General question to the community.  I'm arranging a party for a friend's wedding, and wanted to make it memorable. What are everyone's thoughts on how to contact providers that are comfortable entertaining a group (say 15) of responsible, 40ish guys for a few hours. Any individual time would be separate; arranged through a provider and the host (or hobbist).  Basically looking for 3-4 personable, professional entertainers who would be comfortable providing the option of one-on-one if things are copacetic.

Thanks in advance for any and all input/advice.

I would say let each of the 15 or so, get hooked up with their own provider if that is their personal desire.... screening for 15 unknowns would be a nightmare... and having 15 different ladies would, well... make one helluva party!

Have you thought of the emotional jolt for (male) guest D who went "upstairs" with "Betty" when he finds out that before him she had given happiness to guest K and is now about to do the same for guest P?
Or is the friendship among all the guests such that they'd gangbang if they were not too shy about possible public failure?

When one of the guys tells a buddy, who tells a buddy, who tells his wife or g/f, who turns around and tells the wife of one of the guys or even worse, the groom, your nuts will be in a sling as the guy who coordinated the girls that provided the "options".

I saw it happen first hand at a buddy's bachelor party. Wasn't pretty.

Just my two cents  Sometimes covering your own ass is better than being the hero.

do you really want to be the guy who gets hauled in as a "procurer" when this party spills out of the house/hotel room/garage and the cops are called?  You might want to find either a good strip club (I know that's an oxymoron) or find a couple of strippers who will do a private show without the extras.

...in arranging these types of parties.

ran an article claiming the charges were bogus.

Just more frat boys bragging about shit that never happened.

It's well documented that the prosecution may have bungled this case to the point that they'll never get a conviction, but to say it's "frat boys bragging about shit that never happened" is ludicrous.  Three are facing RAPE CHARGES!!  Nobody is bragging about anything.  I won't debate whether or not a rape ocurred.  I wasn't there, so I DON'T KNOW.  The world may never know, either.  However, what isn't debated is that the Duke Laxers hired 2 ESCORTS from an escort agency (ONE THAT HAS A SHITTY REPUTATION, I might add), they paid them $800, they'd requested an asian and a hispanic but got 2 blacks instead.  The HOOKERS (let's not kid ourselves, here) showed up believing they were going to be entertaining a small BACHELOR PARTY of AROUND A HALF DOZEN people, b/c that's what they'd been told by the Dukies.  We all know they showed up to find a large party in full swing.  One of the hookers was smart enough not to enter the house, the one who claims she was raped wasn't that smart.  Whether they're guilty of rape or not, the Duke Laxers know a thing or two about putting together a sleazy party.

Because as we all know, guilt is proved by how hysterical the public is, not by facts.

Any accused terrorist MUST be guilty, because of the charge.  Same with witches.

Prosecutors generally have many times more resources than any private defense, and the discretion to allocate them in a way that overwhelms a defense.

I don't know much about this particular case; only pointing out that the New Yorker (well known for its propensity to jump to conclusions to protect rich white boys) wrote this article.

BUT, seeing that this is a RAPE charge, they MUST be guilty.  Hell, the entertainment value alone proves they're guilty.

One thing they don't seem to know is how to keep themselves out of trouble.   That does suggest they're amateurs, no?

-- Modified on 10/12/2006 11:33:25 AM

Dude, WTF are you on?  I said I don't know if they're guilty or not?  Public sentiment seems to be that they're NOT!  More and more shit comes out every day that suggests the accuser is full of shit.  There will be a piece on 60 Minutes Sunday night to that effect.  So much for the Prosecutors having MORE RESOURCES.  In case you didn't know, one of the top dogs (I think the president) at CBS is a Dukie.  Trust me, the defendants' attorneys have plenty of clout and resources.  Like you pointed out in your first post, the New Yorker is suggesting that the charges are bogus.  Now you've suggested that the New Yorker has a "propensity to jump to conclusions to protect rich white boys".  I wouldn't be surprised in the least, if that, and practically ALL other media stories of late (including what's to come on 60 Minutes), were carefully orchestrated by the defendants' attorneys.  I doubt that they'll be convicted of anything.  They may not be guilty of rape.  Your whole "if the charge is serious enough, they must be guilty" joke is puzzling.  I NEVER SAID THEY WERE GUILTY!  I said that this wasn't a bunch of frat boys bragging about shit that never happened.  That you actually wrote that, suggests that you have been living in a cave.  

I joked that they're the ones to call for planning a wild party complete with paid escorts.  You're right that they don't know how to keep themselves out of trouble, however it took them YEARS of this type of behavior for it really to come around and bite them.  So they got pretty good mileage out of all their mischief.

-- Modified on 10/13/2006 3:54:44 PM