Provider Ratings System

Discussion in 'General Industry Related Topics' started by Carl M, Mar 5, 2001.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Turbo

    Turbo

    Messages:
    24
    Gotta agree with Dicer here. Maybe it's just cause I have been at this a while, but a usual "trust me" from another hobbyist who I have come to respect is all I need. Rarely have I ever been disappointed by that recommendation.
  2. dicer5

    dicer5

    Messages:
    61
    I haven't read through the whole thread, but the idea of a provider rating system on the public boards is probably a bad idea. When people talk about the competitiveness of women, I think most of the time, it's started by the guys(by telling the woman this or that). When women are told or read that they are rated against another woman, competitiveness by some of them will eventually lead to the wars that you guys write about(and how much you despise it). So if you don't want those kind of wars between woman, maybe you're better off not rating a woman in comparison to another.
  3. lisa

    lisa

    Messages:
    54
    oooooohhhhhhhhhhhh

    i think subject has come up before

    how van you rate on the # system everybody has there own likes and dislikes what one hobbist like another maynot then comes the nasty fighting i think if you just continue to write your reviews and how your session went with out putting a # on it things at least on this board would stay alot calmer not like the compition on (tbd)

    but thats just my little old thought
    xoxo
    lisa
  4. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    yes.
  5. littleguy

    littleguy Gold

    Messages:
    2,004
    GC,

    This is nit-picky but I believe The Babe said something like " I had a better year than he had (POTUS)"

    Anyway, it's the lady's choice, nobody is forcing her to do it. She can be in any relatively safe job albeit at much lower pay. That, in itself does not make her "vastly underpaid".

    As stated before and in many places, the law of supply and demand rules. I was down in Florida last week on vacation and was looking for a new car. A car salesman admitted to me that the luxury car market was already softening because of the economy (stock markey). I believe I saw a hobbyist admit that he had been seeing ladies between 3 and 5 times a week (Phew !!!) and had already cut down to between 1 and 3 times a week.

    I don't wish economic harm/recession on anybody (including myself of course) but the next 3-12 months should be very interesting to watch vis-a-vis our hobby, no ?
  6. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    littleguy,

    i hope i don't give you any cause for regret. i have no reason to do so, because your question is a polite and sensible one.

    a long time ago, i read some passages from a book about this thing of ours. it was written from the typical civilian point of view, ie, we clients are 'scum'; the women are all pathetic 'victims' -- you know, the usual routine. but, there was a passage i particularly remember; because, it put a slightly different spin on things. it went something like: ~the paradox is that the men are vastly overpaying (for what they are getting), and the women are vastly underpaid (for what they are giving up).~

    of course, i would strongly disagree with the first assertion. speaking personally, i'm getting from escorts a life that is a joy to live. i don't want to offend any of the civilians who are lurking here; but, let's just say that all of my civilian friends are married -- and, i don't exactly lie awake at night wishing i could trade places with them, if you get my drift.

    looked at from the perspective of what the escorts are receiving, the picture is more ambiguous, imo, than the client side of the equation. i do have to admit, there is something anomalous about certain escorts having a higher annual income than Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg combined ;). but, then, as Babe Ruth is supposed to have said when it was pointed out that his salary was higher than that of the POTUS, "did the President hit sixty home runs in a single season?"

    for that matter, Britney Spears and Alex Rodriguez make much more than brain surgeons and doctors who do heart transplants. but, unlike Supreme Court Justices and skilled surgeons, the best years of an athlete's or performing artist's career tend to be much fewer. and, whereas almost any lawyer or doctor is all but guaranteed a secure middle class existence, the athlete or artist who isn't one of, say, a few hundred 'stars', is pretty much dependent upon teaching gigs, commercial work, etc. (the historic connection between this thing of ours and performing artists is an interesting and fruitful topic for a lengthy discussion of its own. suffice it to say here that it has only been since the early part of the 20th century that performing artists (of either gender) were able to make a living without resort to the generosity of male 'patrons'.)

    up to this point, the parallel between escorts and athletes/performing artists holds. but, there is also a significant divergence that weighs in favor of a financial premium for escorts, over and above the economic value of otherwise similar expenditures of talent, time, and effort.

    whereas athletes and performers are not generally shunned by mainstream society (in fact the latter were shunned, prior to the 20th century, for the reason mentioned above), escorts are subject to severe stigmatization, especially, as noted by an escort elsewhere, by civilian women.

    but, there is a much more important reason why escorts are entitled to a financial premium. whatever the risk of injury to athletes/performers (itself a justification for financial premium), it pales in significance with the risk of disease and violence that escorts are routinely subject to. TBD mentioned that he gets a report of violence to another escort weekly. for a variety of reasons, on both sides of the pillow case, this trend will be exacerbated if the economy continues to stall. and, we are at the upper-middle end of the market. below us lies the abyss.

    in summary, how much is too much for a client to pay for a much happier life? and, how much is too much for an escort to be paid for putting her life and limb at risk?


    [Edited by guy catelli on 03-12-2001 at 04:24 PM]
  7. littleguy

    littleguy Gold

    Messages:
    2,004
    Guy,

    You said "on the whole, escorts are vastly underpaid"

    I know I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis do you believe this is so ?
  8. justme

    justme <i>pop and click tainted</i> Vinyl ( is dead )

    Messages:
    9,566
    I always assumed that most men's problem with the XPOTUS was his taste.

    The women in my life have never been prone to look through my stuff.

    [Edited by justme on 03-08-2001 at 11:48 AM]
  9. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    I think it would be dangerous ground for anyone to try to stand on ethical arguments on this subject.

    i must admit that i am in complete accord with then secretary of state Henry L. Stimson's dictum: "gentlemen do not read each other's mail." see: http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/a...html?query=gentlemen do read each others mail

    however, at the risk of being accused of casuistry, not to mention political incorrectness, the behavior at issue here was not that of a gentleman, but rather of a lady.

    in 'civilian' life, i have had a number of occasions to observe that only the most ill-bred male would invade another man's privacy, much less that of a lady; whereas, it seems that any woman, no matter how well bred, the degree of refinement with which she has been formally educated, or her current position and place in society, believes that it is her birthright with respect to a man, any man, to rifle through his pockets and examine the contents therein, inspect his underwear for 'tell-tale' signs, rummage through his drawers, closets, and medicine cabinet, etc; and, yes, examine his private snail mail and email -- and, where possible, eavesdrop on his private telephone communications.

    how many times have we read a message posted by a client or escort that his wife or s.o. "discovered" incriminating evidence on his computer. as if, she just happened to be walking past the computer and the monitor spontaneously powered up with the incriminating evidence right there onscreen.

    but, on reflection, there may be a certain moral balancing of accounts in this apparent double standard. after all, if every woman is potentially at risk for having The Scarlet Letter affixed to her bosom http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6303977871.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif , is it not requisite that she preemptively assume the role of The Scarlet Pimpernel? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0767015576.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

    and, before this is dismissed out of hand as special pleading, let us consider another instance where the direction in which the moral compass points is dependent upon the gender of the observer. that is, the matter of this thing of ours. from the male point of view, we are merely being 'authentic', following Polonius's admonition that, above all, we be 'true to ourselves'. from the female point of view, it stands as irrefutable proof, as if more were needed, that (in their view) "men are scum!".

    after all, how much difference is there between Bill and the rest of us men, other than resources and opportunity? i'm sure that, in his heart of hearts, he felt that he was being overwhelmingly kind and generous with these ladies. after all, was not his chief spiritual advisor similarly disposed to kindness and generosity? yet, such civilian female sensibility as i have informally polled in this matter takes a dim view of this particular form of male kindness and generosity.

    i'm not saying that i am entirely sanguine about the fact that, from the female point of view, 'the right of privacy' has no applicability to men. i'm only trying to get a better understanding of this fact of life through reflection and dialogue.
  10. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    what i 'see' from this thread are two things, so far:

    1) your tone of belligerence that is wholly disproportionate to the occasion is not the result of my writing style, but rather other 'issues'; and

    2) on the whole, escorts are vastly underpaid.


    [Edited by guy catelli on 03-08-2001 at 03:14 AM]
  11. SkellyChamp

    SkellyChamp

    Messages:
    2,000
    *YAWN* - Serious response to serious issue - How witty.

    GC - If you can't see the obvious difference; more's the pity.
  12. One Eyed Trouser Trout

    One Eyed Trouser Trout #1 Cowboys Fan

    Messages:
    2,071
    Well, it's a pretty feeble minded fool who continues to keep seeing a lady who's bad in the sack, charges more than it's worth, keeps going back hoping the dead fish breathes.

    If a guy says, he'll go back....first timers should get some clue there.

    Oh well....call me dense.
  13. guy catelli

    guy catelli

    Messages:
    478
    [Edited by guy catelli on 03-08-2001 at 04:01 AM]
  14. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    if a tree falls in the woods and no ones there to hear it........is there a noise?



    if providers don't post on jag........ are they there?......


    YOU BET YOUR DAMN ASS THEY ARE!!!!!


    my guess is between 70-90% of ALL internet providers are on or have visited jag. so get used to it.


    KS........i already said i appreciate your honesty, so i won't keep saying it.
  15. K.S.

    K.S.

    Messages:
    223
    *YAWN*

    For one thing, I actually basically respected Jag - I was nosy/curious. Somebody else might not be, and somebody else might cause trouble. C'est la vie!

    If you've got info on providers, do what you feel is best with it.
  16. SkellyChamp

    SkellyChamp

    Messages:
    2,000
    Very disturbing

    It's less a matter of JAG, then it is the principle of disrespecting privacy. I have never felt JAG was secure and it distrubed me that members were granting access to providers and others. But.....

    Disrespect is disrespect and invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy.

    That is a very interesting distinction you draw. Very Nixonesque. Very Big Brotherish.

    So it is OK if I have invaded provider-only forums.
    And it is OK if I have been able to access local police and FBI files on certain providers and hobbyists.

    So it is only disrespectful and an invasion of privacy if you do not disclose anything you read, but not if you go where you are not invited, using false pretenses to get in. Forget JAG, it could be anything.

    Morality, ethics and respect are not things that can only be a matter of convenience if they are to mean anything at all. How can you complain of hobbyists disrespecting providers when you disrespect hobbyists.

    It just doesn't wash.
  17. Slinky Bender

    Slinky Bender The All Powerful Moderator

    Messages:
    19,495
    "My goat is off the market, now"

    You're testing me by throwing up straight lines, aren't you ?

    PS How are you going to communicate with .......oh, nevermind.
  18. K.S.

    K.S.

    Messages:
    223
    I guess I don't care about the ethics of this.

    I wouldn't read someone's diary. But, I don't think I hurt anything by evesdropping on Jag. As I said, I don't think you are allowed to complain about what you hear - that is the burden evesdroppers have to carry.

    I actually don't go over there any more - there's very little posting from what I see and now that they know I'm listening (or think they know, or whatever I mean), then I'd expect them to try and get my goat.

    My goat is off the market, now. No sense giving anybody any freebies.
  19. justme

    justme <i>pop and click tainted</i> Vinyl ( is dead )

    Messages:
    9,566
    but I feel totally entitled to anything I read.

    I never said that we should respect the privacy - If I'm clever enough to get in, then I can read away.


    Umm, so if someone is 'clever enough' to bug your phone lines are the entitled to listen away?

    I think it would be dangerous ground for anyone to try to stand on ethical arguments on this subject.
  20. K.S.

    K.S.

    Messages:
    223
    Sorry, SkellyChamp

    but I feel totally entitled to anything I read.

    I never said that we should respect the privacy - If I'm clever enough to get in, then I can read away.

    However, if something is said in private and I overhear it, then I really can't complain because it wasn't meant for my ears.

    I am always free to learn from what I read, though.

    As for respecting privacy, if I read a post or review that I thought would endanger a provider, I'd tell her about it immediately. I've actually done so on one occasion - not a Jag post, but an SF Redbook post a couple of years back that basically sought revenge for something piddling by compromising the provider's security.