.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by justme
.... you'd have to erase just half the posts on a hobby board if you wanted to eliminate sexism.

excellent point -- i second your motion, justme. if adopted, your proposal would have the benefit of providing a nonhostile, nonthreatening environment that would attract more of the thoughtful posters, especially the females ones. (the current status quo is a self-fulfilling prophecy that such posters would have little or no audience).

it would also take some of the ammunition from our enemies on the pc-left.

[wimpy]

I guess this takes provider reviewing client to a new level?!?! Well I know the guy she wrote about and he is top notch. So what she did was foul. Any provider that does that is not worth the money and should be banned. Like Libya, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are.

Just a thought.

[pswope]

Justme
The very nature of commercial sex is in a large sense sexist since it involves,among other things, objectification(and before the romantics go off on a rant,that objectification is mutual). Whether right or wrong,that's the reality. Cindi's post was indeed ironic,for her use of the word "stable" was as sexist as the verbiage that johns use in their sometimes lamented reviews. This rare expression of female sexism would also then seem relevant to consumers.
OTOH,while racism is a part of commercial sex,just as it is in virtually every other aspect of life,it's not implicit in the working girl /john relationship. Thus,when we are exposed to patently racist rhetoric of the type we've seen from Cindy and Page,I think it's important that the consumers know what and who they're dealing with .
To be clear,I support a woman's absolute right to bar access to her vagina based upon any criteria she choses. I do not beleive that when a women choses to provide commercial sex that she sacrifices that right(cf. places of public accomodation).
What I reject is espousing and publishing a dispicable racist attitude.

While I understand the offensive and inflammatory nature of these type of posts,I'd rather the perps be outed and thus avoided. That to me that is justice.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by pswope
.... The very nature of commercial sex is in a large sense sexist since it involves,among other things, objectification (and before the romantics go off on a rant, that objectification is mutual). Whether right or wrong,that's the reality.

as someone who is both a 'ranter' and a Romantic, i'd like to pose a distinction: when i 'rant', it's about what i perceive to be in-your-face hostility to an honest working woman, or worse, gratuitously and unnecessarily exposing her to LE-risk, or, worse still, 'leaving a marker' for the predators that lurk among us.

i would like to add that i have read your posts here and elsewhere for a year-and-a-half without detecting that 'Romantic-bashing' is a hobby-horse of yours.

fwiw, in addition to being sexist in matters of intimacy, i am also guilty of looksism, heightism, weightism, classism, ageism, and, come to think of it, homophobia as well.

...To be clear, I support a woman's absolute right to bar access to her vagina based upon any criteria she choses. I do not beleive that when a women choses to provide commercial sex that she sacrifices that right (cf. places of public accomodation).

i am glad you have reminded us all that, 'millions served' notwithstanding ;), no human being should be required to have his or her bodily orifices subjected to the same standards of 'public accomodation' as, say, a Wendy's or an Arby's Steakhouse.

What I reject is espousing and publishing a dispicable racist attitude.

your post has clarified an important distinction for me:

we all have a right to personal preferences. but, to run an ad that states, or unavoidably implies "no italians allowed", for example, is a public insult. given the sensitive nature of such matters, all around, it would be better form to accept responsibility for such a preference privately, on a one-to-one basis, rather than publically advertising it.



[Edited by guy catelli on 02-17-2001 at 05:17 AM]

[justme]

pswope -

The very nature of commercial sex is in a large sense sexist since it involves,among other things, objectification

I find it difficult to associate the objectification of sex workers as being a sexist thing as (to me) it seems to be inherent to the 'sexist' decision to be heterosexual. Is a bisexual person who sees providors of both sexes a sexist? Which is not to say that I believe that objectification of any person regardless of their gender doesn't have some fairly nasty consequences.

What I was reffering to was the sometimes seemingly endless deluge of posts where men try to protect providors, thereby establishing these women as somehow unable to protect themselves. I'm referring to the promotion of certain providors when the underlying reason for the promotion is somewhat sinister. I'm reffering to the idea that some posts should be 'dumbed down' so that women can understand them. I'm also reffering to a nasty side that some posters show of themselves when it becomes clear that their motivation for engaiging the services of women is to enjoy the dehumanization of these women... because they are women.

Cindi's post was indeed ironic,for her use of the word "stable" was as sexist as the verbiage that johns use in their sometimes lamented reviews. This rare expression of female sexism would also then seem relevant to consumers.

Keen observation pswope!

OTOH,while racism is a part of commercial sex,just as it is in virtually every other aspect of life,it's not implicit in the working girl /john relationship.

Excellent point!

Thus,when we are exposed to patently racist rhetoric of the type we've seen from Cindy and Page,I think it's important that the consumers know what and who they're dealing with.

You've convinced me!

What I reject is espousing and publishing a dispicable racist attitude.

You're on a roll!

While I understand the offensive and inflammatory nature of these type of posts,I'd rather the perps be outed and thus avoided. That to me that is justice.

So are you suggesting that clients who are repulsed by this post and its attitudes show their displeasure by refraining from seeing these women? Radical, but perhaps a good idea.

One of the problems I have with being able to edit posts, is that it allows people to change the past as it were and rewrite history. I agree that this post should stand as a permanent testament to this woman's attitudes and practices. To make myself clear, from the beginning I only advocated the removal of the gentleman's private information.

One of the things I like about being able to edit posts is the ability to correct boneheaded formatting mistakes.

[Edited by justme on 02-16-2001 at 01:18 PM]

[pswope]

Justme
I agree with your 2nd to last paragraph. while there should be room for genuine contrition, in a sense we all need to stand by our record.


BTW
upon reflection it's bad enough to be a racist but how about a racist and hypocrite. As in, I dislike Arab men,but will gladly take your money and then invoke racial ephitets,when you make an ungnetlemanly comment.

BTW II

Where are all the "providers",(either here or on Big Dog),who yelp at the first byte of perceived disrespect to their sisters,such as when a john uses the word "prostitute".
The silence is deafening.

[Slinky Bender]

"One of the things I like about being able to edit posts is the ability to correct boneheaded formatting mistakes.

[Edited by justme on 02-16-2001 at 01:18 PM]"

Was that sentance in there before the 1:18 edit ?

[justme]

The other thing I like about being able to edit posts is the ability to ironically poke fun at myself.

[guy catelli]

see: http://209.164.24.17/newyork/posts/21426.html


[Edited by guy catelli on 02-17-2001 at 04:29 AM]

[fletch]

That is complete bullshit.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by fletch
That is complete bullshit.

who knows, at this point. but, it is the case that the original poster's message (and a transcript i have read of her private communication with an otherwise completely uninvolved 3rd party) is written with an eastern european 'accent'.

whereas, the new post is consistent with the writing of a new jersey native, as Cindy is purported to be.

also, fwiw, it is clear from the new site that it is 'Princess Claudy's' ass that got fired.

[candie]

I had read that earlier guy and was wondering what everyone thought bout that.

If I were in cindy's position I wouldn't of been so careless, I can't imagine traveling and leaving a young irresponsible girl access but if this is the case, I feel sorry for cindy as she has probably ruined the biz for her.

Not to mention, agencies along the east coast seem to be getting busted.. Things will be tight for awhile and girls will lay low and be extremely cautious <indep>.

Just to busts at the same time...

Sincerely,
concerned now
candie
x