Rev of Ms. XXX or 24 hours in the Twilight Zone?

[ew]

Me too.

I have to do something before, between and after though.

[Ozzy]

EW...

i don't think she knows EXACTLY whats been written....


i had told her a long time ago that a lot of the hurtful stuff on JAG was deleted (i lied). anyone who insist on telling her that it's stil there and it's exact contents is a fucking idiot.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by ew
You got hosed.
She wasn't tired enough to watch TV.

She knew what she did and she was okay with it. The girl deserves anything she gets on this board. It's easy enough to figure out, just look for the thread.

She belongs in the *** equivalent of a bad-provider database. If she got me for an hour or two, no problemo that's what review boards are for. I am not a vindictive person but I would clearly state my displeasure whenever her name comes up forevermore. Afterall, it's the truth.

Bad chemistry? She can FU just fine for an hour but can't when given 24 hours? Give me a break. This is her living. I assume that she would like to think of herself as a professional and, as a professional, you have nothing but your reputation.

EW, above are your posted thoughts before you knew the provides name. Now after learning it was Janelle, your thoughts seemed to have changed and you seem to be defending J and what she did.

Care to explain this change of position?

[Ozzy]

thats because he still see's her......


re: his 12:06 am post on 7/25

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Ozzy
thats because he still see's her......

And that's one of the reasons I did not reveal her real name in my opening post on this thread.

[Edited by Phantom on 07-25-2001 at 09:50 AM]

[Humble Narrator]

JC: I understand your condition, but finally feel compelled to tell you that not everyone here shares it with you.

I find it particularly distasteful that given your constant self-flagellation that you continue to pontificate on the nature of hobbyists and providers in such a way as to virtually declare us all amoral, insensate, emotionally crippled creatures. Perhaps these apply to you, but certainly not to me and probably not to many if not most of us here.

Perhaps a hiatus from the board AND the hobby is in order. I don't for one second believe that you think your posts are helping anyone else. They are simply self-serving, back-handed insults laced into a pseudo-lecture on your perceived sadly romantic plight.

What I mean to say here is that if you really believe ANY of what you say, you shouldn't be here. I'm not telling you what to do, just making an observation.

Phantom: Shame on you.

My first post in this thread ended with the statement that there is probably more to this story. When you asked for "unbiased" comments, what you really wanted was "uninformed" comments. Your story should have included comments to the effect that "Sara was known to be unreliable, unbalanced and likely suffering from several psychological disturbances." How different would our comments have been had you included that one sentence!

SB: SK too: I love the hobby. I have made some genuine friends among providers, but have never become involved romantically. Unlike some of our group, I do not view my adventures as romantic. Sex is not Romance! Nor is sex the primary symbol of intimacy.

Intimate discourse, acts of altruism, genuine care and concern shown through self-sacrifice, these are the greatest acts of intimacy. These have very little, if anything to do with the hobby.

[beep9]

Originally posted by Phantom

<snip>

EW, above are your posted thoughts before you knew the provides name. Now after learning it was Janelle, your thoughts seemed to have changed and you seem to be defending J and what she did.

Care to explain this change of position? [/B]

I can't speak for ew, but I have some suspicions. Someone posted in another thread somewhere here that anyone who saw Janelle at this point was doing so on the basis of bad reviews or ignorance (not having seen the relatively recent bad reviews). Since ignorance is not the case here, ew could be asking what in hell was expected? Did someone think he was a knight in shining armor to solve this girl's problems? Did the princess want to be rescued (It doesn't sound like it).

Review: J's performance was unanimated and detached.
Complaint: I read the reviews, saw J, and I was robbed: she took my money and was unanimated and detached.


[Edited by beep9 on 07-25-2001 at 09:57 AM]

[SkellyChamp]

HumbleN - I wasn't attacking or even per se commenting on yours or anyone else's motivation or reason for "hobbying". I was simply expounding on mine. I said I've met some very nice women who in a different setting, life or time I could become friendly with (or more - who knows). But for me it is simply about sex, plain and simple (well, hopefully not too plain or too simple). No romance, no friendship, no control, no romance, no illusion of romance. If you or anyone or everyone else gets what they want out of your involvement, more power to you.

[Phantom]

HN,

So now I'm to blame for everything that happened?

What did I expect when I booked J. I expected what I have gotten from numerous other escorts who I've booked for extended dates. Several hours of sexually activity, nothing more. I expected a basic level of service from a girl who makes her living doing sexually acts for guys in exchange for money. I believe YMMV only comes into play for services above and beyond a basic level of service. YMMV had nothing to do with what happened or did not happen.

It really makes me wonder what agenda you guys have who criticized "Sara", but who are now defending J.

[Humble Narrator]

Originally posted by SkellyChamp
HumbleN - I wasn't attacking or even per se commenting on yours or anyone else's motivation or reason for "hobbying". I was simply expounding on mine. I said I've met some very nice women who in a different setting, life or time I could become friendly with (or more - who knows). But for me it is simply about sex, plain and simple (well, hopefully not too plain or too simple). No romance, no friendship, no control, no romance, no illusion of romance. If you or anyone or everyone else gets what they want out of your involvement, more power to you.

We're on the same page.

I included you with SB because it seemed that the three of us were in the minority together. I didn't mean to give the impression that you were in the "other" group. Sorry if I did.

[SkellyChamp]

HN - My error. I re- read your post and guess interpreted it wrong the first time. Guess I'm in violation of one of Slinky's 10 commandments. I will bind myself to a golden provider and descend into the depths of hell. Once again and again and again.

[Humble Narrator]

Originally posted by Phantom
So now I'm to blame for everything that happened?

What did I expect when I booked J. I expected what I have gotten from numerous other escorts who I've booked for extended dates. Several hours of sexually activity, nothing more. I expected a basic level of service from a girl who makes her living doing sexually acts for guys in exchange for money. I believe YMMV only comes into play for services above and beyond a basic level of service. YMMV had nothing to do with what happened or did not happen.

It really makes me wonder what agenda you guys have who criticized "Sara", but who are now defending J.

1 - Of course you are not to blame for everything, but you are to blame for ignoring history. After all, isn't that one of the main reasons we have this board in the first place? To determine ahead of time who will and will not provide what we want is certainly one of my main goals for being here.

2 - The past is the greatest predictor of the future, plus or minus 15%. I can't imagine anyone expecting good service from J based on the reviews I have seen. Your statements that you expected the same thing you've received from other providers when booking for extended periods seems to ignore all the evidence. Even EW doesn't really give her ringing endorsements.

3 - YMMV means YMMV. I don't think it implies there will be some fixed baseline of service, above which YMMV. I would be interested in how others interpret this ubiquitous caveat.

4 - I have no agenda per se. I don't know J other than what I have seen here, nor do I know you other than what you post. I stand by my last post wherein I state that your ommission of crucial details about "Sara" was a smokescreen. You can't consider the earlier responses as valid given that you left out vital information about her.

Frankly, most of what was said about "Sara" was fair and reasonable, but in light of the condition of the provider (not the identity as such) I think everyone's comments would have been different or at least more expansive.

[Edited by Humble Narrator on 07-25-2001 at 11:03 AM]

[TuckernotSucker]

I am grateful that I saw her at her best. Not so grateful for seeing her at her worst (duly reported here months ago).
I feel bad for Phantom. But also feel bad for the guys her agency sends her out to for $1200. per hour.

[justlooking]

Questions for Phantom

1. Did you ever actually ask Janelle for a refund? If you did, what did she say?

2. Did you ever tell Janelle that you were unsatisfied with the level of service she gave you? If so, what did she say?

[Edited by justlooking on 07-25-2001 at 11:26 AM]

[Phantom]

The past is the greatest predictor of the future, plus or minus 15%. I can't imagine anyone expecting good service from J based on the reviews I have seen. Your statements that you expected the same thing you've received from other providers when booking for extended periods seems to ignore all the evidence. Even EW doesn't really give her ringing endorsements.

I was told by someone who has seen J and had a good time with that the way to get good sevice from her was to treat her nicely and to treat her like a real woman, not just as an object of lust. That's what I did

YMMV means YMMV. I don't think it implies there will be some fixed baseline of service, above which YMMV. I would be interested in how others interpret this ubiquitous caveat.

If you schedule time with an escort, either for an hour or 24 hours, you can expect certain things to happen. You will give her money in exchange for sexually acts. You can and should expect a basic level of service from a woman who provides sex in exchange for money. The enthusiasm that she shows or doesn't show while performing the basic level of service is YMMV.

I have no agenda per se. I don't know J other than what I have seen here, nor do I know you other than what you post. I stand by my last post wherein I state that your ommission of crucial details about "Sara" was a smokescreen. You can't consider the earlier responses as valid given that you left out vital information about her.

I did not deliberately leave out "crucial details". I'm not perfect, I'm only human and I make mistakes. You know if she would have given just a little more effort and performed even a couple of basic acts that one would expect from an escort I would never have written this my review of her, but she did next to absolutely nothing

[Phantom]

Originally posted by justlooking

1. Did you ever actually ask Janelle for a refund? If you did, what did she say?

No and I don't intend to. I'm just going to take it as the law of averages catching up to me and put it behind me. There has been other times that I've posted info that was not very well received by cetain people, but it was important info that I felt other guys needed to know in order to make the best informed decisions. This is one of those times.

2. Did you ever tell Janelle that you were unsatisfied with the level of service she gave you? If so, what did she say?

I never told J outright that I was totally unsatisfied with her level of service. I'm sure she knew, because if she didn't why when I dropped her off in NYC did she say, "I'm sorry things did not work out the way you had hoped". That statement alone says to me that she was aware of my displeasure in the complete lack of even basic service.


[Edited by Phantom on 07-25-2001 at 11:50 AM]

[justme]

As much as JC's posts are a different voice and represent a different viewpoint, I appreciate their presence on the board. While I agree that by his own logic, his partaking in commercial sex seems to be somewhat self defeating I still see that he might benefit from the discussion that goes on here. Having read his opinions for close to a year, I can also say that his perception on these endeavors has changed over that period of time.

His posts are certainly inflamatory, but I think they seldom cross whatever mental line SB has on propriety (again, APM, please correct me if I'm wrong). I do think, however, that beth's post went way over that line.

I'd be pretty disturbed if he felt like he was run off UG for having an unpopular viewpoint.

[Bill Furniture]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and some may agree with it while others may disagree.

[pswope]

Phantom
As you would probably agree,I've never had any conflict with you before nor even commented on your behavior as a client. Thus please take the following in the spirit of constructive criticism.
You appear to occupy a unique position as a client and your behavior,as far as I've observed has been honorable. Indeed,you've shown remarkable generosity to providers,a fact that has been noted by many of them.
That being said,your statement that your motive for beginning this thread is to inform other prospective clients of the pratfalls of seeing this lady,strikes a false chord for me.
The serious frailities of this particuliar provider have been well documented on popularly read public commercial sex boards for a long time. Thus, her conduct on your date,while clearly wrong,should have come as no surprise to you or any other client ,who seeks providers through the internet.Clearly,there was no great salutary purpose to adding another chapter to her already sad legend.

Moreover, as there are always two sides to every story,it seems even more unfair to have started this thread knowing,she would not respond. Isn't it possible,that you sent off certain explicit or implicit cues,that provoked her behavior and thus would provide an explanation for it?
For example,if you maybe sent a message that you were looking for more than a typical provider-client relationship,you may have scared her.
While the provider was clearly wrong in her behavior,your answers to justlooking's questions suggest that you bear alot of responsibility for what happened.
While it's palpably unreasonable for her to expect that a desultory bj would suffice for a weekend date,your failure directly address this or ask for some type of financial adjustments implicates you in the result,as well.
Given what you knew about the unstable nature of this lady before your date,was it reasonable to expect her to volunteer a refund? or ask if you wanted more sex?

I know that your behavior in this thread isn't maleovently motivated,but you should re-examine it in the hopes of improving your batting average.

[Humble Narrator]

Originally posted by justme
His posts are certainly inflamatory, but I think they seldom cross whatever mental line SB has on propriety

<snip>

I'd be pretty disturbed if he felt like he was run off UG for having an unpopular viewpoint.

Perhaps you are alluding to posts other than mine, but in light of the chronology, I might assume you are speaking to me. If so, let me say emphatically I am NOT trying to silence anyone.

JC is a big boy and can and does make his own decisions. My note to him was an effort to point out some inconsistencies and to say, somewhat indelicately perhaps, that he should consider a hiatus. This was suggested not because of the relatively low popularity of his positions, but due to his own rationale about hobby involvement. If he sincerely feels that this activity is deleterious to him and others, then by all means, he should seek alternatives. To try and convince the rest of us that his self-assessment can be generalized to the entire hobbyist population is an activity that I find distasteful.

Hopefully everyone will decide for themselves what has value here and what does not.

[Slinky Bender]

One note about the Judge's posts:

More than anyone else on this board ( or just about any other board anywhere ), he has taken the heaping of venomous criticisms about his controversial view without responding in kind, flaming, etc. While he may say things which are both controvesial, and a lot of folks may find offensive, there is little evidnce that most of the statments are geared towards the personl infliction of pain on any particular person. In fact, it seems that every time someone has taken a personal offense at any of his views, even when they were not aimed at that person, Crater has appologised for even that. I wish I could say the same for everyone here ( myself included ).

If we were to simply ban all unpopular speach, this would become a very boring place very quickly. While i do not agree with a lot of what he says "I defend to the death his right to say it". Freedom of speach isn't about defending the rights of people to say things you agree with.

Yes, some of the things he says are offensive. yes, a lot of what he says is talking about himself, rather than others; but if that is so obvious, why is is so hard to take ? The only reason to be offended when you know he's talking about himself is if there is some kernal of truth in it for you. When I disagree with him because I think his facts or logic are flawed, I have said so here ( in fact, I think there was one thread where I said so about 4 separate times ). But that's how adults have conversations on issues, not simply by trying to "shout the other side down".

We all have our "issues" and JC has his. Perhaps Humble Narrator is correct, and he should go on "hiatus", but I also think that is stictly his own decesion. I also don't think there is anything "wrong" with him bouncing these concepts off the folks on this board. perhaps he is simply feeling these concepts out and wants to hear the counter arguments from an intelligent and informed group ( after all, where else is he going to be able to have a conversation with a people who are not going to go into it with the assumption that the whole area is "wrong". Wouldn't that taint any possibilty of having a meanigful discourse, no matter what the real issues were ? ).

[Slinky Bender]

As far as Phantom and this thread:

Since I can not get inside his head, I will never know his motives. However, if ( and this is a big if ) he never intended to disclose the provider's name, and did so simply because of the demands made to do so in the course of the thread, it is hard to assign malice towards Sara as a motive ( obviously, we will never know the answer to this, barring an admission from him ).

That notwithstanding, I really don't see what this "story" has to do with much as it pertains to other members. I don't see how it wil change anyone's opinion of her, and as such I find it hard to get excited about the effects on her. Do we think that there were folks who were going to see her right up until the point that they read this, and now will forego seeing her ? I highly doubt that !!!! Was someone else planning on seeing her for 24 hours for $2K who had never seen her before ??? While I highly doubt it, then this "story" is not wasted.

I guess, to some extent, what it boils down to for me is:

1) Do we think that Phantom is lying ? If no, then I don't think there is anything so highly inflamatory in his post which makes his having made it "wrong".

2) Is "Sara" now some "sacred cow" that nothing should even be posted about her ? I personally don't think so. She takes dates, gets booked thru an agency which has her photo on the web, etc.

3) Is Phantom a total innocent here ? Obviously not, but I don't see him jumping up and down claiming to be one, either ( unless I am missing something ).

4) I think cautionary tales are one of the reasons to read "the boards". If anyone learned anything fom this, then it was worthwhile. And i hope at least someone ho had thought about booking an extended visit with someone whom they had never seen before did learn something fo this.

5) Similary, I hope that some will also learn that, as in most "relationships", whatever happened to others will happen to them, and they are being silly when they think, well, I know that happened to him, but I'm different and it won't go that way with me.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by pswope
but you should re-examine it in the hopes of improving your batting average.

pswope,

Would it surprise you that based solely on seeing someone for the first time for a 24 hour date (which have been the vast majority of my "dates") and have it be very enjoyable my batting average is .923?

Thank you for the rest of your thoughful comments.

[SkellyChamp]

Slinky

Here here to your two prior posts.

It is very clear, at least to me, that JC's views (many of which I have stated I do share tho perhaps not to his extreme or would espouse in the manner he does) while posited as "generalizations" are clearly expressed as being his own. He has not sought to impose them on anyone but merely give expression to them here (and on JAG under his other guise) where they should and could at least be heard if not understand to whatever degree. His right to "unburden" himself should be encouraged not discouraged.

As for Phantom, he clearly indicated up front that he would disclose who he was talking about. I don't think the fact that he didn't disclose it was Janelle (notwithstanding everyones apparent knowledge of her unstable nature - and isn't it interesting that everyone tends to refer to her as J rather than just saying her name - seems to me to be a residual effect from the positngs on JAG earlier this year) was necessarily germane to what he was asking as a general principle. Obviously, given her "problems" Phantom bore a greater risk of something not going right and that is a risk he should have and possibly did consider. If it did happen then that was his risk and problem. I found his question to be more of a general one and to that extent he got valuable insight and answers. I don't know Phantom from squat and it is quite obvious to me that he and I have polar opposite views of our "hobby" but I saw nothing evil or duplicituous in the way or what he posted here. And Slinky is right, if even one person benefited from the thread I find it worthwhile.

[Slinky Bender]

"Slinky is right"

Note to providers: this is Slinkybender's idea of foreplay.

[Hotpuppy]

Thats Hall of Fame( more on this in the future) numbers. Just curious , how did you arrive at that figure?
ever curious HP

[Slinky Bender]

Didn't he say it was 12 out of 13 ??????

[Phantom]

Over the past 5 years I've seen 13 different escorts for 24 hours or longer dates were I have never seen them before for a shorter time. 12 great experiences, 1 bad one. Since I tend to become a regular of one or two different women, only with the best of the 12 I became a regular with. 6 absolutely incredible women. Any one of which if I had to choose just one it would be very, very difficult, but I'd be completely satisfied with any one of those 6.

Maybe that's why the date with J was the bad one, it was the 13th.

[Edited by Phantom on 07-25-2001 at 03:32 PM]

[Hotpuppy]

Phantom,check your anon. email
HP

[Hotpuppy]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Didn't he say it was 12 out of 13 ??????

SB,
I can barely add much less do %
HP