Though I suspect someone has made it before.
I'm just wondering if that the observation is about some largely one-off cases or if you think this is some endemic problem with the TER community or reviewers or K-girl reviewers everywhere. If it is really just some one-off cases did it even need to be made, given the OP is really about a situation that skirts, if not crosses, the line of trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Related to the OP, several years back the K-talent agencies got a bit of a slap down on one of their contract terms. As the game was to have a "product" with a particular look and feel, most of those in the training programs were required to have cosmetic surgery to meet the desired look. There were other things like housing (very controlled settings) and of course the training (voice, dance) and I suspect some other things (wardrobe perhaps) the agencies were footing the bill for. The contracts called for (IIRC) repayment of three times the invested amount if the trainee didn't make the cut.
I don't recall a good description of just what was considered investment versus normal business cost the company could not attempt to recoup but the terms about a multiple were definitely rules exploitative and unenforceable. But clearly fit right into the story line of the OP here. I often wondered, after reading the story, if some of the K-girls touring here were paying off such debts. My guess would be most would be working in the Seoul salons and only here once the primary debt recouped.
Know the topic of our wonderful KGirls debts in Korea have come up.
Found this article incredibly enlightening on how the plastic surgery industry and sex industry collude with each other to get these poor girls buried into loans.
-- Modified on 4/22/2021 9:20:40 PM
I wonder how their debt "travels" if they come to the US. Are they safe as long as they don't return home? Do the agencies here collude with the loan sharks there?
Girls from S Korea can come for 90 days on the visa wavier program. Technically the are supposed to return home after that. Failure to do so could leave them ineligible for future visits. Though given the current political climate, I'm not sure anyone in the federal government cares about borders anymore.
I'm wondering the same thing and I don't think LP answered your Q, so I'll repeat it in other words. Can a K-girl escape her debt in SK by leaving the country? ... leaving SK to go to the US (or Australia, etc.) and try to stay there, legally or illegally?
.
Do the SK loan sharks have contacts in the US to help them recover the debt or put the K-girl in fear? Do the SK loan sharks go after the expat K-girl's family still in SK to recover the debt?
I wonder how their debt "travels" if they come to the US. Are they safe as long as they don't return home? Do the agencies here collude with the loan sharks there?
This one most definitely has a ring of truth to it.
That said, a successful hardworking K-Girl in the US can not only work her way out of debt, but can emerge on the other side quite financially secure if she plays her cards right.
much the same way, but they are not focused on working girls. Anyone who speaks Korean can become a customer. Terms are simple. You borrow money in $10,000 increments, and then pay it back at $1000 a WEEK for 13 weeks. Of course, the interest rate is usurious, but these lenders are not part of the legitimate financial community. Lol
Bad things can happen if you don't pay on time, and interest accumulates on top of interest, so a Kgirl (or anyone else) that gets behind may soon find herself in a downward spiral with nearly all of her weekly earnings going to the loan sharks. Being more than one day late adds another week at $1000 to the term of the loan. Many girls take this hit when they are off a week for their period and can't make the payment on time.
I learned about this when I discovered that a Kgirl I was dating several years ago was in debt to the Ktown loan sharks because she borrowed money to pay her gambling debts at the casino. I found out about it because she could not see me Friday nights after work because she had to drive from OC to Ktown to make the loan payment. When she fessed up, I immediately cancelled the trip I was planning to Las Vegas. Lol
every Friday night after she finished work. You missed out on a lot of OTC time - all you had to do was pay off her debt to the loan shy.
But you didn't pay off her debt because you didn't really give a shit about her as a person. All you're interested in is how much OTC time you can wring out of a K-girl. And you really don't trust K-girls at all. You think they'll move to a different city and change their name or even go back to Korea to screw you out of being repaid. And of course you'd be right.
I had an ATF who owed about 10K to the IRS...talk about loan sharks! I paid her debt and she repaid me not only in sessions but with other benefits that made the amount I paid the IRS seem like a mere bagatelle. You're cheap as well as being a moron.
If she can't pay it back?? What happens then??..hummm.
For those who follow me, I had a monger mentor; he passed away seven years ago...
Between 2003 - 2006, I faithfully sessioned at an AMP called 'Westside' on Shattuck Ave in Berkeley. That's where I met my beloved Suzi from which I got my Alias Twoontuesday. For Suzi and the crew, two pm on Tuesday was the slowest time of the week. Suzi told me the other girls were jealous of her because I was her two hour devoted regular...I have not since done two hour appointments with an RA with the notable exception of Kun Gumiho.
Hey Twoon! What's your point?!?!
Suzi told me she was in deep debt and that's why she was a kgirl RA. Heavy debt...she didn't try to shake me down but I would have been susceptible in the end...
My monger mentor gave me many pieces of advice. One of them being mind my own business and let the working girls / orgs mind theirs.
This advice has kept me out of alot of trouble in hindsight. And I gladly share here with you now, my monger brothers.
YEMV
-- Modified on 4/25/2021 1:06:08 PM
once you cross the line and acquire a taste for Kgirl drama, you become more susceptible to mixing her business with yours. Sounds like you've had some close calls, but have not had the big sting pulled on you yet. Lol
Did you ever do Ruby? I found her at King's in SF and followed her to Rainbow, Double Dragon, Empire and then to Westside and a sister spa on San Pablo near University. Put gallons of cum in that one.
sag
Yup
3 years worth
She lives in the City and works weekends at an AMP in Suisun City.
Ooh! Do tell, which amp? I'd love to see her even tho she must be getting up there in age...
sag
Personally, I don't really care why they are doing this and how much, if any, debt they accumulated. They are doing a service job and I'm focusing on the service aspect.
I've seen it used in appeal to emotion arguments though, where being in debt was used as justification for the "don't give negative reviews" / "you should give a positive review" argument. Ie, she needs business and if she doesnt get business, mongers who "don't play nicely" by promoting her will be directly responsible for her predicament.
Which to me is just a bunch of bs and very disrespectful to the mongers.
Here is an example of how review manipulation is justified by K-girls and non K-Girls alike.
Sorry CDL, but I gave you fair warning. I believe Rocket is going to take you out the woodshed on this one and he will have my full support.
not say I supported this kind off behavior on the part of providers, we are agreeing that its a bad practice for hookers to do this. I posted about it to inform members that it exists. In fact, I do NOT go along with this, but that doesn't mean the providers don't do it. Its bad form to condemn the messenger because you don't like the message.
I don't think Rocket is stupid enough to try to take me to the woodshed for merely providing information in response to a post from another monger. Since he has your "full support" are you saying I should have withheld the information and keep to myself rather than sharing it on the board? Are you saying there are things that don't deserve to be shared? Please note that I said absolutely nothing in support of this kind of behavior, only that it exists, and it DOES exist. Other posters joined in to say it happened to them.
You should have read my post you are quoting a few more times and make sure you understood it before making the false accusation that I "support" this behavior. You really stepped on your dick this time. In fact, our mutual friend Nick called you out for it. Link below.
Or at least he has ever since TDS has rotted what little is left of his brain.
As for your "condoning" such behavior, to mention it so matter of factly without condemning it amounts to a tacit approval. The poster in question was only guilty of being honest in his reviews, comments such as yours tend to make otherwise honest reviewers scared to write an honest, but harsh review in fear of being blacklisted by hookers exactly like what happened to this guy. Not condemning such behavior only serves to legitimize it. You and Rocket both need to re-read your post with that thought in mind. As for Nick, I couldn't possibly care less what he has to say, his mind is mush and he can barely remember what he said only a few minutes after saying it.
you have ever posted here. Congrats.
So in your new woke world, silence is construed to mean whatever YOU say it means? That's a very Progressive stance for a guy like you. Lol
I agree it applies to all working girls.
About the link you posted, I didn't see cdl condoning such behavior there. Or at least I didn't see the implication, if there was any.
and then read it one more time if necessary, or even two or three more times if you have to. lol
CDL does everything but tell the guy he needs to go on the "CDL scale" of a 7-10 scoring system where even the worst providers still get a 7 from him in order not to get blacklisted by hookers who are more concerned about their TER rating than making their customers happy. Not a word of criticism about their bad behavior, just a lecture about giving out low scores no matter how well deserved.
Read his post again, and I am positive you will see what I am talking about.
into my post that is not there. Since you are posting this on two different boards, I already responded on the GD board, and here's a link to that response, which covers what you are saying here.
What did I say specifically to TELL the guy he needs to go on the CDL scale? I didn't even mention my "scale" on that thread until YOU just brought it up in a desperate bid to not look like a moron. You're just grasping at straws now trying to rehabilitate a stupid post on your part. When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. My scale is accurate, consistent and honest, as explained on the other thread, and I defy anyone to explain how the TER 1-10 scale is a better option for maintaining these three attributes over many years of reviewing. Here's the link . . .
CDL, I was with you in that I didn't see you condoning the actions (I also didn't you see frown upon them but thats another story) and I still did not see them when GaG told me to reread your post.
.... until you brought up your scale again and repeated the usual "no need to beat her up with a four" nonsense.
A truthful review doesn't beat anyone up. It assigns a score that is on a scale. Also, how you arrive to a conclusion that a 4 out of a 10 point scale is the same as a 7 out of your three point scale, is beyond me.
Not to mention that a three point scale is extremely condensed and barely differentiates between very good, great and legendary - and on the other side, between below average, bad and some of the worst ever.
It's ironic that you usually talk condescendingly about culture(s) that get(s) offended easily, and yet you deem it offensive and akin to beating someone up when someone gives a four out of 10 score.
The number gymnastics is just to make the girls appear better than they really are,isnt it?
A seven doesn't sound as bad as a four or "thumbs down" - but in fact it's just window dressing - but for whom? Is it the same gymnastics when people don't want to call a girl fat or old?
If, in fact, a seven might make a guy still see a girl, but a four will certainly will not, and you consider seven someone you usually will not recommend, who exactly are you helping out with such scores? Open question, and I guess this is what GaG was leading up to.
Also - you used a fallacy to bring up GaGs reviews into the discussion. Not cool.
that I'm betting cannot specifically quantify the difference between a 4 and a 5, or a 5 and a 6, or a 6 and a 7, service-wise, I will just say to you if my scoring system using only three catogories, Average, Below Average and Above Average is too difficult for you to manage, then don't rely on my reviews when seeing Kgirls. I have PM'd a lot of reviewers over the years over their scoring inconsistencies by asking, did you really think Girl B who you just saw was better than girl A, a near legend, that you saw four months ago? Most will walk it back and say they didn't mean to suggest that, but its too late to change scores on the review post-approval. My system is designed to provide Accuracy, Consistency and Honesty in my reviews as far as service goes. Looks are subjective anyway, so dong the same for appearance works, too.
Basically, if I give a 7, you may want to pass. There is no need to go below that. It just confuses the issue. If I give a girl a 7 and don't recommend her, would it make any difference if I said she was a 4? Now who's talking nonsense? A DNS recommendation is the same regardless of the numerical score. You remind me of the old comedian who's schtick was to say, "She was really bad." Then the audience yells out, "How bad was she?" And then the punch line, "She was soooo bad that . . . . ." If a girl is bad, does it really influence your decision to now just HOW bad she was, or is "bad" good enough? Since you have so many disappointing sessions, maybe a little bit bad is still a girl you would see. That would make you an outlier as mongers go. Most of us will just pass on girls that are below average.
I don't blame reviewers for coming off as arbitrary and capricious in their scoring, I blame the system. Its too broad. My system allows me to communicate a more reliable experience to my fellow mongers, and the feedback I get in PM's more than justifies its use. I will soldier on in my continuing quest for the utmost in accuracy, consistency and honesty, thank you.
-- Modified on 4/28/2021 6:14:07 AM
You replied to my post, but you did not really reply to my question.
You yourself referred to a score of four as "beating up".
Now you ask me what is the difference - clearly, the difference is that that you consider a 4 "beating up" and 7 as not beating up.
It also helps keeping girls scores higher artificially, since you yourself said you use TER average scores to figure which girl is good or not.
So, many others probably also consider a 4 much worse than a 7. And a monger will likely be much more wary of a 4 than a 7, which is above average via a ter scale.
So I'll repeat again, who are you really afraid to offend? If you weren't, you wouldn't use the phrase of "beating up with a four". If there was no difference to you, you wouldn't use that phrasing. Clearly to me, you want to make the girl look better even when you don't recommend her. Ie, soften the blow, aka don't want to "beat her up with a four".
And yes, there is a vast difference between below average and awful. Below average has a set amount of redeeming qualities. Awful is a total waste of time and money.
But I forget, I'm talking to someone who thinks sex is good even when it's bad just because it's sex.
MY question. Let's try it again . . . . Knowing that a 7 from me is below average and a DNS recommendation, would you consider that to be a girl you would see any more than you would a girl with a 4 from another reviewer? Its a yes or no question. Lets see if you can answer it.
How about going through the numbers of 2-7, and telling us what the difference is FOR YOU, giving specifics as to how her performance, menu, and other aspects of her service fits into each number. If you can't do it, then you cannot be accurate or consistent over time. This has been a continuing problem across review sites, not just this one. There is a clear line for me between Above Average, Average, and Below Average. I find that MOST reviewers can easily distinguish in their minds between these three levels, but very few can cite specifics about why they gave a girl a certain numerical score once you get into the six and below range. That's why there are glaring inconsistencies within a single reviewer's review history. The farther back you go, the more inconsistent it gets when compared his present scores. There are many reviewers who can keep their scores consistent using more numbers than I do, but the majority cannot.
Do you want to take my challenge, or just post more of your generalized deflections from this main point that I have been repeating? If you think the 1-10 point system is better, then explain WHY.
I already have done this, replying to you specifically a year ago to one of our initial pms. Check out my pm on 5/20/20 for detailed explanation on what differentiates a 5 from a 7
But I can do it again, no problem with that. I enjoy the act of categorization and reviewing and grading.
Here's me quoting myself on what I wrote about ter in another site:
TER also has a 10 point system but since 10 (for performance) is reserved for super extras and she has to be at least 2 if she didn't rob.... its effectively a 2 to 9 scale for kgirls. It works well too imo
1 is a rob
2 is terrible with no redeeming qualities, woat type of session
3 is quite bad, but with some redeeming qualities
4 is below average, but much closer to average than not
5 is slightly below average to average
6 is average to slightly above average
7 is good
8 is great
9 is one of best out right now
10 is GOAT territory
When you cram most girls into three points, then you lose differentiation between them imo. Or you have to introduce the IGN scale and deal with decimal numbers like 9.1 9.3 9.6 and so on.
If you want detailed specifics of what each number means, let e know.
You are yet to answer my question though. Who are you trying to protect and not offend?
The wording of "beating up with a four" implies four is a terrible grade and akin to beating up. You told me there's no difference,when clearly you know that people treat 4 and 7 very differently. If here's no difference, wouldn't you have no problem with rating her a 4 our of 10?
So, again, who are you trying to not offend? Rhetorical question,really. And the question is, why? Do you feel bad for not recommending them? Do you want the orgs/girls not get mad at you?
A lot of DC folks at least admitted openly they would not write bad reviews so that kgirls wouldn't lose business, so they could benefit in the long run (at expense of others, of course).
I'm waiting for your response. Thanks. Maybe you'll say you consider a low score "hurting" the girl, and you wouldn't want to do that - which will go against your honest reviews statement - but at least it will be truthful.
answer my questions, so I will move on and simply thank you for the excellent example you gave to prove my point. On YOUR scale, by definition, YOU don't know when you are giving a 5 if a girl is below average or average. Likewise, you don't know when you give a 6 if the girl is average or above-average, yet you cover the entire range of below average, average and above average with only two numbers. If you are giving the scores, and YOU can't make the distinction, how do you expect other mongers to make sense of your scores when your system is not accurate? For most of us, the difference between average and above average is often the determinative factor in whether to see or not see a particular girl. You have blurred that distinction by making them both a 6. Further, how is a reader supposed to know where good and great begin and end and how they compare to above-average. All of this vague terminology just adds to the confusion for guys trying to make sense of your reviews. I want to know going in if I'm going to be seeing a girl who is average or above-average, and a 6 does not tell me which I'm getting by your definition. If you gave a girl a 5 because she is average, she might be a girl I would want to still see, but how do I know from the 5 you gave her that she's NOT below average, since you lump the two together in one number. This is my point, and even though you don't want to admit it, you have just proved it. Thank you for your input.
Wtf? It is YOU who doesn't wanna answer my question.
I asked it first - and instead of answering it, you answered it with a question. I was kind enough to answer you when you asked me about differentiation, and now you say I didnt answer your question. Wow. Maybe GaG was right after all. You are being completely dishonest.
Again - you claim there is no difference between a seven and a four to you, but yet you claim giving a four is "beating up" on a girl. You contradict yourself there. Badly. Clearly, there's a difference to you there. And you know why? Because to most, including you, a four looks WORSE than a SEVEN on a ten point scale.
Answer the question - if four is the same as seven to you why did you call it "beating up on a girl"? Isn't then by your logic, a seven also "beating up on a girl"?
The answer is simple - you'd rather protect the girl and her business by softening the blow, being diplomatic and all that jazz.
And here's how it relates to the topic on hand - I don't give a shit if a girl is in debt and she has to pay it asap, I don't care what the consequences of ym review will be for her business or org , Im gonna review the session exactly as it happened, truthfully and in details.
If the girl was a two or a four or a five, it's not beating up - that's what she scored. Tough luck. And that's my approach to reviews of any service in the world. Don't give a shit if it's a working girl or a car technician, a doctor or anyone else. It can be my kinfolk or my friends. I evaluate business on business merit.
Now, I'm not saying your scale or approach should be the same as mine. Everyone got their own. Just admit your hypocrisy regarding the whole four is the same as seven, but four is bearing the girl up yet seven isn't. Admit youre protecting the girls and org biz.
-- Modified on 4/28/2021 11:43:58 PM
explanation for why you use only ONE number each for both below average and average, and average and above average. You're night right, if the girl gets a 2 or 4 or 5, that's not what she scored, that's what you gave her, and because of your inconsistent list above, we have no idea what it means.
There is no ambiguity in MY system, there is a ton of it in yours. If you see an 8 on one of my reviews, you KNOW you are getting an average Kgirl session. If you see a 7, you KNOW that you see her at your own risk, I'm NOT recommending her. What do we KNOW from any of your numbers. You've made a list, but you left yourself weasel-room on just about every number. You are proving to every one here that your reviews are unreliable and of no help in ascertaining with a reasonable degree of certainty what she will be like when we walk into the incall, unless she is a 2 or 3. Everything is ambiguous.
I think it's impossible to quantify the differences in scoring as it's subjective. I haven't really had to use the full scale, but I will say that I treat a "7" as average and worthy of seeing as long as you keep your expectations muted. I treat a "5" as a DNS. I just don't see the benefit to mongers to limit the range of your scale. Even if you use your 7-10 scale and explain the reasoning behind your scoring in your review, you're still doing a disservice to those who aren't familiar with your personal scale as well as the girl's scoring average.
As far as using a broader scoring scale leading to scoring inconsistencies, I'm not sure that follows, as few mongers are keeping track of a single reviewer's reviews over time. I'd wager most of them isolate and treat reviews under a profile as separate entities with subtle differences in scoring. Even if you can't quantify the difference between a 4 and a 5 or a 5 and a 6, you'd still be able to treat it generally as a recommend or not. If nothing else, a 5 is slightly better than a 4, and so on. Surely, a DNS should have a failing grade, i.e. a 6 or below.
Rocket is still flailing around trying to NOT answer my questions. You are right, its impossible to quantify the differences in scoring because they are subjective. One man's 5 is another man's 8. So in YOUR case, you have embraced a set standard like I have except you set 7 as your average. Fair enough. This makes your reviews consistent and valuable to other mongers. From this, we know that 6 and less is below average and 8 and 9 are varying degrees of above average. It would be better if all mongers used the same reference point for "average", but as long as we know WHERE your mid-point is for average, then we can make sense of your reviews. I can now make sense of your reviews and you can make sense of mine. Most reviewers do not have a set number for average, so one average girl might be a 5 and one might be a 7, and this is especially true when there is a longer period of time between the two reviews. My 8 for average 8 years ago is in the exact same place as it is now. There is no chance that I have given a girl a score that is not consistent for performance with all the other girls I gave that same score to. Apparently, you are the same.
There are hundreds if not thousands of Kgirl mongers who read this board but never post. I was one my first four years as a TER member. However, they are not shy about sending PM's when they have questions for me. If they read this board, they will know my scoring system and what the 7, 8, 9 and 10's mean. Most SoCal mongers read this board.
I have actually tried to keep track of some reviewers reviews, i.e., 12-15 guys that, over time, seem to like the same type off girls that I like, so I try to give their reviews a little more weight when I'm considering a new girl. However, internal inconsistencies within a specific reviewer's scoring causes me to remove some of this group from time to time and replace them with others. You can only treat a 4 or 5 one way or another if you know what the reviewer's point of reference is.
In my opinion assigning a numerical score to looks is subjective, confusing and not really helpful to me. Just tell me if her pictures are accurate. If they are I’ll decide whether I want to see her based on her pictures, and then I’ll consider her level of service. And if the pictures are fake or otherwise inaccurate then I’ll always pass.
The pictures of kgirls are almost always vastly inaccurate. With maybe 5% of exceptions where the pics a real, the pics are usually very heavily psd. To the point where the only resemblance is half a face that was pasted into a model body.
I do agree that whether or not she looks like pics is a major point, however what I'm saying is that in overwhelming majority of cases the girl doesnt look her pics. If they did, we'd have all dolled up slim models in their 20s. Clearly, that's not the case.
For reference, I was giving my scale for performance.
when using reviews as a tool in decision-making one needs to always vet the reviewer. By that I mean check out all those reviews and preferably find some provider(s) you both have seen.
Outside that it's best to think of reviews, and especially the scores, as a rather "noisy" data set of samples and treat it as something of an exercise in applied statistics.
For those thinking: Of course, that is why you read the details. I agree but you're still in a bit of an unknown area until you have some common ground of a provider that you both have seen. The details are where all the detective/investigative work comes in. The scores are really just good as filtering option.
When there are a lot of reviews the averages generally start indicating something useful but still are not sufficient for a decision unless you're lucky (or is that unlucky) enough to be representative of the average reviewer.
Spot on Jensen. That's why when it comes to SoCal and Vegas KGirls there are two gents who's reviews I always look for. We've seen 9 KGirls in common, and their reviews match my experiences. So I know with great confidence that if those guys approve in their reviews then I'll enjoy as well. Hasn't failed me to date.
-- Modified on 4/29/2021 1:28:05 PM
You called a four "beating up on a girl".
Is this according to your scale or ter scale?
If your seven is "do not see" and is the same as a four - then why do you call four "beating up on the girl"?
Clearly, you are well aware that giving a higher score to the girl makes her lokk better than she is.
That's what floorhumpn was alluding to I'm pretty sure. Clearly, a seven makes a girl look a lot better than a four, and it also contributes to average rating being a lot higher.
Maybe Gag is right - in the light of your statement, it is rather convenient you don't give anyone less than a 7. Just happens coincidentally that providers don't like getting less than 7 and you also don't give anyone less than seven. Sheer coincidence.
I'm having too much fun calling out your inability to admit you're protecting the girls and org business. Its the same reason you never call out any kgrl publicly here, yet are quick to go at a non-kgirl hooker on general board. It's the same reason you couldn't name the girl when you admitted you had a bad session. Why can't you just admit it and stop the bs. You even promised me to name a shitty LA org if I name a shitty Bay org and when I did my part, easily, you simply ignored your own word.
If you can't say shit in public without making girls look better than they are, you should stop talking about honesty. Honesty is the ability to say what you really feel to everyone, if you're really about helping all mongers. Saying shit in private channels and not public ones, and protecting girls business by sugar coating even the bad reviews to extreme intent, is NOT it.
Like many of the older guys, I started with indies, and if you want to PM any of the indies that post on the GD board and ask if they consider a 4 for service getting beaten up, 99% will say YES!!! Check the TER top 100 providers list and tell me how many Kgirls you see there.
This is not in the right place, but I knew you were talking to me. As long as you KNOW that a 7 from me is a DNS recommendation, it is not a sugar coating. You do it your way, and I'll do it the way its been working for me for 11+ years of reviewing. The guys that know me like my system. You free to do what you want in your own reviews, but my system is not broken, and you're is. You give a girl a 6 and the readers don't now if she's average or above-average. Your list just proves my original point that most reviewers' scores contain inherent contradictions, just like in YOUR system.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like most mongers would not consider a 6 or a 7 to be above average and certainly not worthy of a repeat, erasing a lot of the confusion between differing grading scales. I still don't understand limiting yourself to a 7-9 as you'd be able to explain any grading inconsistency or ambiguity caused by a larger scale through the details of your review.
Although a lot of the guys that post here say that they look at a reviewer's previous reviews to get a better idea of how they score, I think that the majority of mongers likely just look at the reviews under a girl's profile rather than who's posting them.
Though I suspect someone has made it before.
I'm just wondering if that the observation is about some largely one-off cases or if you think this is some endemic problem with the TER community or reviewers or K-girl reviewers everywhere. If it is really just some one-off cases did it even need to be made, given the OP is really about a situation that skirts, if not crosses, the line of trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Related to the OP, several years back the K-talent agencies got a bit of a slap down on one of their contract terms. As the game was to have a "product" with a particular look and feel, most of those in the training programs were required to have cosmetic surgery to meet the desired look. There were other things like housing (very controlled settings) and of course the training (voice, dance) and I suspect some other things (wardrobe perhaps) the agencies were footing the bill for. The contracts called for (IIRC) repayment of three times the invested amount if the trainee didn't make the cut.
I don't recall a good description of just what was considered investment versus normal business cost the company could not attempt to recoup but the terms about a multiple were definitely rules exploitative and unenforceable. But clearly fit right into the story line of the OP here. I often wondered, after reading the story, if some of the K-girls touring here were paying off such debts. My guess would be most would be working in the Seoul salons and only here once the primary debt recouped.
People who make this argument usually don't post directly on the forums as to not be obvious shills/white knights/simps.
I cannot really judge the extent of it, but nearly each time Ive joined some monger community with active org presence, I've gotten a sob story Les Miserable bs
Anecdotal? Sure, maybe. But I'm here between a rock and a hard place. If I only speak about my experience, it can be labeled as one-off. If I speak about others, its easy to label it as hearsay.
CDL: "If I give a girl a 7 and don't recommend her, would it make any difference if I said she was a 4?"
Also CDL: "There is no need to BEAT HER UP with a 4"
CDL: "If I give a girl a 7 and don't recommend her, would it make any difference if I said she was a 4?"
Also CDL: "you should not see girls below X average rating on TER"
Dont you think her average rating would be much lower if she had fours instead of sevens? And if many people say dns to her, it would be more representative?
I'm sick and tired of people not only protecting the girls and orgs rep (by itself if you wanna do it, I disagree but if you admit it it's far less of a sin), but also try to pose like they're fully honest with the community,publicly.
If you have to frame your review so it doesn't fully sound like "beat the girl up", guess what? You are not being fully honest. If you can't say something in a public review that you say via pm (aside from ymmv stuff) - you are not being fully honest. If you think and consider the impact of your review on a girls rep biz or your status with org - you are not being fully honest. If you do not publish a review because you think it might impact the girls biz negatively - it's even worse, you now are fucking up prospective mongers.
I'm fully and thoroughly dedicated to call out bullshit like that. A review isn't advertisement or business solicitation. It should be an evaluation of a product, honest and truthful, and the overall rating should be done irregardless of what the fuck the consequence is. It's your damn review. Provider can't take the heat, get the fuck out the kitchen.
road and hit a dog, are you going to back up over it again to make sure you inflicted the maximum amount of damage? If not, then you shouldn't be giving a provider a 4. Its how they make their living. You can get your point across with another number like I do and express your displeasure in the narrative. There is no need to run her out of town and make her change her name. I'm proof that I can give a negative review and NOT recommend the girl without backing over her again to make sure she's dead.
I've been doing this long enough to know that sometimes, especially with very young girls, the lack of connection and her not being into the session is partly my fault, so I'm going to express it was not a match for me, but I'm not going to bash her to the point that no one will see her. There might be younger guys who will love her. Maybe even you, she might be a girl who can take a pounding. But if my of 4 drags her average down to 6, she will most likely leave town as soon as she can and start fresh somewhere else. Check the daily new reviews. Girls with two or three reviews and an average below 7 don't stay. They leave and retire the name they were using. If a girl has 40 reviews and you want to give her a 4, you're probably not going to do as much damage to her business as you might have intended.
I'm impressed you finally admitted it. Thanks - that's ALL I was asking for. Admittance that you don't want to give a low score - even though she might have deserved it - because their reviews impact their business.
And why will it impact her business? Because someone sees a four or low averages and will not see her. Isn't that a good thing if she is a do not see?
Why would you want her keep getting business if you classify her as do not see? If a four means her losing her biz and seven means people will still go, doesn't that contradict your "do not see" advice?
In the end, GaG was right after all. GaG, I should have known better.
binary view of the world. The question is not whether I want to avoid a low score, its do I want to give a score that both expresses my dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms while allowing her the opportunity to find a customer base that does not include me, and the answer to that is YES! These two ideas are ONLY mutually exclusive in YOUR black and white binary world. For you, its all or nothing, and maybe that's why you have whined so much about the high percentage of disappointing sessions you have compared to most other guys here. You refuse to even consider that part of the problem might be you. The 7 I give will not send guys to see a girl if they have been reading this board where the subject of my review scoring comes up about twice a year.
I'm more open-minded and know that I am not a match for every Kgirl, and vice versa. You can't ignore the YMMV aspect of this business. I like older girls because the service is better, and I do not give a pass to DDG younger girls who's service is not equal to the older girls, like a lot of the younger guys do, but neither do I want to chase a younger girl out of town by giving her a harsh score BEFORE she has the opportunity to find her own customer base.
You ask isn't it good for a girl who got some low scores to NOT get customers. Once again, you are being narrow-minded. If a new girl hits town that is 35 years old with a slow GFE style, and the first two customers she gets are 23 year old guys who are looking for hyper girl who can take a pounding, which is far from what this girl is, she might end up getting 5-5's from the first two reviewers. She may decide to leave before guys like me get around to seeing her, and maybe she would have gotten a 8-9 from me, because I'm not the pounding type and prefer a more experienced girl skilled at GFE.
I give an honest review and am not afraid to say a girl is Below Average, but I do not need to also run her out of town and make sure she gets no business after me. There are girls who have gotten higher scores from other guys who say them AFTER I did. If I had helped to run her out of town with an very low score, she would not have the opportunity to stick around and find guys who like her and want to repeat. You seem to be so egotistical that you will not consider that a girl you rated poorly might be someone else's cup of tea. I recognize that and don't want to kill her off completely, just let everyone know I thought she was below average. The score of 7 does that for me. There are girls I have seen that have a loyal following and I'm scratching my head why she has regulars when I wouldn't repeat, but that's where YMMV comes into the equation. You seem to want to fuck a girl over that you didn't like so badly that she has no chance to find other customers who might like her. Is your ego so fragile that you can't bear the idea that other guys might like her even if you didn't, or that she might give them better service because you were an asshole and they weren't? And don't try to say you are never an asshole customer. Guys who have 30% bad sessions are assholes at least some of the time whether they want to admit it or not.
Oh I'm now an asshole customer? I never whined about my bad experiences,stop lying. I whined about others' bad experiences..when asked, I simply provided info. I can take care of myself. I want to help other mongers who were getting shit experiences.
I fully understand what might be good for me might not be good for you and vice versa. And I don't dispute that.
But your opinion represents your opinion and mine represents mine.
So if a girl is a four to me or another monger why should I or that monger cater to sugarcoat and embellish her real rankings?
Remembet, it is you who said there is no difference between a four and seven for you. There is a huge difference between a seven and a four to me.
I'm a simple guy. If a girl is a four to me, I'll put her down as four and my conscience is clear. To you, a four means she will be ran out of town and you must prevent that by artificially raising her score even though you don't recommend her.
In the process, you're misleading mongers who get an embellished overview of the girl, while simultaneously protecting the girls business.
A good product will always make it through a number of bad reviews. Mongers shouldn't be blamed for speaking their mind as is. You'll never be able to please everyone. One of the guys I know from another site told me he walked out on my atf and wrote a bad mini. Why should I care about that? Her service speaks for herself.
And if that review for some reason caused her moral distress and caused to relocate, well then like I've said, can't take the heat - get the hell out of the kitchen.
TL/DR long ass reviews. Hobbyists see you gave her a '7' and think that means she's a "Hot Time" when buried deep in the review you were really saying she's "Below Average." Your scoring makes your reviews deceptive, misleading and just plain bullshit.
You've said many times that you don't give low scores because you don't want to hurt the K-girls' business. And you said that you want "to keep the bookers happy." Clearly, you don't give a shit about your fellow hobbyists.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/the-one-thing-you-will-learn-----17641?frmSearch=1#17641
NOT to rely on my reviews the next time you are choosing a Kgirl to see. Bwahahahahahaha
In fact, ANYONE is free to disregard my reviews. It will not mean anything one way or the other to me. There are enough mongers giving me positive feedback about my reviews that I will continue writing them for these guys.
Yes and that's why shills and white knights and org reps almost always come out of woodwork when a NEW girl gets bad/mediocre reviews.
They attempt to discredit the monger who made the review, and attempt damage control. Instead of respecting his review,they will insinuate he was forceful or some other shift, trying to shift the blame to the customer.
Fuck them. And not in the good way. Make my blood boil.
first response was not persuasive, so you post again, but then you go into you tired, warn-out shill rant and just come off looking like a loon.
You told us a year ago you were going to take on the orgs and cause them to change their shilling ways. it was a pretty bold claim., but you reaffirmed for months that we should not doubt you because you know what you are doing. Maybe you want to bring us up to date on how many orgs you have taken down to date since you joined TER. A few have changed their names, bur I haven't noticed any who have mysteriously gone missing since you arrived here. (I wasn't sure I could get through that without laughing, but there it is. )
I don't know how it relates to the topic on hand, but I didn't claim to attempt to take the orgs down.
What makes me look like a loon? That I think the practice of rebuttal reviews and discrediting mongers after a bad review of a new girl is a pathetic piece of shit practice?
What is so loony about this?
Do you think it's loony to think that I laugh every time someone says "oh she has enough reviews now and established so bad reviews now cant hurt her"
A review, but matter how bad, as long as it's truthful, should ever be discredited. Especially if it's the under the pretense "oh noes this new girl won't get business". Cry me a river.
May when you were talking about "punishing" orgs . . . . .
"On the other hand, rather than just being whiney, why not start a new thread to document you taking on one of the orgs and trying to get some reforms that you seem to want. You can update it daily here so we can all see the progress you're making. If you pull it off, I think there are others here that would join you in your success . . . or your blacklisting, if it doesn't work out. I'm interested in seeing you follow through on your boast that there are "500 ways to put financial pressure on orgs." I'm thinking bullshit, but I won't call it until I see you really don't have it worked out."
So in a year, there has been no thread about bringing any org into line, only one thread about orgs creating fake reviews, and it was for an org that everyone here ALREADY knew was disreputable. After than one, crickets. You also bragged back then that you "contributed" to taking down some orgs in the BA on another site you were on, and you said you were gunning for some in LA, but you didn't what to share any details because there are people like me here that are "close to the orgs". Fair enough, but its been a year, so please share what substantive results you have achieved to disabuse ANY orgs from engaging in shady practices. You were concerned about newbies then, remember?
If you have selective amnesia, these discussions spanned several days last May. There are too many links of you bragging for me to bring them all over here to show a pattern of your hyperbole about how you will contribute in LA to taking down orgs the way you did on another site. So did you ever get it worked out and implemented, or is it time for me to call "bullshit" on your claims from a year ago?
I've never claimed to bring down any orgs, nor is it my goal. Sorry. Im sure I could bring them down at least temporarily - I do have a DA as a good acquaintance and gathering info is my forte. But there's no purpose for me to do this unless they strike at me personally. It would hurt the mongers too.
I contributed to pointing out fake reviews on the other site to the point the org shills were kicked off and prohibited to make reviews. Yet, the site accepts them again.
I'm tentatively OK with how the shills and orgs are behaving on TER currently. I make threads occasionally to call them out, you perhaps have seen me make thread on CLL and EBK and BGC shills.
TER is a thousand times better than that shitty donkey site.
For the orgs in LA, it was "going to be a long, hot summer." That was consistent with your claims that you would be taking them to task about their practices. Are you walking that back now? Or you just couldn't find any in LA that were doing the things you complained about, so that's why you are "tentatively OK" with how our SoCal agencies behave? So the thousands of words you wrote about his last year about shady SoCal orgs was just speculation on your part, that you, in fact, didn't know of ANY orgs, other than the one we already knew of, that was engaged in dishonest practices?
I'm pretty sure I was talking about bay area orgs, ie orgs that I actually knew. Not LA orgs I actually didn't know. Go ahead and find a direct quote about "LA orgs". Never did I single out your LA orgs anywhere. I get that you felt threatened about the orgs you attend,but please don't make shit up.
And do you want to tell me why you keep shifting the topic here?
Is it because I reminded you how you promised to name a shitty org publicly and did not keep your word?
Or how you said you had a disappointing session but then refused to name the girl in public? Claiming that that the girl retired. And as I've found out later - coincidentally, even though you claim no org booker knows your online moniker, for that org - that wasnt true. Gee willikers. Now it all made sense.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to back to my waiting room where I will wait for Jensen to mention a specific girl with subpar looks publicly. It's kinda like waiting for Godot, really.
For the orgs in LA, it was "going to be a long, hot summer." That was consistent with your claims that you would be taking them to task about their practices. Are you walking that back now? Or you just couldn't find any in LA that were doing the things you complained about, so that's why you are "tentatively OK" with how our SoCal agencies behave? So the thousands of words you wrote about his last year about shady SoCal orgs was just speculation on your part, that you, in fact, didn't know of ANY orgs, other than the one we already knew of, that was engaged in dishonest practices?
You did not specifically mention LA, this just said "THIS SITE", meaning TER. So here is what you said on May 20th . . . .
"Be careful what you wish for. Org affiliates on previous site laughed at me when I repeatedly told orgs to stay in their lane (advertising) and leave writing and curating of reviews to mongers. Guess who got the last laugh ? It was fucking glorious. When the admin was shitting on them, that was music to my ears. And I vowed to come to whichever site they will choose for reviews next. And this is the site, if you haven't guessed yet. I'm opening up shop. Gonna be a hot summer."
Okay, so I will rephrase my questions. Was it a "hot summer" for Kgirl orgs on TER last year? Did you "open up shop?" What have you done to deliver on ANY of these boasts? Have any orgs been "shit on" on TER that you know of? How have you contributed to cleaning up shady practices by Kgirl orgs on TER? OR . . . . would you just rather admit you were full of shit, these orgs did not come here like you said they did, and you were just blowing smoke up everyone's ass here about all the great work you did to protect newbies on another website. I'm giving you an opportunity here to rehabilitate your reputation. Tell us all the great results you have had since these boasts of a year ago. I'll be surprised if you have anything to say except for deflection and/or crickets.
I didn't have to do much. I was prepared for a shit show here, but it didn't slip in through as much.
So yeah, I have no problem admitting that it was more of a bark than bite from my side - but largely because the reviews in the bay are far more indicative of reality here than on the previous site. And might I say, much better than for girls in LA or Vegas, whose grades are severely inflated no mattwr how much you defend them. When the same girls get two points lower for looks in the bay than LA - even you can't make excuses and protect them. Good. Truth > bullshit protectionism.
Again, my conscience is clear. I regularly make threads on fake reviews and shitty orgs. Can't say the same for you, but hey. I don't back down and hold my ground.
And yes, truth > lies. Even if truth means overall worse quality of product as a result of truth, I be damned if Ill ever be OK with indirectly swindling people who keep a girls business afloat when a seven is given instead of a four.
-- Modified on 5/3/2021 4:59:10 PM
"us-them" rhetoric you use.
You always claim you're pro monger but I think the reality is that you are pro "my way of reviewing" (and of reacting to external facts we don't control) and if you're not in step with me you're "no true monger", so necessarily over in the "them" camp. In you're rhetoric that means agency camp.
In case someone missed it, the "no true monger" is an allusion to the logical fallacy that is know as the No True Scotsman fallacy.
As many times as I’ve seen him do it, it never occurred to me to call him on the “No True Scotsman”. You’re dead right. I think this describes his general approach better than anything I’ve read so far.
Though I think he generally does it by implication. When he disagrees he’ll state his position as the “pro-monger” position. Thus implying the “No True Scotsman” fallacy without stating it directly.
That said, I haven’t read his comments for quite some time. So, he may be stating it directly these days.
LOL
He just did that to me. His claim: I always side with the girls. When I noted in a thread a while back I was the only person calling for a provider to be banned without dicing the words at all that counter example he claimed that example was not quite the same as he claimed.
I don't think its worth rehashing old arguments -- the might not even be the correct descriptive -- with him as nothing I can say will ever take the blinders off. He's made his decision and I am an anti-monger shill. Whatever....
I think the board will be a better place if I restrain myself from getting into exchanges with rocket.
I don't think you are a shill...please don't put words in my mouth. Do your practices hurt other regular Joe mongers? Yes,they do. Do I think you shill? No I don't. I have a fair share of respect for you as well, something I don't have for shills.
I think you're often unfair to the mongers and are biased towards the providers. I am guilty of the same thing, just the other way.
I admitted that if you did indeed call for a provider to be banned, that most likely counts - although I do want to see the proof first,as much as I trust you I do like to have evidence.
What will make me change my opinions is evidence of your actions. The example you provided would be a nice start. Actions speak louder than words.
Maybe down the road you can provide the list of girls publicly as well - a year ago you claimed you never had a subpar session with kgirs. Now you say the quality had gone down - well, where are those reviews? Where are public statements about them?
That certainly will change my opinion. Just like if cdl ever publicly names kgirls he's had bad experiences with, I'll likely change my opinion. So far, I haven't seen much of a the ability - or willingness - to do that. I'm sure in your backchannel you probably are more critical of specific girls. But saying shit in public where hundreds of mongers read it and impact business is very different than saying it among 10 or 20 people.
Another way to change my opinion is to stop hiding between ymmv as the end of it all. When someone makes a review, it is his mileage. When you make a review of a soup in yelp, do you say your mileage may vary? Or do you say the soup was not good and hence I'm giving it 1.5 stars?
Last, imo you shouldn't really care what I or others think about you. Either way, Im all for good discussions here. I do carried away often, and it is something I'm not terribly proud of. Im just passionate about the subject and want review space as well as public discussion space be an honest, fully transparent platform for any Joe you refer to as "idiot" to be able to make good decisions. I think when people start worrying about girls business and consequences of their reviews, this all falls down.
In always up for discussion. Up to you if you want to cease or continue yours. Cheers and have a great weekend.
Where exactly was "us-them" rhetoric in my post you've replied to? The fuck them part? That's just my emotions.
Do you also think it is fine for people to discredit a truthful review only because it severely hurts a new girls business? Do you not agree that an honest and truthful review should be respected and the writer not bullied?
The no true Scotsman fallacy has little to do with what I said. I don't say you're not a true monger if you don't review "my way". In fact, I said so it explicitly. Everyone has a different way of reviewing. I may not agree with it, but I won't call you out for it. I will certainly not call you an agency agent. I'm critical of twoons reviews often, but I will not call him an org guy.
The problem arises when someone claims they are fully honest and truthful in their reviews, evaluation and so forth and objective and are there to help mongers. While also framing reviews in such a way that deliberately ease the impact on the reviewed provider. Or put provider in a much more favorable light. THAT is a crock of shit. You can't have both, these are mutually exclusive. If you are framing a review to not hurt a girls business, you are past the point of fully honesty. You fully understand that framing your review means more people will see her, and you still do it. Thus, you are effectively choosing embellishment over helping rather mongers.
That doesn't mean you're with the agency. That doesn't mean you're with them. But this does mean that you put one thing over the other, and that should be called out.
And certainly, if you choose your review to promote a girl over being truthful, that is a problem - not only is this against the rules, it does directly hurt the people who consume the reviews. And save me asking about the extent. But if you state that you promote her - that is one thing. If you keep claiming that you're fully truthful, blah blah but then turn around and say that oh grade X is bad for business, the first part is nill and void.
But Rocket, here you again with binary thinking.
Well, heres the thing, Jensen. When someone has a very disappointing bad session, and they choose to write a review, someone will get impacted.
If you write a clear, honest review and give a very low grade, it will hurt the girls business. If you write a review that frames the experience and the girl in a better light than you actually had, it will hurt the mongers who otherwise might have avoided it. In cdls case, it's a subset of mongers who would not see the girl if she was given a four, but still see her at a seven. Athat moment, you kinda have to choose a side.
There's no in-between here, Jensen. Someone will get fucked here, and not in a good way. I do not want it to be the mongers. You, cdl and many others do not want it to be the girls. I think, to paraphrase Dostoevsky, a single monger tear of disappointment and being misled is already too many and not worth any goodwill you do to the girls. I don't care about girls business.
You, on other hand, think differently. That doesn't make you an agency agent. But it does set your priorities in certain order.
My priorities are not on one side or the other.
Moreover, the claim I "don't want it to be the girls" is not accurate. I'm more than fine with poor service and skills not being rewarded but I am also quite comfortable with reserving judgements when I'm not sure I actually experienced the normal session they provide for some reason. Posting some YMMV review is not helping anyone and typically harming both side to some degree.
However, that you can only interpret everything I've said as supporting the girls over the guys I think stems from your us-them view (whether you want to acknowledge it or not). I think that same view is reflected in this thread and my comment one of a general nature and not regarding something you specifically said to CDL or someone else in the thread.
What is the difference between a ymmv review and a regular review tho?
I thought we were against hearsay? You can only review what's in front of you, no? I see a girl X, have experience y and write about it. Simple.
Looking at previous reviews and seeing you got a different experience from others shouldn't scare anyone from writing a bad review.
That's a very big thing too. People are scared to go against the majority opinion, ie say something is bad when most say it's good, and vice versa. The more different your (truthful) experience is, the more important it is to get it out to provide a more heterogenous range of opinions.
You said quality was subpar this year. Have you shared this specific info publicly and not with the backchannel? Which girls were subpar? I think not. That's just my guess and I'll be happy if you prove me wrong.
As far as you in particular favoring providers, it's not just me who noticed it. It stems from your own actions on here and nothing else. I've seen you come to defense of a monger like once. And I commended you on that. What ive seen is unequal treatment. I've seen you casually call mongers "idiots", and never seen you call providers idiots,even when their actions more than deserved the moniker. I've seen you take the providers side on pretty much any issue, from stalking to reviews to bad experiences. That's just unrealistic with how probability theory works assuming monger/provider fault is 50/50 on average. Your posts speak for themselves, really. Framing issues to always be the mongers fault is telling. And exactly what I'm talking about.
It is a stark contrast from GaG, who actually treats both sides equally. That's fine if you didn't claim you were not biased. I never really claim that I'm fully balanced here. I will be on the side of the monger until proven otherwise. And I'm proud of it. But you always claim you're not biased, but somehow it is always a monger at fault for you when it comes to any argument on this board.
This doesn't mean that you always need to be on one side or the other, but there are plenty of situations where you have to choose to side with one side or the other. And I've seen plenty of instances to see what side you always choose.
I've called for providers to be banned -- the only person in the thread explicitly call for that -- who ultimately were. I don't claim I influenced that action by TER; merely that I was the ONLY person who put that in words "then she should be banned".
In most cases you claim I'm siding with the girls I'm pointing out there are in fact two side.
I will tell someone, and call them stupid, when they are. I cannot think of a case where I was doing so and you're chosen reference GaG was not also doing the same.
A YMMV review is one where the person is saying they cannot really tell you what to expect -- and have no clear idea why their experience played out the way it was. In other words, they are not actually reviewing the provider but the two of them together. Give that it is not something that allows others to take any type of informed decision based on not writing the review is much better for all -- there is no chance of misleading anyone.
I know you will be who you are and think for some reason it is much more important to know who to avoid than the know who to see but most of us want to know who to go see rather than people telling us why we should just stay home and keep the money.
I'm not going to try to explain the obvious about DMV market to you if you could not follow what I said -- and has been bemoaned repeatedly on just about every TER board there is. I've made that point on this board probably 10 times over the past year.
Calling for a provider to be banned is not quite the same as calling a subset of them as idiots. But OK.
"A YMMV review is one where the person is saying they cannot really tell you what to expect -- and have no clear idea why their experience played out the way it was. In other words, they are not actually reviewing the provider but the two of them together. Give that it is not something that allows others to take any type of informed decision based on not writing the review is much better for all -- there is no chance of misleading anyone."
I'm sorry, what? Again, how do you distinguish a ymmv review from a regular review?
How does a person seeing the girl for the first time have any idea what to expect and how can he explain anything? Why does he need to explain anything? Why not just document the facts and let others think about it???
I'm sorry, but it seems that you really mean by ymmv is a session that was not up to expectation but the reviewer is too scared/gallant/hesitant to label the experience as bad and blame the girl. Its really an euphemism for this. And too many people use this euphemism to avoid strong words or opinions.
I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but From your, klientdmvs and others stories about dmv market, it was the same thing that further reaffirms my point. Bad reviews were not written to keep other girls coming. Instead of putting them out of business, these girls were able to gather some biz at expense of other, less fortunate customers, who don't visit backchannels. Seems all of you were OK with this sacrifice to ensure quality down the road.
Speaking of sacrificing and truth vs money, I've talked to a monger on this site who said an agency PO pmd him here after a subpar review and complained that he should've contacted the PO first and that they're losing business because off him.
This the type of shit that make my blood boil. They are not concerned with the quality or truth, they just care about losing money. Pathetic.
"I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but From your, klientdmvs and others stories about dmv market, it was the same thing that further reaffirms my point. Bad reviews were not written to keep other girls coming. Instead of putting them out of business, these girls were able to gather some biz at expense of other, less fortunate customers, who don't visit backchannels. Seems all of you were OK with this sacrifice to ensure quality down the road. "
That was a very slanted interpretation of what was said and what is done. You are correct that over all we had a good market and high quality and everyone was quite happy with things. There were not any more "less fortunate customers" than existed elsewhere and I suspect we actually had fewer. Like CR's comment about "must be lucky" my experience has been quite the same -- prior to 2017 when I took a break (and lots of other shit happened) I can only think of 1 agency girl who would have deserved less than a 7 in looks and I'm not sure any deserved less than that in performance. She left in under a week. I don't think that was due to everyone writing some bad review.
You seem to think the only way things can work is if everyone writes a review. I would say about 90% of the reviews here are of little value -- not because they are fake or inflated or revenge reviews but because they are not saying anything that is not already said. So you claim that we are sacrificing some other guy by not writing a review and instead providing feedback more indirectly to the provider and agency is largely mistaken.
I've said it before and I will say it again here: no review is just as damning to a provider's business as a bad review. Many are very risk adverse and "unknown" is possible even less desirable than "mediocre" or "YMMV". That is also a message repeated to newbies both on the NB and the general boards.
Jensen, I'm only reading your side of this debate because I, like a few others, blocked the little rocket-felcher a couple of months ago when he destroyed a thread like he appears to be doing in this one. But just by reading your side of the debate I can tell he's gone off of his meds again, and he's out of control. And it won't stop until others stop responding to his divisive and accusatory diatribes against guys like you, cdl and me. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if we all just ignored him and he had no one to argue with our threads would be more meaningful and would stay on point.
but while I do find myself arguing with Rocket all too often he is not without some merits -- just very myopic and oddly (given what seem to be his politics in general as far as I can tell) not too inclusive or accepting of diversity. I suppose we all have our hot buttons.
But I will try to keep my earlier statement to limit discussion with the goal being make my statement and say nothing more -- it will be understood or not and agreed with or not and more back and forth won't change anything. That should help limit the spill over to others.
I never accused you or your alias of anything, sir. If you take exception with me, that's fine. I never had many issues with you though. You actually have the balls to make non-positive reviews and don't have issues to call out providers publicly.
I see your sentiment be repeated ad naseum on here, and my question to those who dislike him, is: Why do you continue to respond and "instigate" him? You have no one to blame but yourselves. I personally believe in participating in productive discussions, so I have no need to mute even the most heinous of you. Lol.
the threads would be a lot shorter. LOL
100% Agree. Just think about how many threads he's hijacked to make is arguments about reviews. This is a perfect example: it was a thread about KGirl debts IN KOREA. And rocket-felcher converted it to one of his droning, divisive diatribes about numerical review scores. WTF?
But the issue is not really the little rocket-felcher. It's the guys who keep arguing with him. We all know he has deep psychological issues with KGirls; we've read about it in 20 or more threads, over, and over, and over again. Most of us could make his arguments for him, not because we agree with him but because we've read his nonsense so many times. My point is that if everyone just ignored him we could keep our threads on topic and, as you correctly suggest, shorter. YES PLEASE!
-- Modified on 5/2/2021 10:24:22 AM
I did not convert it. GaG brought this matter up initially, not me.
You were the first response to shift from the issue of debts and getting induced into sex work to the claim some used the debts to justify being gentle and easy in reviews. Gag just agreed with you and then used CDL as a suggested example of easy reviewing to avoid low scores (which was actually unrelated to debt so you can give him some shared responsibility).
Anyone who looks at the direct responses to the OP knows this.
Fair enough. I merely stated my viewpoint though. GaG agreed with me and called out CDL and the rest is history.
Ie, what I stated did relate to the topic on hand, of predicament used as a sob story to justify elevated review scores and "being nice".
But I do see my fault.
You were the first response to shift from the issue of debts and getting induced into sex work to the claim some used the debts to justify being gentle and easy in reviews. Gag just agreed with you and then used CDL as a suggested example of easy reviewing to avoid low scores (which was actually unrelated to debt so you can give him some shared responsibility).
Anyone who looks at the direct responses to the OP knows this.
you are doubling down on your prior lie that Jensen called you out on. The "topic at hand" was Kgirl debt. Go up to the OP and have a look. Reviews had nothing to do with the topic until YOU brought them up. Its a time to own it, not make excuses. Saying that you stated about reviews DID related to the "topic at hand", i.e., Kgirl debt, is just pure bullshit. Just because GaG agreed with you doesn't necessarily make you less wrong. Lol
Um, yes and I commented how many use kgirl debt or insinuation of such to appeal to peoples emotion and to make them appear in a better lightin reviews and in other public evaluations.
What ddi I miss? You're grasping at straws now.
". There were not any more "less fortunate customers" than existed elsewhere"
How do you know this? Please cite your sources.
"I would say about 90% of the reviews here are of little value"
If that were the case, there'd be no rebuttal reviews. If that were the case, girls wouldn't rebrand or leave after a bad review. Clearly, reviews have a big impact.
"So you claim that we are sacrificing some other guy by not writing a review and instead providing feedback more indirectly to the provider and agency is largely mistaken"
How is it mistaken? Let's recap here. If no bad reviews are written - girl haz business.
If there is a review written with a score of four - girl loses business.
Who are the people that the girl loses due to a review? These are your guys who would not see her given a bad review existed, no?
Finally, again, you said the quality was not up to par this year. Yet I've not seen you publicly call it out. You did publicly recommend Lixa. So why not do it on the other side if you claim you're not biased? If you have the balls to list girls who are still active in your area and are subpar according to you publicly, I will never say a word about your disposition ever again. And I don't break my balls or my word 
He can't really call it out because the quality has been up to par this year. If you do your research, you'll have a good time most of the time. I think I've had less than 5 average experiences this past year. Of course, some agencies have been better than others and I don't know which agencies he frequents.
Maybe I misread it, but I think he said the quality was down a good amount this year.
If what we have here now is what you consider "up to par" something must have really gone down hill between mid 2017 and early 2020 when I was not playing. For most of the past year agencies have struggled to keep two girls listed. When they have typically they have been older and often not that fit.
For me, average for this market was what I knew prior to stopping. That level had been consistent to years. Most agencies always had two girls working. They were nearly universally able to pass for 30+/-, more than a few were under 30, NONE that I ever heard, and certainly never saw, of had "a gut". Often the agencies would have two working locations so had 3 or 4 girls working. And, there always seemed to be someone new coming through that you've never seen before.
What we've had for the past 14 months is nothing like that. I think all I can say is that now it's clearly better than it was last spring and summer. It used to be that you would "count on one hand" less outstanding agency providers. Now it seems the opposite, you can count on one had those that really stand out while the "solid performers" are older, have been around a while and are not passing for 30+/- -- maybe 40+/- with more than a couple deserving the "chubby" description.
Perhaps I missed the downhill slide that reset the expected average while I was out and just mistakenly attributed it to COVID -- but I don't get that impression from others here.
I literally went YEARS in between K-Girl sessions where the girl was not a minimum of a TER 7-8 and who couldn't at least pass for twenty-something or early thirties at the oldest. This last year I have seen multiple "aunties" at some rather reputable K-AAMPs who were quite obviously north of forty.
This might be why some of us have given our little Rocket buddy so much push back about his views, many of us simply have had almost nothing to complain about for years, I know that was my situation. I will confess I almost never get anything but a positive effort from all the girls (except one who was let go the very next day) in the service department, but my experiences of this same 14 months or so has been very much the same as yours.
Hey Gag,when you have seen some of these ajummas, did you walk? Or still they were good enough to proceed?
I'm happy to know I did not misread you and will not be accused of misreading.
I'll be even more happy, even ecstatic, if you do mention it in public domain/space which specific girls who are still active, have a gut, are subpar and so on.
This is my problem, as you might understand already.
If you claim that public space reviews/posts aren't impactful, then they can't cause girls to quit or lose business.
And if they are impactful, wouldn't you want that information to be in public domain if you claim you're not biased? Not just general attitude, but specific girls? This is a site that discusses specific girls in specific reviews, after all.
Because, I can't tell easily from Tysons Corner public reviews which girls have a gut. So how can other Joe's that aren't part of the backchannel groups or who dont do meticulous research?
And no, "those who don't have reviews" isn't an answer. I know for a fact that there are girls with a gut, etc who DO have reviews.
The adage of say something nice or don't say anything at all really does not apply to review sites.
So let's recap, Jensen.
You claim that you're unbiased
You have very little to no negative reviews between both of your handles.
You claim that this year quality has been down,clearly from your own experience
Yet I don't see any public evaluations of such quality girls from your area
When I ask you for some, you find excuses or simply don't reply.
So why do you wonder I consider you doing this because you want to protect the girls?
You weakly then try to say oh but the negative reviews don't help anyone or some other stuff like that. Yet you are fine with making public topics and reviews on good quality girls.
You've yet to prove that you can actually write a public evaluation of quality that is down (your words). What is the problem?
You can't have it both ways,thats all. You want to protect girls business? Sure, but don't say you're on mongers side when you condemn a subset of mongers who only read ter reviews, however small or big the subset is, to less information that would actually enable them to perhaps skip this provider.
Just admit it, like cdl did. And we can move on. Or - better get-publicly list the local active bad quality you've talked about. Like I've said, I won't ever say anything of the sort to you again after you list a girl that you have seen who is still active in a local agency who you've considered bad quality and who had a gut, for example.
You can't be both though. Sorry. The girl gets protected and mongers get fucked, or the girls get fucked and mongers protected. The girls money is directly correspondant to mongers that see her.
binary thinking to Jensen. You suggest one must be biased or unbiased. There is a whole range in between these two extremes. Life in general must be difficult to navigate for you. A guy who likes tall Kgirls could be biased towards that type, but that doesn't stop him from writing an honest review about a shorter girl. A bias doesn't not necessarily get in the way of honesty unless you intend it. Its a false narrative to suggest guys with certain biases are incapable of writing an honest review.
I will admit that I have preferences and biases towards certain things, but I try not to let them get in the way of writing honest reviews. The fact is, no one has ever told me that a girl that I recommended was completely different than what I put in my review. In fact, I get a lot of feedback about how accurate my reviews are. Consequently, mongers don't "get fucked" seeing girls I reviewed unless they decide to go ahead and take a chance on one of my 7's. Then they are on their own.
A bunch of nonsense, sorry.
Here are the facts:
1)Jensen has no problem writing a positive recommendation by name in the public forum.
With his set of preferences.
2)Jensen has a problem writing a negative experience by name in the public forum. With AL the same set of preferences.
He claims that quality is down a lot, so he can't say anymore he didn't have some subpar experiences
Heres the question: what is so different about the two situations if Jensen claims he's unbiased and speaks the truth?
The only difference, cdl, is that one thing makes the girl look good to the public, and the other makes her look bad to the public. One brings the girl money and the other takes the money.
If he he was concerned about his preferences, he wouldn't write a positive Rex in a public forum either.
He clearly chooses to make the girl look better than she really is by
refusing to do the second thing.
I'm sure there are some people who love a girl with a gut. Clearly, Jensen is not one of them. Wouldn't he want to know that a girl had a gut? Pretty sure he would. So why does he have an issue with naming such a girl? Rhetorical question here.
...or easy to please, but I have never met a kgirl that deserved a 4 in either looks or service. Probably a few 6 at worst, mostly years ago when I was starting out. If you are an established client and you are getting 4s, you need to up your org game.
What does established client has to do with girl quality?
What does org game mean?
I've seen well respected orgs put out bad product, both service and looks.
And you keep saying you DON'T objectify women. BULLSHIT!!!
Oh no I said bad product I must objectify womenz!
I had a shitty fitness instructor who was a bad product. I must objectify men!
I had a shitty dentist who was a bad product. I must objectify doctors!
I had a shitty cmt who was a bad product. I must objectify women!
See how stupid this sounds?
In the service industry, bad service=bad product.
A nice guy/girl is not a profession, hate to break it to ya.
It's pretty ironic for anyone who is on a review site that has "looks" and "performance" as criteria of the seller, to say "bad product" is objectification.
It shows that I view these girls a human beings, you don't. Another clue why you have such a high rate of bad sessions. You just keep making this easier.
Wtf? I view these girls as human beings as well. They are almost all nice girls and great human beings.
Just like view the dentist as a human being ,fitness instructor as human being and cmt as a human being. They all usually are nice people and good human beings.
But the service they deliver can be a bad product. A nice guy or a girl isn't a profession. And I grade their service and what they sell accordingly. You dont get a discount for being a good human being a nice guy or a gal. Nice guys and gals get fired all the time when they are not good at their job.
Jensen is in this same thread saying the quality is down. What is the quality down of? Some service that gets bought and sold, right? Lol, I rest my case.
Once again, extremely ironic since you yourself judge the product by girls looks mostly and that is very important to you. You yourself make fun of fat providers and care about their appearance first and foremost. So who actually objectiifes women? Lol.
is a toaster that doesn't work. The toaster is an object, not a service provider. You still think you don't objectify these girls that "can take a pounding?"
Cdl, I suggest your invest your time in learning about service as a product
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_as_a_product
Enjoy!
learn to not refer to Kgirls as "product." Its demeaning whether you say she was "good product" or "bad product" Would you like someone where you work to refer to you as, "He's just bad product?" You don't find that dehumanizing?
I do not see anything dehumanizing in that either. If I do a shitty job and I sell a service, um yeah.
Like I've said, I use the term for everyone who sells a service. And I don't discriminate. Not just kgirls, all hookers actually, all service industry. They sell me product. I buy product.
But if you don't like "product", maybe you like "goods" better? They sell goods and I buy goods. I buy service and they sell service.
Have you read the the wiki link? Service as a product is a real, everyday thing.
on your justification of objectifying Kgirls? Why am I not surprised?
I don't objectify anyone.
I already told you I AM a bad product if Im selling a service and my service is shitty.
Does this mean I objectify myself? I already gave you plenty of examples when I consider dentists, cmts, fitness instructors, bankers, mechanics, chefs bad products.
Why are you focusing on kgirls?
I think it’s obvious by now that no one is going to solve this guy’s problems.
So, can we just close this thread now and let him sit in his basement with his dreams of radicalizing mongers to rise up and worship him as the only prophet that he thinks he is?
You and cdl are great at attributing things I've never said to me. Nowhere did I say anyone should worship me or any other garbage like that. I'm not important and I never asked anyone to follow me.
My monger bros are everything and I wont let them get hurt, just like some of ya'll won't let the girls - even tho of subpar quality - get their biz took.
I do enjoy calling out hypocritical statements of those who strive to protect the girls reputation event hough they admit the quality is bad, and claim that their actions don't affect mongers. And that is my guilty pleasure, I admit. I dislike lies and hypocrisy.
... And my problems would be solved if people weren't too pussy to write the truth publicly, not mincing words and NOT protecting subpar product... publicly. But that is apparently too much to ask.
On a review site, truth >>>>>> everything else. A review site is not an advertising site. Every time truth is covered up and withheld about specific providers, I feel sick and pissed off. Not for myself, my fellow mongers who are a victim of fellow mongers who white knight the girls.
-- Modified on 5/3/2021 11:58:02 PM
Oh fuck, here I go...
You do realize that you unwittingly (or maybe nitwittingly??) confirmed every disparaging thing ever written about you, right?
Anything that doesn't fit your narrative, your agenda, is wrong and only those who support your narrative or agenda is right.
I guess it's true that you can't teach an old troll new tricks. Stay safe in your mom's basement.
for me to retire from this thread. 100 posts is way too many considering 80% of them are after the OP was highjacked. I was one post away from clicking the "ignore" button on someone. LOL
Maui is an exceedingly smart man. He listens to his kgirls, buys review subs for them to look at reviews and advertises them every day or so on s_witter
He advertises them from writing reviews from different aliases when they move to LA and ask him to advertise them. He is a very smart man when it comes to making money for kgirls. Not so smart in other areas though, because he keeps on slipping up.
But hey, I guess he gets to fool unsuspecting mongers.
I didn't say anywhere that anything that doesn't fit my "agenda" is "wrong" or that anyone who "supports" my "agenda" is "right".
All Ive said is I'm invested in fighting for mongers to get all the truthful info they can get, and I will call out hypocrisy and lies and protectionism of the girls. Especially for people who claim they are unbiased and support the mongers. But in reality they always put girls always above fellow mongers.
There is no wrong or right here. I believe something and I do something. Just like you do.
I did not confirm though, all the things you ever said about to me to others, talking shit behind my back about things I never did. Then, you're the one who will push a dozen of anonymous mongers under a train just to advertise a kgirl and get her business. And I'm the easiest target ever.
Too bad TER isn't like Survivor and we could vote the Village Idiot, a/k/a the little rocket-felcher, off of the island. He ruins every thread he touches. It's sad that one loser can disrupt our community so badly.
True, so very true.
-- Modified on 5/6/2021 6:15:22 PM
Rocket has joined BigPapsmear on my ignore list. I just have to remember to log on before I go to the boards. Ignore only works when you logged in. Otherwise, all posts are visible. I went over 10 years will no one on ignore. I guess I have some catching up to do. LOL
My apologies to the others here who have been urging me to put him on ignore. Sorry I took so long. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when they go to stalker or troll level, its time to stop enabling them. Kum-Jean will probably be next for me. He followed me to another board to troll this last week. Multiple board stalking is the last gasp of desperate stalkers.
I bet you well over half of LTM&L's posts on GD are about me, and he is just one of my many stalkers, but I know you have a pretty loyal stalker in "Kum-Jean" You do seem to own 100% of his attention. lol
with his mom and dad, and is jealous beyond belief that old farts like us can date the hot young Kgirls OTC that he covets, but can't get the time of day from. Meanwhile, there are other young Korean guys that come here with a more respectful attitude, pay attention, and learn from the experiences of the three dozen or so 10-year-plus Kgirl veterans that post on this board. From the PM's I get, many of these guys have learned how to navigate Kgirl dating OTC. I'm a little jealous of them. I would love to know what we know, but I'd rather be the same age as them. LOL
Kyung Jean's Korean? Please don't tell me you're solely basing that assumption off of his name. And that retort about living with his parents is some boomer shit. Lol.
still living with their parents. Excuse me if I find that kind of wimpy. I left home at 18 and never went back. I think most "boomers" did something similar.
since kj and i have quite a few mutual friends including a few popular kgirls, i know him a bit more, i'd say his hobby history is longer than my 12 years, he had met more girls including kgirls than most of us here, kj is only one of the alias.... why can't we just play nice here and accept/allow different opinions.....
Every time he comes here he feels compelled to make a personal attack. If he knows so fucking much about Kgirls, why did he make a fool of himself a few days ago when he didn't know the difference between a Kgirl and an Asian indie? He also has never posted anything here about Kgirls from his own experience except that he eats food with them at an incall. He has three reviews here, for girls in 3 different cities. They are generic in nature, and don't really say anything that is not already in other reviews. Finally, he has not ever talked about specific girls that he has seen like most other posters here. That doesn't seem like a guy who has seen MORE Kgirls that "most" here. There are many here that have seen over 100 Kgirls. Some of us sometimes see that many in one year His board posts don't contain any useful information for anyone else, unless you care what kind of water some org is giving handing out at the incall. He comes here with his attacks, gets bitch-slapped and runs away for a few days like a little girl. So far, he's behaving like a young stalker, not a grown up monger. So why not direct your advice to him to JOIN the community and discuss the topics instead of hurling personal attacks?
I feel like you can't really make those assumptions about someone's experience because you don't know what they're withholding. I don't think there even is such a thing as "experience" on this board as most of what's said can't be proven and is anecdotal in nature.
...for an old Chicken Beak!
Honestly, I don't live with my mom and dad - but I do seem to be living rent free in your head!
Bahaha hahahahahaha!!
without posting an attack on me, so think again WHO is living in WHO's head rent free. The person BEING stalked is the one living rent-free in the stalker's head.
Most psychologists and jury consultants will tell you that when someone starts a sentence with "Honestly" or"truthfully", the next thing they say is most likely a lie. There is no need to say these words first unless you are insecure about being believed because you lie a lot.. Thanks for the confirmation of what I already guessed. Say Hi to mom and dad before you go to bed tonight. Bwahahahahahaha
Honestly, you are a big, cool man with lots to live for.
Hahaha, that was a joke!!
Truthfully, I have a hard time imagining a more pathetic human being than you.
You have made yourself irrelevant here, so I will put you on ignore. You're not worth my time or anyone else's here. Your only contribution in months is to tell us what kind of water some org is giving away. Yes, you're quite the Kgirl raconteur. Stalk all you want and just keep proving I live rent-free in your head. Who ends up looking pathetic? I have three Kgirls to see this week, and you need to make sure mom and dad don't catch you posting on a fuck board. Bwahahahahaha
This is now the 3rd (!!!) and maybe 4th time you have threatened to ignore me.
What is your problem? Why don't you, with your beautifully manicured and polished fingers, take Tex's dick out of your mouth and press the ignore button?
I don't understand your hardship here, Nail Polish Leona.
And, boy, do you look pathetic threatening to ignore somebody on a fuckboard but NOT DO IT!
-- Modified on 5/11/2021 7:14:27 PM
Your sanity will thank you for this decision.
This is the *second* time you have (hahaha) "threatened" to ignore me.
What can I do to get over your fear?
How about this - reply to this message and I will put YOU on ignore.
Just say word, you pathetic life-less loser. I know this board is all you have
Does he ruin it or is it the guys that respond to him and don't know when to stop? How hard is it to limit yourself to one retort and move on? Maybe it's because people realize that this sub-forum would be dead if people stayed on topic.
Good point. Knowing only way for me to stop exposing hypocrisy and encourage public info sharing is over my dead body... people could at least not egg me on.
Hell, I even offered Jensen to end all of my accusations his way if he'd publicly prove me wrong and publicly name some of the quality he was just complaining about. He had a great opportunity to do so. But as usual, girls were chosen over what he considers monger betterment. Girls whose quality he wasn't satisfied with.
Typical.
Anyway.
Those who don't subscribe to my notion finally can stop debating me, and I can point out examples of hypocrisy without having to reply to bunch of people. What I'm saying isn't for them anyway Those who have private backchannels and connections aren't the ones who get fucked by girl white knighting. It's common folk who don't write much who are the victims of misinformation and lack of negative feedback.
Finally, I would say that taking me off ignore, writing a reply and then putting me back on ignore (like maui) is pretty cowardly. And talking about my posts without reading them, I believe can be classified as "hearsay" on here. If you gonna ignore me, do it like men.
I do have you on ignore (and never took you off). I saw your posts while checking the forums when I wasn't logged in. My bad, definitely my own damn fault.
It would be nice to vote you off this island but I think the world would be a better place if you simply limited your posts to a Twitter-like 280(?) characters.
If I'm smart I'll stay out of here for another couple of months or so.
Make love, not posts!
Adieu
If you have attention deficit disorder, I hear Adderall helps.
Twitter character limit is one of the greatest evils to come out in modern communication (along with motivational books) . Conditioning people to be lazy and not read.
On other hand, I thin you can fit s_witter posts promoting all the orgs daily in that limit, so it must work for you.
Again, if you're ignoring me, then ignore me. Don't be cherry picking and replying to some of my posts and then hiding pretending like you didn't read my replies.
You claim I'm telling people what to do, yet here you are telling me what to do in terms of my post length. Why am I not surprised?
Limiting his average post length would be awesome. Though I’m sure it will never happen.
While we’re dreaming, wouldn’t it be cool if he would just delete every post where he justified a claim or his entire response with a fallacy? No more constructing a strawman so he can rant. No more bandwagon claims of veracity. No more No True Scotsman claims of being the only pure pro-monger advocate. And so on.
We can only dream. But that would be so cool.
So you'd like censorship of dissenting opinion as well? Lol. Youd like to silence me so bad huh. Even ignoring me isn't enough anymore huh.
Sorry bud, I speak on what this site is about - reviews and girls.
It's funny, because bandwagon appeals are made mostly by people like you, cdl, dcgrind and others. Even including Jensen.
"others don't agree with you so you must be wrong". This had been said countless to to me here. And I've never used this argument myself. Ever.
I also never claimed I'm "the only pure promonger advocate." another lie. What I claimed is that people who protect girls from public criticism are not pro-monger.
You're spewing pure bullshit right now. Shame on you.
-- Modified on 5/7/2021 7:33:04 PM
-- Modified on 5/7/2021 7:47:56 PM
but he's not arguing in a vacuum, yes virtually all the threads that run off the right hand side of the page have Rocket right in the middle of them, but almost all of them also have Jensen, CDL et al right there with just as many posts in the thread as Rocket.
As for "bad product" come on guys, this is a fuck board where guys pay to read a blow by blow account of other guys fucking any girl they are interested in fucking themselves, but calling them good or bad "product" is somehow objectifying them???!!! Give me a fucking break.
But don't sell yourself short here GaG. YOU baited both rocket and CDL and rocket was initially not going down that path with CDL.
Yes, it is a fuck board but I don't fuck products. I fuck (good way) women. You're correct that such discussion can be objectification of women but doesn't have to be objectifying. However using the label produce is necessarily objectifying them. Humans are not products outside some trafficking or similar setting (and the associated mindset that goes with those engaging in such exploitation). So sorry, you don't get a pass on that one.
CDL made a ridiculous statement and I just let him dig his own hole, which he managed to do quite nicely without any more help from me except perhaps a little "nudging" of him in the right direction. You give me too much credit, CDL himself did all the heavy lifting as I knew he would.
I don't fuck "products" either, but I do recognize we are on a fuck board for fucks sake and making a statement like "ABC Agency consistently puts out a good product" is hardly anything that any one but the Uber sensitive is going to go off the rails over. There is simply no limit as to what "some people" get offended over. I once made a comment about "the girls" here and some OTHFB went ballistic about my "Misogynistic views" With all the "macro-aggressions" I run into on a daily basis I don't have time to get upset about these so called micro aggressions. If you want to be a snowflake, it's a free country and you can get offended about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean I am going to join you lemmings streaming off the cliff of Political Correctness.
Here's the link from farther up the thread where YOU brought a link over from another thread about something I said with the specific intent to get Rocket started on one of his rants. You even said that you "warned" me ahead of time that you were going to do this. Its disingenuous to sit here now and say, "Who? Me?"
I think you need to revise your post to Jensen to say, "RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT Jensen."
then I brought it to everyone's attention since it really was a topic better suited for THIS board, I pointed Rocket in your direction and then you did the rest of the work for me. Rocket is hardly the only one who thinks your 7-10 scale is just so much bullshit to use as an excuse not to give the girls poor scores. The rest of us are supposed to read between the lines because you don't have the guts to call an OTHFB an OTHFB. You have admitted to this literally dozens of times so it's not like I am putting words in your mouth.
BTW I will give you credit for stating in your reviews how old you actually believe the provider to be, but that only partially gets you off the hook for giving 7's to women you know deserve lower scores. Can you even imagine if EVERYBODY came up with their own numerical system? The numerical scoring system would be even more worthless that it already is.
Ten months ago, I criticized CDL's scoring system on the General board:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/ter-general-board-12/you-have-your-own-scoring-system--there-are-over-3-million-hobbyists-on-ter-969701?page=
YOU, being CDL's mentor and White Knight, came rushing to his defense by replying to me:
"You're an idiot EVERYONE has their own scoring system..."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/ter-general-board-12/youre-an-idiot-everyone-has-their-own-scoring-system-969712?page=
But now in your post above you say the complete OPPOSITE:
"Can you even imagine if EVERYBODY came up with their own numerical system?"
No wonder you don't like me reminding you of your old posts. They prove what a hypocrite and idiot you are.
the numbers don't really matter. If you give a girl a 5 on a scale of 1-10, then that's a lower score., but if the scale is 1-5, then she's at the top of heap by getting a 5. The SoCal guys that regularly follow my reviews KNOW that a 7 is a DNS on MY scale. Likewise, I am careful to explain my scoring system on this board a couple times a year, so that newer members understand it. Finally, for those that are too dumb to understand what my numbers mean even after having it explained ad nauseum, my narrative will usually carry a corresponding warning, so if I give a girl a 7, and say she is below average, or that she's as DNS as far as I'm concerned, and they still don't get it, these same guys are not going to be able to consistently use a 1-10 scale either. My system is EASIER to use. If easier doesn't work for somebody, then don't use my reviews when deciding who to see next. Its really that simple. I don't know why you are so obsessed with it.
Would you pass on a restaurant that "only" has three Michelin stars instead of ten? The answer is NO, because you know how the Michelin grading scale works. three is the highest. In my Kgirl scale, 7 is the lowest. Why is knowing the scale so hard to understand? Everything in the world is not always on a scale of 1-10, but as long as you know the scale, you can navigate ratings on anything, including my reviews. Keep working on it. I have high hopes that you will grasp it one of these days. Lol
Yes, I think GaG needs to get off his high horse as if he is clean in this.
that he INTENDED to get Rocket going,. Gotta give him props for that even though he is doubling down that it was the right thing to do given his lack of reading comprehension on the other board. But he still hasn't explained why he called me out for something that HE read into my post on the other forum that simply wasn't there. Several other posters over there also told him that just because I didn't condemn the practice then I MUST be condoning it. Despite the negative reaction to his claim from other mongers and even a provider, he decided that HIS interpretation of my post was the same as what I intended. So he "warned" me he was going to bring a link over here to get Rocket worked up, and in that regard, he was a huge success. Kudos to Karnak the Magnificent on his mind-reading abilities. LOL
For me, it’s less about the SJW aversion to an ever shifting definition of objectification and more about how I believe that how you think about anyone or anything has a strong impact on how you treat that person or thing.
In my mind it is much easier to keep the right mindset for treating these women with the same respect I expect from them if I think of them as women or girls. Thinking of them as products necessarily shifts anyone’s perspective much more strongly towards objectification and disrespect (even if it is entirely unintentional) for them as human beings whose feelings and even safety are just as important as ours. Yes, even though we’re paying for them to fake those feelings for us.
I’ve met and worked with a lot of people around the world. I’ve never met anyone who talks about another person or people as objects who does not also treat them with not so subtle disrespect. Though almost every person I’ve met who does this thinks no one can tell what they really think. Even though it is obvious to everyone but him/her. On the other hand, there are some who simply don’t care if anyone in any situation recognizes any of their prejudices. Though even their treatment of others tends to not be truly consistent with their stated opinions.
Still, I fully understand that there are those who firmly hold beliefs that disagree with the above. And that is their choice.
-- Modified on 5/7/2021 9:13:31 AM
I've heard various stories over the years about K-Girls and their financial position. There are probably as many reasons for the girls coming here as there are girls who have come. I've been told about debt needing to be paid, sometimes debt that was paid by the org here that the girl is now needing to work off. That would be one of the saddest scenarios, although there are many, including a girl who said she was saving money to bring relatives from China to South Korea. A girl who was paying off her father's hospital bills, a girl who was saving money so she could buy a house in Korea for she and her mom, and the list goes on.
I had a girl ask me for $$$$$ once, which I declined. I'll see a girl repeatedly if I like her and I'll give a tip or even take her out but I'm not interested in handing over a lump sum.
I also think that it's really hard to know which stories are true and which are not. These girls seem to have an intense focus on maintaining their privacy. I typically take what a girl tells me at face value because I'd rather trust the girl than not trust her and I'm there for fun and not to solve her problems or be a therapist.