Some people don't have a happy outlook in life and seem to have been born jaded.  Others still get a thrill.  It's the same with guys who hobby, the number of reviews doesn't mean anything.  

Now what's written in reviews says a whole lot more about the guy than the number he's written...

reviews written by gents whom are wishing to schedule time with me. I am looking at a couple of things: What excites him, his interestes, but also how he comes off in his general attitude towards ladies in general. There are some gents (and in this case may use the word rather loosly?) whom the reviews they write show a general derisive attitude towards women in general. Franky that is not the type gent I would wish to spend my time with.
To the question of volume of reviews..... one or two reviews can be extremes but after a track record is established there is more insight into the reviewer so to me a larger number of reviews tell me 2 things: the general attitude of the gent, and in a sence it also tells me that he has seen providers on a somewhat regular basis thus is not likely to be either le or dangerous. Though I still check his references

-- Modified on 5/31/2005 1:01:53 PM

if I were seeing someone who'd written a lot of reviews. Even more so would I be inspired were he to have a fun, interesting writing style such that you display.

Think about it.  Where there's a sexual double standard and a dogma of (female) chastity, there will naturally be an economic premium for anybody who is willing to break the rules.

Let's say there's a society where men suffer little shame from philandering, but women suffer intense shame.  This would naturally lead women to become far more cautious in their philandering.  In modern society, men tend to desire risk while women tend to avoid risk.  This gender differential in risk creates a market, as a monetary incentive creates a reward for a woman to engage in a risky behavior that a man would pay to indulge in.

In extramarital affairs, married women tend to feel no guilt -- guilt is for men.  Why?  Once she has decided to deviate from the rules, she goes all the way, while the lesser consequences for men mean that men don't generally think through the consequences of their actions.  A married woman who is willing to go through the risks involved for the extra sex expects a major reward; she had better, because the risks to her are major.

I had always assumed that part of the price of a provider's service isn't for promiscuity, but the opportunity cost of a woman's chastity.  If it were a man's chastity that were valued and not a woman's, I would expect the gender relations of the hobby to be reversed, with the vast majority of clients being women while providers would be a largely despised class of promiscuous men.  A woman who relies upon the income of a man's promiscuity would be especially hated!

It seems to me that providers prefer men who appreciate what they are willing to do.  After all, the hobby exists because there is a market.

To me, the most interesting aspect of the hobby is its extreme formality and its insistence on protocol.  In fact, much of the allure of a commercial relationship consists of the implicit limits it sets on the behavior of each side.  From the outside looking in, it looks as though the convenience of the hobby comes from a tight script that each side understands very well.  As far as I can tell, it is not only rude to say that a man pays for sex, it is largely inaccurate.  The client pays for protocol, good etiquette, and sharp limits to a relationship whose core identity is "virtual reality" -- an escape from everyday life.

For either the client or the provider to be rude is not merely offensive, but negates the whole point of the hobby.

From my perspective, it's not good to have either too few or too many reviews.

If there are only 1-2, he's still somewhat unproven with regard to the weirdo factor. (Of course there are many men who never review, but as along as they have references that's fine).

When I see hobbyists with more than 40 or 50 reviews, I start wondering about the "bragging" factor. Are these guys a bit insecure and have to show the world they are capable of getting laid?

And for the few guys who have a stratospheric number of reviews, I definitely think there are some psychological problems there. Why the need to brag? It's not as if they conquered the women with their fabulous personalities, LOL.

For the married men with many reviews, in a way I feel sorry for him that his marriage is so unsatisfying sexually that that he must search out many different women for sex.

If he's single with many reviews, I usually wonder if he's very unattractive, a misogynist, or has problems dealing emotionally with women.

Bottom line, for me, a "low review volume" hobbyist is my preference. He's more likely to be well-adjusted emotionally, not be arrogant or jaded, and be more likely to be a regular client instead of rushing off to the next new girl in town.

Re:A question for the ladies. Does the "double standard" hold true here?

I personally don't post a review unless;

A)It's a new girl who has very little to no reviews.

B)The experience I had with a provider is radically different then what a previous review had stated.

C)The provider is a complete and total ripoff.

I usually won't bother posting a review if I see a provider with an abundance of reviews. Let's take a provider like Leslie in koreatown for example. She has several pages of reviews all of which are very consistant so I pretty much know what to expect when I go to see her. If I were to post a review of my time spent with her I don't think I'd be adding anything of sufficient merit to aid my fellow hobbyists in their search for a good time, so I would not bother.