good tidings to all

[guy catelli]

hmmm .... i see the usual suspects have assembled herein ;-)

for the benefit of those whom i have not yet met, please allow me to introduce myself: i am 'guy catelli' -- scourge to insensible clients ... and knight errant in service to escorts everywhere.

my purpose, as always, is to raise the moral, aesthetic, and cultural level of 'this thing of ours'. though my efforts in this regard have not always been charitably received, my ardor for escorts and their indispensible contribution to the life well-lived remains entirely undiminished.

i will close by offering my sincerest compliments and gratitude to the All Powerful Moderator for bringing a ny-based asp forum to the internet.

bravo, Slinkybender!

[Edited by guy catelli on 01-15-2001 at 09:55 PM]

[mr. wonderful]

Catelli's here.

LOL

Just kidding. Welcome aboard. Just no fawning over broads on this board please. We don't kiss ass here (unless it's Ozzy's since everyone around here thinks he's God's gift).

MW

[guy catelli]

this is an example of what i am here for -- to educate the less experienced client.

obviously, mr. wonderful, you are unaware of the wonderous pleasures that are conferred upon the sophisticated client who amorously places his lips upon the sensual derriere of a delightful demoiselle.

i offer for your consideration the following example: http://www.utopiaguide.com/photoads/northeast/cgi-bin/view.cgi?action=photo&AdNum=1068

pray tell me, sir, what man in possesion of his senses would not wish to kiss so lush and inviting a fruit such as this!

[mr. wonderful]

FYI Guy, Diana was one of my first, as well as one of my worst, experiences with a travelling escort. And please don't tell me it was my fault.

MW

[guy catelli]

<< FYI Guy, Diana was one of my first, as well as one of my worst, experiences with a travelling escort. >>

really!?! my understanding is that DoD is one of the pioneer cyberscorts. would you care to share further details, or would discretion not permit you to do so? at all events, i am sorry to hear that your time together was unsatisfactory.

<< And please don't tell me it was my fault. >>

moi? mr. wonderful, you have always been one of the literary stars in the client firmament. yes, it is true, on one occasion i did get a bit carried away while under the influence of one in whom i had placed an excess of trust. fortunately, i soon regained both my sense and sensibility -- and have ever since held your opinions, and your manner of expressing them, in the highest esteem.

but, returning to the matter at hand, i cannot exaggerate the benefits to be derived from placing one's lips tenderly upon the posterior of an accomodating lady.

[Ozzy]

i am also the devil..........

so let me be the first to say in my devilish voice.....GET OUT!


i have a funny feeling that this thread will soon become the first thread to blow past the 1000 post mark.




[Edited by Ozzy on 01-15-2001 at 11:32 PM]

[frog]

mr w. -- had you been properly drugged, you might still be praising that DoD experience to this day! so it was partly your fault ;)

gc, not everyone has the same tastes, so I doubt that everyone, with or without senses, would love DoD's 'lush' D. Do you have, errrrr, first hand knowledge of DoD?

[Edited by frog on 01-15-2001 at 11:39 PM]

[Ozzy]

i do, and her 'D' was one place that was off limits.

very off limits.......so were a lot of other things.

[frog]

Ozzy, are you gc?

(kiss kiss)

[Ozzy]

so who wants to bet on the time/date of the first chloe nyc post?

[guy catelli]

... but Paradise were anon!

[frog]

This might be off-topic, but does anyone else think that "derriere" should be one of those words which is always plural? Like scissors.

Oz, what is the line? it's an over/under line huh?

[ryan]

do we have a translator lined up yet ?

[Ozzy]

i don't know, but the nuts usualy come out after dark (see above) so i'll take tomorrow night after 6 pm.

[Slinky Bender]

So far I think everything is in good humor, but I get this sense of an impending turn towards the deep end. Please play nice, guys.

[One Eyed Trouser Trout]

Ozzy

By saying you take tomorrow after 6PM implies that you have laid dibbs on all time points thereafter unless a much better looking, smarter man (such as myself) places limits on such a wager.

Wagers regarding time and date are limited to the 24 hours past the time hack.

So, you're good to go from 6PM 'tomorrow' until 5:59:59 PM the day after tomorrow.

My guess? Friday Noon

[MrNY]

MrNY had to go and do that, didn't he ??!?!

Greatings Guy !

[guy catelli]

the Chloescent Love Bug is the redeemer -- the annointed one who has come to save the world!

i am merely a harbinger for one who is a far greater writer than i.

[MrNY]

but, did ole' bill shakespeare just walk-in the room ??

[Ozzy]

OETT, 6pm till midnight. hows that.

btw guy....since your the only brave soul to see chloe........how about a review of the infamous one A.




see sb i was nice, i didn't call her a nut. thats now reserved for your friend.

[Edited by Ozzy on 01-16-2001 at 07:19 PM]

[MrNY]

;)

[One Eyed Trouser Trout]

MrNY

If you lie real still like, even a rageful bear will pass you by in the forest.

Maybe Bill will seek more communicative partners

[guy catelli]

elsewhere, i have briefly commented on the happy occasions i have shared with the Chloescent Love Bug.

i would consider doing a lengthier piece for publication in this august forum. but, i would require assurances that any resulting catcalls from the bleachers be directed solely at me, not the Love Bug.

[Slinky Bender]

guy,

not only couldn't I gaurantee against that happening, i would bet that it would happen. As such, you might want to think about whether you really want to to that.


And while I have no love lost for AY, I'm not infavor of anyone having pot shots taken at them ( so let's ease up a bit ).

[Ozzy]

so i guess the mounds-almondjoy analogy is out of the question?

[guy catelli]

[pondering] ... suppose there were an internet forum for film lovers. and, suppose the films of David Lynch were highly praised by those who had actually seen his films.

and, further suppose, a number of people who preferred more readily accessible films, and, most importantly, had never seen a David Lynch film, nevertheless kept calling Lynch 'nuts', and other names.

unfortunately for those who appreciate more sophisticated films, the name-callers would have plenty of company. but, what i am wondering is: why would David Lynch, or *any other filmmaker*, post his views on filmmaking to such a forum?


[Edited by guy catelli on 01-16-2001 at 08:02 PM]

[frog]

gc, your analogy is a little bit off. You are not David Lynch but rather the fan who raves about his movies. And there is a difference between those who call you nuts and those who call Lynch nuts.

[guy catelli]

... i don't care who calls *me* 'nuts'. and no one cares whether *i* post here or not, per se.

the issue is what kind of atmosphere is most conducive to *escorts* posting here -- *and/or* to prudent clients posting reviews about them.

[frog]

ahh, yes, then I would agree, we should kiss ass and flame all negative post.

[Ozzy]

i see tons of movies...... i've seen two david lynch films.....

i've also seen four spike lee films........


neither of the two is nuts.


both make films that look like they were made by college student film makers.


Roger Ebert.



[Edited by Ozzy on 01-16-2001 at 09:38 PM]

[guy catelli]

hopefully, there's plenty of room for respectful criticism of David Lynch or Spike Lee without kissing either of their rear ends on the one hand or calling them names on the other.

as far as Roger Ebert is concerned, well, let's not go there ;-)

the issue isn't whether or not we like films we've seen. rather, it's whether filmmakers would want to post here if we called Lynch and Lee names without even seeing their names.

btw, if you must know, i took Chloe to see Bamboozled.

[frog]

I wonder if Lynch and Lee would come here to get worshiped? or just browse through the ads...

[Slinky Bender]

guy,

so who was the other $19.00 that made up the total gross for the film ? o)

[Ozzy]

Bamboozled...is what everyone who paid to see that movie, got.

[Rufus Moses]

The day we sex consumers can't make honest and fair negative evaluative comments about given sex service providers...Thats the day many of us will stop participating in UG.

I don't expect that will happen fortunately.

[guy catelli]

[Rufus Moses]

"i would consider doing a lengthier piece for publication in this august forum. but, i would require assurances that any resulting catcalls from the bleachers be directed solely at me, not the Love Bug."

is in part the same as,

"I'll only post a review if everyone first promises not to say bad things about this provider".

nobody gotta promise nuttin...nobody gunna promise nuttin...

next...

[guy catelli]

<< "i would consider doing a lengthier piece for publication in this august forum. but, i would require assurances that any resulting catcalls from the bleachers be directed solely at me, not the Love Bug."

is in part the same as,

"I'll only post a review if everyone first promises not to say bad things about this provider". >>

i certainly didn't intend it that way. again, i've been talking about name-calling an honest (and very highly reviewed) working woman as a way of gettting at me, especially if the name-caller has never met her.

i personally wouldn't want to subject an innocent party to that kind of 'hostage taking'.

an example comes to mind, that, at long last, seems to have been deleted from the archives of a well known asp board. in this case, the reviewer had engaged the time and companionship of the escort in question, and purported to have had a very satisfactory session!!!

yet, when i made some even more favorable comments about her myself, he began to post nasty things about her in reply. the more i complimented her, the nastier were the things he said about her (instead of me!). eventually, he descended into truly vicious and cruel characterizations. his cruel attacks on an honest woman who had shown him a good time remained in the archives for well over a year.

i am sure the All Powerful Administrator of this honorable board would have deleted the posts right away. i'm not talking about ~she's ugly and stupid~; i'm talking *really* nasty.

so, under the circumstances, i have tended to feel that not doing any review at all was doing a favor to the escort, if you see what i mean.

my personal view is that a worker, any worker, is subject to criticism for poor performance or dishonesty. that has always been my view, and always will be. a couple of posters have already mentioned that one well known cyberscort did not deliver the goods, if i understand correctly. and, his word is as good as gold with me. no problem.

by the same token, when there is a general climate of respect for workers in general, specific criticism of a specific worker is all the more credible.

part of the 'problem', if that's what it is, is that in 30 years of triple-digit escort experience -- from the penthouse to the outhouse ;-) -- my disappointments are too few to recall, much less dwell upon. (i certainly wish i could say that about any of the other professional services i have engaged!)

if only i had more bad experiences to report, i would no doubt have more credibility on the subject ;-) i keep reading 'ymmv'. well, i practically always get great mileage. i've tried to make suggestions on how to improve mileage, but,... whatever ;-)

by way of a negative review, the best i can do at the moment is to mention a date i had with 'Elizabeth', who worked at an establishment in the eastside triangle.

Elizabeth was (is) very much my cup of tabasco: lush, latin, and *very* accomodating. so, where's the enchilada? well, the madam had placed an
advert-with- picture on ny-exotics. and, the pictured woman could have been a Playmate-of-the-Year model. so, there was no way this model would have been splitting two bills with the madam for providing an hour of FS -- right?

but, instead of showing me the respect to just not say *anything*, the madam felt compelled to volunteer, 3 times: "it is the girl in the picture" -- as if i was born yesterday. but, i was really horny, so i went anyway. and i have a very nice hour of some of this and some of that, if you know what i mean -- which i'm sure you all do.

and yet, there was this pall of sadness hanging over the escort. my initial assumption was: what attractive young woman wouldn't be sad about providing me with an hour of FS?

but then i realized that what she was sad about was being at the 'switch' end of a 'bait and switch'. and, being sensitive, she perceived that i was annoyed at the madam for showing me this disrespect, for which there was no need.

so, the upshot is that i developed a major resentment against the madam for needlessly 'sabotaging' my date with Elizabeth. as i result, i have never used her service again, in spite of the fact that the service itself is very good value -- but for the madam's disrepect of the client's intelligence, and the effect this has on undermining the mood of the date.

[guy catelli]

see http://209.164.24.17/discussion/posts/30231.html

[fletch]

Neither. I don't agree with Outsider's presentation of the facts or the conclusions he draws from them. To borrow some of his language, he oversimplifies for the convenience of his own thinking. But I suspect that he would classify me as a jock.

[guy catelli]

<< .... I don't agree with Outsider's presentation of the facts ... >>

i'm not sure what facts you're referring to -- since he covered a lot of territory.

but, i did feel that he may have been a bit more politique than scientific in his characterization of someone who is, at best, a highly enlightened Jock as, instead, a Romantic.

<< or the conclusions he draws from them. >>

well, the conclusion that i think most relevant is that the lowest common denominator will always wind up predominating, absent a pro-active effort to prevent that from happening. this is just elementary sociology.

which conclusion(s) did you find unwarranted?

<< To borrow some of his language, he oversimplifies for the convenience of his own thinking. >>

i agree: the problem of reductionism is always a shortcoming of analysis.

specifically, i would agree that any bipolar distinction (in this case Romantic/Jock) doesn't do justice to the reality that there are many different 'types' of client, and many gradations within each of these types.

personally, while i have staked my claim to the tradition of Romanticism, i must confess that some of my most memorable encounters were "hump 'em and dump 'em" affairs in wash rooms, vestibules, backseats, back alleys, etc.

btw, in my experience, it is the ones who (convincingly) present themselves as "ladies", "courtesans", etc, who do some of their best work in such venues ;-)

<< But I suspect that he would classify me as a jock. >>

i would be interested in knowing how you, and others, classify yourself?







[Edited by guy catelli on 01-18-2001 at 03:50 AM]

[One Eyed Trouser Trout]

I'm a cerebral......I love getting great head

[fletch]

I don't see a clear classification of myself in terms of the hobby. I can tell you that what I look for on these boards is useful information, probably the sort that Outsider considers to be testosterone-fueled posturing. I suppose that some detailed reviews could be called that, but when it does happen I believe it to be a fault of tone rather than a fault of content.

I think that the reviews offered by the group that Outsider calls "the Romantics" are, generally, uselessly subjective tributes. (However well deserved they might be.)

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by fletch
I don't see a clear classification of myself in terms of the hobby. I can tell you that what I look for on these boards is useful information, probably the sort that Outsider considers to be testosterone-fueled posturing.

i'm not commited, one way or the other, to Outback's specific classifications and interpretations of client types. i merely concur with his bottom line that women don't volunteer to be verbally abused online, for long.

I suppose that some detailed reviews could be called that, but when it does happen I believe it to be a fault of tone rather than a fault of content.

i couldn't agree more. it really is a matter of tone. i have read a number of reviews that left *no doubt* about the pertinent details, yet did so with a terminolgy -- and a tone, as you so aptly put it -- that left the lady at issue with her dignity in tact.

I think that the reviews offered by the group that Outsider calls "the Romantics" are, generally, uselessly subjective tributes. (However well deserved they might be.)

i consider reviews useless -- except on the issue of professional ethics. someone who engages in unethical practices should be publically outed as such. and, honest escorts overwhelmingly agree -- for the sake of the profession's reputation generally.

but, an unknown reviewer's opinions about a book, movie, musical composition, etc, are of no use or interest to me. this is all the more the case with intimate relations. how many times have 'helpful' friends tried to set us up with someone in the certainty that we would be 'just right for each other'!?! {chuckling, ruefully}

what i do find useful is an escort's site, pictures, and postings. all the rave reviews in the world won't change the impressions i draw from the first three data.

"and, in the end ... " it always comes down to ymmv. so, the mileage one guy got may or may not be the mileage another guy gets. Romantics tend to get the highest mileage. cynics tend to get the lowest. the cynics tend to bitterly accuse Romantics of kissing-ass for higher mileage -- in abrogation of some implied fiduciary duty to fools.

i've thought about this a great deal -- and i still don't get it. say an escort gives me a bbbj to completion as an 'extra' because (she says) she thinks i'm 'interesting'. and, say some asshole has been giving me a hard time online. why would i see my interests as more aligned with the asshole, rather than the escort?

what do you think, fletch?

[guy catelli]

as mentioned elsewhere, screen names might be a useful basis of categorization. i'll start with you, fletch.

'fletch', to me, suggests a 'regular guy'. no pretensions to macho or cleverness. in a middle-aged 'hipster', it just might be a reference to one of the stock characters in beatnik-standup-comic Jean Shepard's monologues (still repeated on tape on WBAI-fm).

predictably, there are the macho men. some sport monikers like 'Ranger1', 'BigGuy', 'Hitman' and, hilariously, 'tankcommando'. some are creepy and menacing right-wing militia type names ('StraightShooter'/'SS'). some are gently and amiably self-mocking ('Viagra Vic'). there is also the goofily politically incorrect "SirFuckalot".

a popular subgenre is the beastiary. canine's predominate. there is a 'big' canine, a saline one, and at least two 'mad' ones. a close cousin is canus lupus solus.

filling out this zoological park are a 'Big Bear' (now 'Ranger1'), a 'FoxX', a 'Raccoon', and UG's 'One Eyed Pocket Trout' and 'frog'.

there are no doubt many others. but, it is probably reasonable to assume that men such as these are pretty much steak, potatos, and a 6-pack type clients. large melons are a definite plus for dessert.

then there are those who are strictly business: 'wallstreetbanker', 'BigBucks', 'CEO', 'bostonexec', 'CPA', et al. these seem to be in the market for a 'temp' worker who offers good 'value added'.

and, there are those who ask for special condsideration. for example, sympathy ('mr. pitiful'), mercy ('justme'), kid-glove treatment ('little_guy'), and indulgence ('novice'). it is not unlikely that these are looking for a certain amount of 'mothering'.

there are also the braggerts like 'Don Juan -- World's Greatest Lover' and '60 minute man'; and the juvenile, like 'spanky'.

this just scratches the surface. but, i think there's a degree to which these clients have categorized themselves -- as they are, or, perhaps as significantly, as they believe themselves to be.

[Edited by guy catelli on 02-10-2001 at 06:50 AM]

[Ozzy]

so what about slinkybender........a guy who breaks metal spring toys?

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
so what about slinkybender........a guy who breaks metal spring toys?

i had always assumed that the APM's screen name's primary referent was Slinky Bender -- a sax player who worked the jazz clubs and strip joints of the mid- and southwest from the late 30s to early 50s. he greatly enjoyed the sporting life, and was quite popular with the strippers and other 'ladies' who worked in the clubs.

at one point, Bender had his own jazz club and band. there are very few of his recordings still available, but they come up for auction on ebay from time to time.

[Ozzy]

wow, i am stupid. and i thought he broke little kids toys for a hobby.

[fletch]

fletch...it just might be a reference to one of the stock characters in beatnik-standup-comic Jean Shepard's monologues (still repeated on tape on WBAI-fm).

I wish I could claim such an interesting genesis for my screen name. Unfortunately, I took it from the Chevy Chase movie. And although I've read all of the Gregory McDonald books, I can't pretend to have read them first.

Romantics tend to get the highest mileage. cynics tend to get the lowest

That's a lot to assume and I disagree. In my opinion, 99% of "mileage" is realized as a result of what happens behind closed doors. I don't think anyone is in a position to talk about what mileage you, I or anyone gets in a session.

i've thought about this a great deal -- and i still don't get it. say an escort gives me a bbbj to completion as an 'extra' because (she says) she thinks i'm 'interesting'. and, say some asshole has been giving me a hard time online. why would i see my interests as more aligned with the asshole, rather than the escort?

Bluntly speaking, because you both on the same side of the dollar.

I understand that the services a girl will offer may vary. But if I see five reviews that all say "she doesn't kiss", I think it is a logical assumption that she isn't going to kiss me. My point is that posting details about these services are the best means for any of us to learn what she will or won't do. We can all make our own decisions from there.

[frog]

ozzy, MrNY, and I get the most mileage, by being "generously romantic".

[JohnFrancis]

Boy, do I feel dumb. I too thought he enjoyed distorting springs.

BTW, I notice a few users are now on Silver status. How does one attain Silver status? Is there a gold status too? Is it based on how many posts you've submitted?

[Ozzy]

fletch.......i f*cking knew it! but only the first movie was good. btw, chevy sucks now.

frog.......same here.


jf.........you gotta blow slinky, still interested?




;)

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by JohnFrancis
Boy, do I feel dumb...

no problem, JohnFrancis -- that's why i'm here.

BTW, I notice a few users are now on Silver status. How does one attain Silver status? Is there a gold status too? Is it based on how many posts you've submitted?

pay no attention to what Ozzy just posted. he's just kidding around. the truth of the matter is that it's based upon how escorts rate you for sexiness.

the levels, in increasing order of sexual expertise are:

mercury
lead
copper
tin
brass
bronze
silver
gold
platinum
palladium
titanium
uranium
plutonium
einsteinium
proton
quark
singularity
immortal god of love

there is a committee of highly experienced clients who ultimately decide on the rankings. i'm not at liberty to reveal all of their names, but obviously experts like the APM, Ozzy, and frog are on the committee.

the committee receives client reviews that escorts from around the world submit on a daily basis. they carefully study each review, and adjust that client's rating accordingly.

now, you are probably asking yourself: why is it that no one on this board ranks lower than bronze? the answer is simple: the APM is such a distinguished presence in the escort community that the mere fact that a client has registered on UG affords that client a ranking of bronze for sexiness in the eyes of escorts generally.

and, you are probably wondering why some of the obviously sexy clients, like myself, do not have a higher ranking. again, the answer is simple: some of us are too modest to allow our true ranking to be seen by the public at large. personally, i requested that the APM list my ranking as bronze, in order to indicate that i am just a client among clients.

btw, there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that Ozzy pays the APM $2000 per month for his silver ranking and his seat on the review committee. that is just a story started by members of another asp board that are jealous of the great success of UG.

i hope this has helped clarify the matter.

guy




[Edited by guy catelli on 01-19-2001 at 05:06 PM]

[Phantom]

I don't need no stinking silver. I wanna jump straight to platimum.

Hey SB, I have a pair of Super Bowl tickets are you interested? Free of charge $$$ of course.

[frog]

Oz, I thought silver is HJ, gold is BJ [what we are trying to avoid], do you really want the platinum? owww

[Ozzy]

you mean i blew him and all i got was this stinking shirt?

oops, wrong punch line..........


now he's really AFH.



btw, jf......i wasn't kidding. but at least he's better than the veal.

[fletch]

Ozzy, you're right - the second movie blew dog. Unlike the first, it was not based on one of McDonald's novels.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by fletch

fletch...it just might be a reference to one of the stock characters in beatnik-standup-comic Jean Shepard's monologues (still repeated on tape on WBAI-fm).

I wish I could claim such an interesting genesis for my screen name. Unfortunately, I took it from the Chevy Chase movie. And although I've read all of the Gregory McDonald books, I can't pretend to have read them first.

i take it that you are a tarheel?

Romantics tend to get the highest mileage. cynics tend to get the lowest

That's a lot to assume and I disagree.

okay. technically, it would have been more accurate for me to have written that cynics tend to *report* lower mileage than do Romantics. and, there is no doubt a certain amount of exaggeration coming from both sides. but, even if we were to adopt the most cynical assumption of all, ie, that money is not the *most* important thing ... it's the *only* thing, the incontrovertible fact is that Romantics report more repeat visits to the subject of their Romanticism. if we adopt the cynical view that "they vote with their pocketbooks", and if Romantics aren't getting high mileage, why do they keep going back to the same vehicle of pleasure, instead of constantly shopping around for another model with different features, as cynics report themselves doing?

In my opinion, 99% of "mileage" is realized as a result of what happens behind closed doors.

agreed. in fact, i think *100%* of mileage is the result of what goes on behind closed doors. but, i don't think there's any way to leave *all* of one's backage behind when the doors are closed. and, heavy baggage tends to be a drag on mileage.

I don't think anyone is in a position to talk about what mileage you, I or anyone gets in a session.

if i've been out with escorts X, Y, and Z, and other Romantics report the same great mileage i got from these escorts, and the cynics report very low mileage, i think that it is reasonable to generalize from this about a 'tendency'. like any generalization about people, it can never be true about all people at all times. but, i don't think it can be dismissed out-of-hand, either.

i've thought about this a great deal -- and i still don't get it. say an escort gives me a bbbj to completion as an 'extra' because (she says) she thinks i'm 'interesting'. and, say some asshole has been giving me a hard time online. why would i see my interests as more aligned with the asshole, rather than the escort?

Bluntly speaking, because you both {are} on the same side of the dollar.

that may be ... but, we're not on the same side of the *bedsheets*. and, therein lies a not insignificant distinction between this thing of ours and, say, the decision on whether to purchase a Nikon or a Canon.

i'm really glad you posed the issue in this way. because it illuminates the discussion we were having about client categorzation. please correct me if i am mistaken, but i gather that you feel that the Jock vs. Romantic distinction is not a particularly accurate or useful reflection of the relevant differences in client types.

and yet, it seems clear that there is *some* sort of 'great divide', and that there is a persistent antagonism between clients on either side of this divide. each type seems to feel that the other not only "doesn't get it", but is actually subverting the 'real' purpose of the undertaking.

i would like to propose a dualism that i think (and hope) does justice to both types. the distinction i am proposing will not only clarify what are the really essential differences between the two types, but, hopefully, suggest, or at least imply, ways in which both types can live in comity on the same asp board.

i would sketch the outline of these alternative paradigms as follows:

1. the buyer and a seller of adult services; and

2. the two collaborators in a work of improvisational jazz.

for short, the 'transactional' paradigm and the 'collaborative' paradigm. i'm not saying either paradigm must or should ultimately prevail over the other. whatever way works for oneself is always the best way. i'd just like to hold the two paradigms together side by side so that all may examine them, and perhaps find something useful in each.

in the standard transactional paradigm, each side seeks to gain as much from the other as possible, in exchange for as little as possible. this is 'economic rationality', plain and simple. as the old advertising slogan would put it: why pay *more*?

under the transactional paradigm, the Consumer Reports (CR) type of review is the ideal. indeed, CR is almost 'puritanical' (ahem) in its approach to reviewing products and services. it never identifies itself to the seller when purchasing products for testing and review, lest this alter the product or service the vendor provides. it accepts no advertising, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. and, it vigorously litigates (and successfully so) against the use of its reviews in the advertising of those who have been favorably reviewed, lest its reviews be used for 'shilling'.

the collaborative approach is not as easily analogized, but i'll give it a try. say, for example, i have a love of playing jazz piano (in reality, i can't even type, much less play piano :-( but, i have neither the talent nor the inclination to attempt to do so professionally. and yet, i fantasize about being an accompaniest with this or that female vocalist.

now, believe it or not, Cybill Shepard is a pop vocalist http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0060193506.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg who can win over a skeptical new york niteclub audience, as i had the pleasure of witnessing myself one evening. so, suppose Cybill were to make herself available as a vocalist for hire for private sessions with amateur pianists?

to continue the analogy, the transactionalist might find it vitally important to know whether she would be willing to sing a demanding aria from Wagner, or hold a high E above C from Aida, or whether she 'cheats' by singing below the scored register, etc.

whereas, the collaborator would be relatively indifferent to 'objective' reviews of what she did do and what she didn't. the primary concern of the objectivist would be her professional ethics, eg, was it really Cybill or was a substitue sent in her stead; did she stay the allotted time; did she stop to take phone calls; etc.

as long as she were on the up-and-up professionally speaking, i don't care if a hundred transactionalists wrote that she wouldn't belt out "that's why the lady is a tramp" or "ain't nobody's business if i do". based upon my own experience in these matters, i'd still be willing to bet the price of admission that she would knock my socks off.

why? well, it's not really a great mystery, when you think about it. a good jazz performer picks up on the fact that what they're attempting to do is 'working' for me. like any other performer, they play their hardest for listeners who have willingly fallen under their spell -- not for those in the audience who are cynical or indifferent.

<i>I understand that the services a girl will offer may vary. But if I see five reviews that all say "she doesn't kiss", I think it is a logical assumption that she isn't going to kiss me.
My point is that posting details about these services are the best means for any of us to learn what she will or won't do. We can all make our own decisions from there.</i>

but, as the song says, "a kiss is just a kiss".

that's not really the problem. the problem is more like: ~first i boinked her up the butt (uncovered) ... then she sucked me off! a real *pig* -- but for 60 bucks, who cares!?!~

but, okay, a transactionalist absolutely *has* to, *has* to, *has* to know if she will do this or won't do that. fine. the pros and cons of this have been debated endlessly.

but, the longer you are at this, the more likely you are to eventually realize that most escorts didn't get into escorting because they are sexually inhibited. on the contrary, most of them will do almost *anything* if they're in the mood to; and almost *nothing* if they're not. my intuition is that it's not likely that seeing themselves reviewed with a 'checklist of features' (like a Consumer Reports review of power tools for the basement workshop) will increase the likelihood of their wanting to 'bend their rules' a little.

but, i don't want to give away too much. Ozzy might to try to use it to get a gold ranking from the committee ;-)

[Phantom]

God, you give me a spliting headache

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Phantom
God, you give me a spliting headache

[Rufus Moses]

GC, your posts are simply too long. I didn't read the one above.

And I don't want to argue why your romantic/cynic paradigm is
not useful or accurate.

But accepting it just for the moment, it seems to me that there is a simple reason why romantics report more mileage than cynics. Romantics are "the glass is half full" types. Cynics are "the glass is half empty" types. But both are getting the same glass.

[guy catelli]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rufus Moses
[B]GC, your posts are simply too long. I didn't read the one above.

nods

And I don't want to argue why your romantic/cynic paradigm is not useful or accurate.

But accepting it just for the moment, it seems to me that there is a simple reason why romantics report more mileage than cynics. Romantics are "the glass is half full" types. Cynics are "the glass is half empty" types. But both are getting the same glass.

well, actually, part of what i was saying is that i'd like to move beyond the labels "romantics/cynics" because non-Romantics aren't necessarily cynics -- they mite just be tired at the end of a long day ;-)

so, i'm proposing transactionalists (a 'consumer' of certain expected 'services') and collaborativists (a guy who shows up with money in his hand and says, ~hey, baby, let's party!~)

and, my point is that it *isn't* the 'same glass'. in your civilian life, you must know somebody that's been real good to you, but that someone else thinks is a real s.o.b., for whatever reason.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by guy catelli
[B]Ozzy might to try to use it to get a gold ranking from the committee ;-)


guy, my gold ranking.........comes from the ladies. ;)

[Edited by Ozzy on 01-20-2001 at 08:35 PM]

[Thorn]

Guy,

With all due respect, and candor, you are a spectacular example of a man with way too much free time on your hands.

Even so, I wish you well.

[guy catelli]

Originally posted by Ozzy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by guy catelli
[B][B]Ozzy might to try to use it to get a gold ranking from the committee ;-)


guy, my gold ranking.........comes from the ladies. ;)

to whom it may concern:

*that* is an example of "hoisting me by my own petard"!


[Edited by guy catelli on 01-21-2001 at 10:29 AM]