I do not believe people who participate are inherently in possession of a moral deficit. I believe most people are fundamentally good, this example of unethical behaviour belongs to a mean-spirited and destructive minority.
Life is complicated, and most married hobbyists are looking to find some sense of fulfillment and pleasure in the one life they have to live.
Marriages aren't always healthy, people become emotionally walled off, and many feel trapped. Partners can form dependencies, divorces can ruin lives, and people can be vicious. And some people are just poly-amorous.
If people could be honest about this and expect consideration and understanding, most would be honest. I can certainly say that in nearly twelve years of being a companion, the vast majority have been honest and considerate people.
So I am getting ready for my Las Vegas trip (my favorite destination). Everything is set. Airline tickets - booked ! Hotel and Shows - booked !! I email this well known escort and go through her screening process. Everything checks out fine and she is willing to meet me. But there is a precondition. She doesn't want me to review her. She says she doesn't like to be reviewed anymore. She has couple of pages of reviews and point her to them. She informs me that if a client reviews her, he is banned for future visits. This lady charges $600-hr so she is definitely not cheap. Her reviews are simply off the charts
My take on this is that if a lady has web presence - a website and phone/email, hobbyists have right to review her. Being able to write the review is not the privilege, but our right. Why can't some women understand this simple concept? If she doesn't want to be reviewed, the she should completely take down her website and should only advertize through word of mouth.
I told her that if I see her, I will definitely review her (unless of course I die during sex). It is up to her to see me or not. I explained my case in the email. I have evening flight today. I still haven't heard back from her. I do have a back up, so I am not totally screwed.
How many people have gone through this? How many would blow off a perfectly fine escort just because she doesn't like to be reviewed? How many would lie to her face, go fuck her and then review her anyway? How many would cave in to this, unreasonable, request.
Thoughts? Ladies and Gentlemen, both, feel free to chime in.
Yes, you definitely have a right to review the girl. She definitely has a right to not see you if you do write a review.
My take on this is that if a lady has web presence - a website and phone/email, hobbyists have right to review her. Being able to write the review is not the privilege, but our right. Why can't some women understand this simple concept? If she doesn't want to be reviewed, the she should completely take down her website and should only advertize through word of mouth.
I told her that if I see her, I will definitely review her (unless of course I die during sex). It is up to her to see me or not. I explained my case in the email. I have evening flight today. I still haven't heard back from her. I do have a back up, so I am not totally screwed.
How many people have gone through this? How many would blow off a perfectly fine escort just because she doesn't like to be reviewed? How many would lie to her face, go fuck her and then review her anyway? How many would cave in to this, unreasonable, request.
Thoughts? Ladies and Gentlemen, both, feel free to chime in.
Some of us are great providers, but have "civil" reasons why we don't want reviews up. I myself had my stellar reviews blocked from viewing due to civil court and returning to college. TER was kind enough to respect those wishes- definitely dropped business, though.
It's the "If she doesn't want to be reviewed, the she should completely take down her website and should only advertize through word of mouth". That goes way too far. It is fair that a provider who has a "no reviews" policy should have no presence on a review site.
But thinking that she should have no website and no ads goes way too far. It denies free speech on the part of the provider.
It is not unreasonable to not want to be reviewed. Reviews can get you in trouble with folks who are prying into your business and are hostile. So discouraging / encouraging reviews and seeing / not seeing a client based on whether they will review or not is understandable: the lady can run her business in accordance with her risk tolerance. What is completely unreasonable on her part is to have a "no review" policy and still want the benefits of having a review profile up.
I think if TER knew about this, if it could be documented, her profile might disappear.
But thinking that she should have no website and no ads goes way too far. It denies free speech on the part of the provider.
I think if TER knew about this, if it could be documented, her profile might disappear.
You DON'T have a right to see her unless it is on terms you can BOTH agree to. See someone who is a better fit.
She has a right to not be reviewed, she then has no right to be present on a review site like TER, though.
Review her if she is no longer provides same kind of service as described in her previous reviews.
However, if she still delivers as advertised there is no reason to NOT respect her wishes.
Its easy to see that her last review is old already, and a hobbyist should see a girl with year or two year old reviews at their own peril.
Regardless of her web presence with one caveat: i will always write a review if i feel the pics are outdated or the services are subpar. I see several UTR providers regularly who advertise on Eros and i never review them. I remember one well-reviewed DC provider asked me what my review policy was when I requested to see her. I thought it was kind of weird that she would ask me this question, but I answered it truthfully. She then made up some flimsy excuse and decided not to see me. I guess she was afraid I would give her a bad review which seemed so unlikely considering she was very well-reviewed and I am a very generous grader.
Like others have mentioned, if the performance is lacking or have any deficiencies, write the review. This way, this enable the next hobbyist to prepare themselves before selecting her.
It's your choice if you want to write the review, and she has given you the stipulations. You can either accept her rules, or see someone else. Every provider's has got her preference. There are plenty of fishes in the sea willing to take your money.
If it was me, and I really wanted to see her, I won't write the review and respect her wishes. However, if the service did not match what other past reviews have stated, and it seem way off from my expectations, then I will write the review. She can't deliver BS service and not expect a review.
Unless of course she provides a subpar performance in which case she forfeits any right to ask not be revealed as a sub par performer. but as long as she is "as advertised" why would you want to disrespect her wishes in the first place?
She already has reviews, so you are providing anything new to the community, so why go against her wishes? Do you really need to crow to your buddies that you fucked her? or do you really need the fifteen days of VIP that badly? Those are the only reasons I can think of that you would have to write a review against the wishes of a lady. her reasons are her own, she has made them very plain to you, You can either respect her or not, as long as she treats you well, I can't imagine why you would want to disrespect her wishes this way
.. you really are the smarter brother...
Keep saying it, it pisses off my dumber brother. lol
I feel that way also. If you are not adding anything to the community... if her performance matches all the reviews she already has, then writing a review really serves no purpose.
Respecting her wishes isn't really a difficult thing to do is it ?
I myself don't want pages of reviews. A couple here and there are plenty for me. I don't feel it brings any help whatsoever to me by there being many. Alot of us prefer staying UTR.
"How many would lie to her face, go fuck her and then review her anyway?"
What an awful thing to say. That sir is unreasonable, unethical, crass and reflects a selfish and mean disposition.
It may be your right to review, but it is NOT your right to see HER. Therefore, if you want someone to review, book a different person. Or, risk the fact that you might have a great time, and she might refuse to see you again because you are NOT a respectful gentlemen, by refusing her requests. That she will let other ladies in her price range know you treated her with disrespect, and that you will likely be black listed by that crowd.
For high end ladies having a lot of reviews is a detriment to her business, and as such she doesn't want them. She is obviously trying to build a high end clientele, and many of those men do not write review themselves and frown upon a woman with pages of reviews. It's considered tasteless and crass. I've said it many time sand I'll say it again, there are way more hobbyists than there are memberships on this board. She is trying to tap into a much broader selection of men, particularly ones that can easily afford her rates, a group that doesn't review. You should respect her decision.
Why can't some men understand the simple concept that we are allowed to set standards and expectations for our interactions, and if you do not agree with the expectations of a particular lady, *you should see a different lady*, instead of being pushy, arrogant, self absorbed, unfairly demanding, rude, and a bully.
If a lady treats someone well, for them to go and then treat her poorly is abhorrent.
-- Modified on 1/25/2012 9:02:00 AM
The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. The client has every right to review a girl. The girl has every right to refuse to see a client.
What an awful thing to say. That sir is unreasonable, unethical, crass and reflects a selfish and mean disposition.
It may be your right to review, but it is NOT your right to see HER. Therefore, if you want someone to review, book a different person. Or, risk the fact that you might have a great time, and she might refuse to see you again because you are NOT a respectful gentlemen, by refusing her requests. That she will let other ladies in her price range know you treated her with disrespect, and that you will likely be black listed by that crowd.
For high end ladies having a lot of reviews is a detriment to her business, and as such she doesn't want them. She is obviously trying to build a high end clientele, and many of those men do not write review themselves and frown upon a woman with pages of reviews. It's considered tasteless and crass. I've said it many time sand I'll say it again, there are way more hobbyists than there are memberships on this board. She is trying to tap into a much broader selection of men, particularly ones that can easily afford her rates, a group that doesn't review. You should respect her decision.
Why can't some men understand the simple concept that we are allowed to set standards and expectations for our interactions, and if you do not agree with the expectations of a particular lady, *you should see a different lady*, instead of being pushy, arrogant, self absorbed, unfairly demanding, rude, and a bully.
If a lady treats someone well, for them to go and then treat her poorly is abhorrent.
-- Modified on 1/25/2012 9:02:00 AM
I completely agree.
However, if the gentleman has the intention of being dishonest, leading the lady to believe her wishes will be respected only to do the exact opposite... than she isn't given a fair chance to exercise her right of refusal.
Deception is unethical, it's wrong for the woman to deceive, and it's wrong for the man to do so.
Yes, deception is unethical on both sides of the fence. But it shouldn't be surprising to girls that if a client is perfectly willing to deceive his wife as to his marital infidelities, then why wouldn't the client also be perfectly willing as to deceive the girl by going back on his word to not write a review?
However, if the gentleman has the intention of being dishonest, leading the lady to believe her wishes will be respected only to do the exact opposite... than she isn't given a fair chance to exercise her right of refusal.
Deception is unethical, it's wrong for the woman to deceive, and it's wrong for the man to do so.
I do not believe people who participate are inherently in possession of a moral deficit. I believe most people are fundamentally good, this example of unethical behaviour belongs to a mean-spirited and destructive minority.
Life is complicated, and most married hobbyists are looking to find some sense of fulfillment and pleasure in the one life they have to live.
Marriages aren't always healthy, people become emotionally walled off, and many feel trapped. Partners can form dependencies, divorces can ruin lives, and people can be vicious. And some people are just poly-amorous.
If people could be honest about this and expect consideration and understanding, most would be honest. I can certainly say that in nearly twelve years of being a companion, the vast majority have been honest and considerate people.
All I am saying is that it should come as no surprise to anyone that a man could lie to a working girl if he is also willing to lie to another woman that he pledged to "love [and respect] in sickness and in health 'til death do them part."
Nothing more, nothing less.
Life is complicated, and most married hobbyists are looking to find some sense of fulfillment and pleasure in the one life they have to live.
Marriages aren't always healthy, people become emotionally walled off, and many feel trapped. Partners can form dependencies, divorces can ruin lives, and people can be vicious. And some people are just poly-amorous.
If people could be honest about this and expect consideration and understanding, most would be honest. I can certainly say that in nearly twelve years of being a companion, the vast majority have been honest and considerate people.
Why does her having a website make reviewing her your right, and conversely, why does her advertising only through word of mouth mean you have no right to review her. I don't get it. Having said that I would definitely respect her wishes.
for the little head. It wants what it wants and it wants it THIS way RIGHT now. It's only odd logic for a larger head that isn't attached to the particular little one.
a client reviewed after I expressly told him not to. The review was favorable but added details that could implicate me in a crime. Since then, he's been asked him multiple times to remove these details from the review. Fortunately, the next client was kind enough not to fabricate criminal activity while verifying that I am sincere and provide a good service.
Why did I have a no-review policy? Because there are many safety and legal implications which come into play. Providers' businesses are exposed to liars, abusers, blackmailers, and shills because of this process. Yet, there are no consequences for the writer because he is anonymous.
With that said, her request isn't unreasonable at all. If you have a great time with her, refer her services to your friends on the back channels. Make sure you tell your friends that YOU sent them. My clients are given discounts for referring my services to their friends. She may have a similar program.
If you cant resist the urge to review her don't see her. There are so many ladies to choose from - especially in Vegas who would LOVE a review.
In fact, I wouldn't see her. The info you gave makes it fairly easy to identify who you're talking about and from what I've heard, my guess is that she's protecting her well crafted set of reviews by dropping the chances that a low one will appear. By not agreeing to skip the review, she's willing to lose the money in exchange for perpetuating the myth that she's worth 6 bills. Rumor also has it that you won't be able to find her if you meet in public because her pictures are not very representative.
which you felt needed to be exposed, then I would honor her request for no reviews.
You do have freedom of speach (write) but she has freedom to not see you again.
You should be seeing the lady because you want to have fun for mutual enjoyment. Not so that you get a chance to write a review. I don't post reviews for everyone I see for a variety of reasons. One of them is the lady requests no reviews be written, others could be I am too lazy to write the review/and or the lady is utr.
we're all breaking the law, but if a girl has a no-review policy she's out of bounds?
If her reviews are all great, spend some time with her and enjoy it. If you can't agree to her terms, move on.
I'm not sure I agree with your point: it's my right to review her. Yes, you're free to tell anybody and everybody within earshot how it went. But posting something on a board that will likely follow her forever, and she doesn't want it?
The best (and most appropriate) thing for her is to have her profile removed and go UTR.
I totally get it. She's telling him he can't do something that he feels he has a right to do... something just rises up that says, "Watch me."
What kills me about this is the idea that providers have any control over having a profile or reviews in the first place, like suggesting she take her profile down. She is not the one who put it up! Her first reviewer did... with or without her permission! If it's taken down, someone else can review her and put another one back up. Just because a girl's reviews are to her benefit does not mean she has control over her profile.
So girls don't want to be reviewed because the explicitness of the review implicates them and that's enough reason to stop the review process? Really? Since when did we have any say in whether or not anyone reviews us in the first place or over what they say? Nobody cares if writing in black and white what went on behind closed doors is the ONLY proof that an exchange of sex for money ever happened. The review process is not and has never been about protecting anyone.
As a matter of fact, the "I agree" page says all the reviews are fiction stories... TER's official position is that none of it ever happened and guys are just making it all up for everyone's amusement. How hard would it be to say, "I don't know what guys are writing about me.... they have very vivid imaginations and they post their fantasies on review sites."
If you are in this business, with or without a website, above or below the radar, anyone who sees you has the right to review you and say whatever they want in the review regardless of what you think about it... I think that has pretty much been established.
No, I don't like that. I don't like it one bit. But, otherwise, reviews have no integrity and they are just another form of slanted advertising.
But I don't think he should lie to her and tell her he won't review her and then do it anyway.
But I can see how he would be tempted to!
we're all breaking the law, but if a girl has a no-review policy she's out of bounds?
If her reviews are all great, spend some time with her and enjoy it. If you can't agree to her terms, move on.
I'm not sure I agree with your point: it's my right to review her. Yes, you're free to tell anybody and everybody within earshot how it went. But posting something on a board that will likely follow her forever, and she doesn't want it?
The best (and most appropriate) thing for her is to have her profile removed and go UTR.
My former favorite got herself delisted when she retired because she needed to prove she left this game to get her kid back. Getting your self delisted by having your reviews pulled prevents further reviews form being put up. It will end your TER membership and your ability to advertise and post here but your profile and reviews would be gone. You do have a choice.
She retired.. that's different. You should definitely be able to do that if you are no longer working.
But if she came out of retirement and started working again... she would have no say if someone reviewed her and put up another profile.
I have not seen her out of fear but a local lady said she done just that after she got busted. Shame before she had her reviews pulled I was going to book a few hours to give her a go. With no reviews and the difficulty I am having verifying her still safe makes her a no go. I doubt I am the only one that DNS her because of it to.
I review a lot of the providers I see, and there are some I don't. There was one particular provider who needed to be outted, because she was upselling on her clients. She's take, and secure the money, give you a two minute CBJ, and then say this all my 30mins cover, if you want more you'll have to give me.
I made sure I put this in my review, and two other guys did also. I was more in detail in how she did this. Based on her reviews she quit doing this. She was pretty upset by this, in reality I may have just saved her from getting hurt.
Upselling like that could get a provider hurt badly. What happens if the client does not have the extra money you're asking for? Do you think someone's going to just walk out the room 140.00 short for a 3min CBJ?
and pretend that you are respecting her wishes. If however your results are less than favorable or you feel there is something your fellow brothers should know, then write an alias review.
As a provider with 3 pages of reviews. It shouldn't be a issue to not review someone. I have more than enough reviews and at this point the reviewers are telling the same story over and over (slightly different). What is important is that I am real, worth my donation and, I am not a rip off, with pages of reviews to prove it!! Enjoy your new GFE.
Your issue is she doesn't want a review?
Maybe it's just me, and I'm a relative newbie at this, but why is this a concern if she's been reviewed before and the reviews are solid?
I've never reviewed, and I doubt I will. Thought about it once, but never did.
If she was REQUIRING a review, I could see this being issue, but otherwise...I'm not seeing the problem.
review. If she is B & S, ROB, C & D, etc. then write the review for the benefit of your fellow hobbyists.
This is not like other business. LE looks at reviews, fresh reviews could cost her custody of her child. Ads can be hard to remove as sometimes they are even bogus and that is provable and don't usually say illegal activities are happening. Reviews are different. Unless you need to warn others of something do not review. If she is any way a rip off review away.
So are you saying that TER should delete and prohibit ALL reviews unless they deal with girls who rip off clients?
They are:
If the girl does not want to be reviewed, then she can tell TER to pull her profile. She can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it leads to girls being able to "cherry-pick" which reviews she wants posted.
You come across as increadiblty egotistical in all this. She is telling you her rules but somehow you think you are special and rules do not apply to you. If she has any sense she will put you on ignore and pretend you do not exist. If you feel no obligation to follow one rule, who knows what else you feel you can unilaterally ignore? Maybe you unilaterally decide she was not worth her fee and you take half ogf it back. Or maybe you ignore the no gree part of her web site because it is "your right".
It is not YOUR life that may be threatened. You do not know her situation, but the need to feed your ego clearly outweighs her safety, her custody, her day job, and her relationship with her family. All issues you have NO IDEA about, and no idea what you can destroy because you want to write a review.
I will agree that if a provider is a rip-off, etc., a review is called for in spite of her wishes. But otherwise, why are you so emotionally attached to writing a review? It seems a review does three things:
--Informs other guys about unsafe ladies. If she is safe, this is moot.
--Helps a lady with her business. If she feels she does not need the help, why do you feel the need to force it on her?
--Stroke's a guy's ego as her describes his conquest and prowess in the review and the added notch on his belt. In this case that seems to be the only reason that applies.
Her request is not unreasonable. You are most likely wasting her time--you saw her rules, you do not agree with them, GO SEE SOMEONE ELSE.
No, what I am saying is this game is a game of discretion. You owe each other the respect to keep silent as long is everything good if so asked. If nothing is said, review, if you wish. If she asks you to not review respect her wishes if she is ethical or don't see her. You would not like it if she posted about you when you asked her not to, would you? This is a game of secrets and if treated right you keep your mouth shut if ask and she owes you the same.
You quote the US Constitution a document I love. You are right that you have the right to say what you want and the GOVERNMENT has no right to stop you. But you can contract those rights away for compensation on a temporary bases. Each of my employees signs a document stating they will not bad mouth my business while under my employ. It gives me grounds to fire with no warning for a breach and sue if there is monetary damages at my discretion.
In this case she agrees to see him if he waves his right to review and should he fail that to fire him as a client. It would likely void the contract on discretion as well as you would fall to hold up your end. She would be with in her right to blacklist as by seeing her with the stipulation you will not review you are breaching your end of a mutual nondisclosure agreement making it void. I think it would be unwise of her but it would be within her rights to do so. There is a difference between a government removing a right like your free speech and your agreeing to remain silent with consequences for failure to keep your word.
You bring up:
"If the girl does not want to be reviewed, then she can tell TER to pull her profile. She can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it leads to girls being able to "cherry-pick" which reviews she wants posted."
I will agree that that is an issue. If I did see her and she didn't offer services in her reviews or was in any way deceptive, it would void our agreement as she failed to deliver her end, thus justifying a review defeating her cherry picking. Now if she ethical she would have likely just "cherry picked" away a good review. No loss to me. Now if she was less then ethical she would still get exposed for her fraud.
You said it, in yet anther post, "Yes, deception is unethical on both sides of the fence." If you see her you are giving your word that you will not review if she keeps her end of the deal. Breaking your word is deception. Reviewing after agreeing not to is thus unethical. Unethical acts makes one dangerous and there should be consequences for unethical behavior.
Putting it simply The OP should ether not see her (as he stated is his plan at this time) or not review if she keeps her end. Why are you even arguing the point? Would I see her? Not likely, unless someone I trust vouches for her ethics, but I would not make an issue of it as her choice not to get reviews would not affect me in the least as I would not be her client. A clients failure to behave ethically can have real consequences a lady and if she responds to his unethical acts, her unethical client.
I'll keep this brief and address your points in order:
It's my right to review any girl I want. It's her right to have her profile pulled from TER or withdraw from escorting altogether. Girls should not get to dictate who can or can't review. Clients should not be prevented from reviewing unless a rip off occurs. These 2 actions prevent cherry-picking. Period.
Your lucky the ACLU and the EEOC hasn't sued your company for Constitutional rights violations in your employment contract. Read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/07/case-settled-union-employees-you-can-badmouth-your-boss-on-facebook/
If we were to adopt your premise that breaking ones word makes one unethical, and that unethical acts makes one dangerous, then every man who cheats on his wife, every person who tells a lie, and every person who commits a crime (like engaging in prostitution as a working girl or client) is dangerous and should suffer the consequences for unethical behavior. Your premise, not mine.
So I submit to you that based on your premise, every one of us on TER, including you and me, are dangerous and should suffer the consequences for unethical behavior.
You first.
If the girl does not want to be reviewed, then she can tell TER to pull her profile. She can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it leads to girls being able to "cherry-pick" which reviews she wants posted.
You come across as increadiblty egotistical in all this. She is telling you her rules but somehow you think you are special and rules do not apply to you. If she has any sense she will put you on ignore and pretend you do not exist. If you feel no obligation to follow one rule, who knows what else you feel you can unilaterally ignore? Maybe you unilaterally decide she was not worth her fee and you take half ogf it back. Or maybe you ignore the no gree part of her web site because it is "your right".
It is not YOUR life that may be threatened. You do not know her situation, but the need to feed your ego clearly outweighs her safety, her custody, her day job, and her relationship with her family. All issues you have NO IDEA about, and no idea what you can destroy because you want to write a review.
I will agree that if a provider is a rip-off, etc., a review is called for in spite of her wishes. But otherwise, why are you so emotionally attached to writing a review? It seems a review does three things:
--Informs other guys about unsafe ladies. If she is safe, this is moot.
--Helps a lady with her business. If she feels she does not need the help, why do you feel the need to force it on her?
--Stroke's a guy's ego as her describes his conquest and prowess in the review and the added notch on his belt. In this case that seems to be the only reason that applies.
Her request is not unreasonable. You are most likely wasting her time--you saw her rules, you do not agree with them, GO SEE SOMEONE ELSE.
No, what I am saying is this game is a game of discretion. You owe each other the respect to keep silent as long is everything good if so asked. If nothing is said, review, if you wish. If she asks you to not review respect her wishes if she is ethical or don't see her. You would not like it if she posted about you when you asked her not to, would you? This is a game of secrets and if treated right you keep your mouth shut if ask and she owes you the same.
You quote the US Constitution a document I love. You are right that you have the right to say what you want and the GOVERNMENT has no right to stop you. But you can contract those rights away for compensation on a temporary bases. Each of my employees signs a document stating they will not bad mouth my business while under my employ. It gives me grounds to fire with no warning for a breach and sue if there is monetary damages at my discretion.
In this case she agrees to see him if he waves his right to review and should he fail that to fire him as a client. It would likely void the contract on discretion as well as you would fall to hold up your end. She would be with in her right to blacklist as by seeing her with the stipulation you will not review you are breaching your end of a mutual nondisclosure agreement making it void. I think it would be unwise of her but it would be within her rights to do so. There is a difference between a government removing a right like your free speech and your agreeing to remain silent with consequences for failure to keep your word.
You bring up:
"If the girl does not want to be reviewed, then she can tell TER to pull her profile. She can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it leads to girls being able to "cherry-pick" which reviews she wants posted."
I will agree that that is an issue. If I did see her and she didn't offer services in her reviews or was in any way deceptive, it would void our agreement as she failed to deliver her end, thus justifying a review defeating her cherry picking. Now if she ethical she would have likely just "cherry picked" away a good review. No loss to me. Now if she was less then ethical she would still get exposed for her fraud.
You said it, in yet anther post, "Yes, deception is unethical on both sides of the fence." If you see her you are giving your word that you will not review if she keeps her end of the deal. Breaking your word is deception. Reviewing after agreeing not to is thus unethical. Unethical acts makes one dangerous and there should be consequences for unethical behavior.
Putting it simply The OP should ether not see her (as he stated is his plan at this time) or not review if she keeps her end. Why are you even arguing the point? Would I see her? Not likely, unless someone I trust vouches for her ethics, but I would not make an issue of it as her choice not to get reviews would not affect me in the least as I would not be her client. A clients failure to behave ethically can have real consequences a lady and if she responds to his unethical acts, her unethical client.
Why should THAT bother them? It's our Constitutional right to do so!
YOU'RE A PREDATOR! I have the First Amendment
tattooed on my back, and your logic still makes no sense to me. Just because you have the right doesn't mean you should. You're hurting yourself by chasing some of your provider pool away.
Jennifer Steele
I told her that if I see her, I will definitely review her (unless of course I die during sex). It is up to her to see me or not. I explained my case in the email. I have evening flight today. I still haven't heard back from her. I do have a back up, so I am not totally screwed.
You come across as increadiblty egotistical in all this. She is telling you her rules but somehow you think you are special and rules do not apply to you. If she has any sense she will put you on ignore and pretend you do not exist. If you feel no obligation to follow one rule, who knows what else you feel you can unilaterally ignore? Maybe you unilaterally decide she was not worth her fee and you take half ogf it back. Or maybe you ignore the no gree part of her web site because it is "your right".
It is not YOUR life that may be threatened. You do not know her situation, but the need to feed your ego clearly outweighs her safety, her custody, her day job, and her relationship with her family. All issues you have NO IDEA about, and no idea what you can destroy because you want to write a review.
I will agree that if a provider is a rip-off, etc., a review is called for in spite of her wishes. But otherwise, why are you so emotionally attached to writing a review? It seems a review does three things:
--Informs other guys about unsafe ladies. If she is safe, this is moot.
--Helps a lady with her business. If she feels she does not need the help, why do you feel the need to force it on her?
--Stroke's a guy's ego as her describes his conquest and prowess in the review and the added notch on his belt. In this case that seems to be the only reason that applies.
Her request is not unreasonable. You are most likely wasting her time--you saw her rules, you do not agree with them, GO SEE SOMEONE ELSE.
I disagree. Rules that violate rights protected under the US Constitution can and should be broken. If a city had a rule that prohibited black US citizens from voting even though it was in violation of a couple of Articles of the Constitution, then they should break that rule.
If the girl does not want to be reviewed, then she can tell TER to pull her profile. She can't have it both ways. Otherwise, it leads to girls being able to "cherry-pick" which reviews she wants posted.
You come across as increadiblty egotistical in all this. She is telling you her rules but somehow you think you are special and rules do not apply to you. If she has any sense she will put you on ignore and pretend you do not exist. If you feel no obligation to follow one rule, who knows what else you feel you can unilaterally ignore? Maybe you unilaterally decide she was not worth her fee and you take half ogf it back. Or maybe you ignore the no gree part of her web site because it is "your right".
It is not YOUR life that may be threatened. You do not know her situation, but the need to feed your ego clearly outweighs her safety, her custody, her day job, and her relationship with her family. All issues you have NO IDEA about, and no idea what you can destroy because you want to write a review.
I will agree that if a provider is a rip-off, etc., a review is called for in spite of her wishes. But otherwise, why are you so emotionally attached to writing a review? It seems a review does three things:
--Informs other guys about unsafe ladies. If she is safe, this is moot.
--Helps a lady with her business. If she feels she does not need the help, why do you feel the need to force it on her?
--Stroke's a guy's ego as her describes his conquest and prowess in the review and the added notch on his belt. In this case that seems to be the only reason that applies.
Her request is not unreasonable. You are most likely wasting her time--you saw her rules, you do not agree with them, GO SEE SOMEONE ELSE.
Your comparison to prohibiting black citizens from voting is flawed.
A much closer comparison is using cell phones in a movie theater: that too impinges upon my free speach, does it not? But if I want to go to a movie (NOT an inherent right), then I agree not to use my cell phone during the movie.
Same for a restaurant that requires jacket & tie to eat there.
A VOLUNTARY condition, known up front. If you do not agree with it, go somewhere else. The agreement to see a lady is more than just the price.
And I stand behind the dangerous comment as well.
I don't think a reviewer is inherently dangerous for wanting to write a review as long as he exercises good judgment and discretion when writing his review. The same applies to anyone and their respective actions, whether they be TER mod, agency owner, or working girl.
I used my example because it demonstrates an explicit violation of civil rights and the Constitution. Your examples (cellphone use in movie theater, dress code for restaurant) are not as good or clear cut as the Constitution doesn't really address it directly.
The Constitution does explicitly address preventing blacks from voting, as well as denying US citizens their rights of "freedom of speech" and even "freedom of expression" (e.g. burning the US flag).
The final determination is this: I'll write a TER review on any girl I see and there's nothing she can do to stop me, short of pulling her profile from TER.
As it should be, as it prevents girls from only allowing reviews from those who she knows will write favorable ones.
A much closer comparison is using cell phones in a movie theater: that too impinges upon my free speach, does it not? But if I want to go to a movie (NOT an inherent right), then I agree not to use my cell phone during the movie.
Same for a restaurant that requires jacket & tie to eat there.
A VOLUNTARY condition, known up front. If you do not agree with it, go somewhere else. The agreement to see a lady is more than just the price.
And I stand behind the dangerous comment as well.
You have two logic errors here:
--Using a cell phone to communicate/express opinion is every bit as much "freedom of speach" as writing a review. The theater is saying I cannot express myself loudly on the phone in the middle of the theater. The same is true if I want to put up a big screen on my front lawn and show porn that is clearly visible from the street. Freedom of speach is not absolute at all, ESPECIALLY when freely negotiated away. Any idea what might happen if I take a job, agreeing to protect sensitive corporate data, turn around and publish it in the local rag, and claim "freedom of speach"?
--If the lady did not specify "I don't want reviews" in advance, I would tend to agree with you. But he knows up front that is a negotiated condition of the transaction just as much as the price. If he is not comfortable with the price or the condition--move on. Do not agree to 300/hr but on the way out remove 100 and claim "I am expressing my displeasure at the performance". Same thing as agreeing to not review and then doing it anyway.
--If a lady has a "I do not want reviews" policy to all comers on her web site, how is that "cherry picking"? If after the fact she senses a session did not go well and so asks a guy not to review, there I would agree with you also. But that is not what was described.
--I think everyone has agreed that IF a performance is bad (not just "average", or "we did not click"), a rip-off, etc., then a review is reasonable even if asked not to.
--And you are right, no one can FORCE a "do not review" follow through. This is not about force, it is about what is right. And a guy knowing it is against a lady's rules prior to booking a date and fully intends to ignore that to write a review is WRONG.
--I also agree a reviewer is not inherently dangerous because they write a review, but the problem is he does not know her situation. One lady fairly recently lost custody of her kids because a guy wrote a glowing review after she begged him not to--the judge saw the review and took the kids. A really nice way to say "thank you" to the lady. The most dangerous fools are those that shoot blindly.
PS: Even pulling her presence on TER does not enforce a "no reviews". In the past ladies I know who went off the radar, retired theier public persona, and asked for their reviews to be removed still wound up with reviews.
I used my example because it demonstrates an explicit violation of civil rights and the Constitution. Your examples (cellphone use in movie theater, dress code for restaurant) are not as good or clear cut as the Constitution doesn't really address it directly.
The Constitution does explicitly address preventing blacks from voting, as well as denying US citizens their rights of "freedom of speech" and even "freedom of expression" (e.g. burning the US flag).
The final determination is this: I'll write a TER review on any girl I see and there's nothing she can do to stop me, short of pulling her profile from TER.
As it should be, as it prevents girls from only allowing reviews from those who she knows will write favorable ones.
A much closer comparison is using cell phones in a movie theater: that too impinges upon my free speach, does it not? But if I want to go to a movie (NOT an inherent right), then I agree not to use my cell phone during the movie.
Same for a restaurant that requires jacket & tie to eat there.
A VOLUNTARY condition, known up front. If you do not agree with it, go somewhere else. The agreement to see a lady is more than just the price.
And I stand behind the dangerous comment as well.
Here is a simple litmus test. Go to any reputable lawyer and ask them to represent you in your "cell phone in move theater" case. They will all tell you that you do not have a case on the grounds of "freedom of speech".
As for the issue of respecting a girl's request to not review her, the issue of right/wrong/respect/disrespect rings hollow when compared to the greater issue of the illegality of paying for sex. Why would a client care about the rightness or wrongness of ignoring a girl's rules to not review her when the client already doesn't care about the illegality of paying for sex or even cheating on one's wife (where applicable).
It is hypocritical for one to say it's OK to abide by a girl's restrictions to not review her unless the session is "bad" or a "rip off". Either you believe that clients shold respect a girl's request for no reviews or you don't, regardless of the situation. For starters, how does one define a "bad" session or a "rip off"? What if one client doesn't agree with another's definition? Is it ok for a client to write a review of his "bad" situation where another client would rate that same session as "good"?
Finally, I concede there is a risk that a girl's reviews might still remain even after having her TER profile deleted. That, among other reasons, is why I believe it is futile for any girl to request "no reviews" of her clients. There is simply no way for her to enforce that stipulation. Frankly, girls are better served focusing on their "performance" as to ensure resulting good client reviews rather than trying to futilely prevent reviews being written in the first place.
--Using a cell phone to communicate/express opinion is every bit as much "freedom of speach" as writing a review. The theater is saying I cannot express myself loudly on the phone in the middle of the theater. The same is true if I want to put up a big screen on my front lawn and show porn that is clearly visible from the street. Freedom of speach is not absolute at all, ESPECIALLY when freely negotiated away. Any idea what might happen if I take a job, agreeing to protect sensitive corporate data, turn around and publish it in the local rag, and claim "freedom of speach"?
--If the lady did not specify "I don't want reviews" in advance, I would tend to agree with you. But he knows up front that is a negotiated condition of the transaction just as much as the price. If he is not comfortable with the price or the condition--move on. Do not agree to 300/hr but on the way out remove 100 and claim "I am expressing my displeasure at the performance". Same thing as agreeing to not review and then doing it anyway.
--If a lady has a "I do not want reviews" policy to all comers on her web site, how is that "cherry picking"? If after the fact she senses a session did not go well and so asks a guy not to review, there I would agree with you also. But that is not what was described.
--I think everyone has agreed that IF a performance is bad (not just "average", or "we did not click"), a rip-off, etc., then a review is reasonable even if asked not to.
--And you are right, no one can FORCE a "do not review" follow through. This is not about force, it is about what is right. And a guy knowing it is against a lady's rules prior to booking a date and fully intends to ignore that to write a review is WRONG.
--I also agree a reviewer is not inherently dangerous because they write a review, but the problem is he does not know her situation. One lady fairly recently lost custody of her kids because a guy wrote a glowing review after she begged him not to--the judge saw the review and took the kids. A really nice way to say "thank you" to the lady. The most dangerous fools are those that shoot blindly.
PS: Even pulling her presence on TER does not enforce a "no reviews". In the past ladies I know who went off the radar, retired theier public persona, and asked for their reviews to be removed still wound up with reviews.
I used my example because it demonstrates an explicit violation of civil rights and the Constitution. Your examples (cellphone use in movie theater, dress code for restaurant) are not as good or clear cut as the Constitution doesn't really address it directly.
The Constitution does explicitly address preventing blacks from voting, as well as denying US citizens their rights of "freedom of speech" and even "freedom of expression" (e.g. burning the US flag).
The final determination is this: I'll write a TER review on any girl I see and there's nothing she can do to stop me, short of pulling her profile from TER.
As it should be, as it prevents girls from only allowing reviews from those who she knows will write favorable ones.
A much closer comparison is using cell phones in a movie theater: that too impinges upon my free speach, does it not? But if I want to go to a movie (NOT an inherent right), then I agree not to use my cell phone during the movie.
Same for a restaurant that requires jacket & tie to eat there.
A VOLUNTARY condition, known up front. If you do not agree with it, go somewhere else. The agreement to see a lady is more than just the price.
And I stand behind the dangerous comment as well.
You have significantly changed your argument.
“Here is a simple litmus test. Go to any reputable lawyer and ask them to represent you in your "cell phone in move theater" case. They will all tell you that you do not have a case on the grounds of "freedom of speech".”
My point exactly, that is not a “freedom of speech” issue, and neither is it “I have a constitutional right to write reviews”. You were claiming reviews are a free speech issue, not me. I never said they were.
“As for the issue of respecting a girl's request to not review her, the issue of right/wrong/respect/disrespect rings hollow when compared to the greater issue of the illegality of paying for sex. Why would a client care about the rightness or wrongness of ignoring a girl's rules to not review her when the client already doesn't care about the illegality of paying for sex or even cheating on one's wife (where applicable).”
I admit there are plenty of guys who WILL ignore a woman’s request and her safety, that was never the issue. The OP clearly identified himself as one of them. The question is whether they should.
And your argument that since paying for sex is illegal, than anyone who does that is a callous inconsiderate human being does not follow in the least. Do you also believe everyone who pays for sex is also a shoplifter, drunk driver, and scofflaw in a few dozen other ways as well? Total non sequitor.
“It is hypocritical for one to say it's OK to abide by a girl's restrictions to not review her unless the session is "bad" or a "rip off". Either you believe that clients shold respect a girl's request for no reviews or you don't, regardless of the situation.”
Come now! That is complete illogic. As soon as you toss in “regardless of the situation” you blow a hole in your credibility. If I run a stoplight that is an offense. But if I have a critically wounded person in the car and I’m on the way to the ER with them, the morality significantly changes. The same is true here. If the lady is NOT a rip-off, danger, bait & switch, etc., then she may well be hurt by the review but no one is hurt if the review is not written. If she IS a rip-off, then guys who would see her if not warned ARE potentially hurt if the review is not written. That is logically and ethically a very different situation.
“Finally, I concede there is a risk that a girl's reviews might still remain even after having her TER profile deleted. That, among other reasons, is why I believe it is futile for any girl to request "no reviews" of her clients. There is simply no way for her to enforce that stipulation. Frankly, girls are better served focusing on their "performance" as to ensure resulting good client reviews rather than trying to futilely prevent reviews being written in the first place.”
This is not primarily about enforcing a no-review policy, but rather about doing what is right. You brought up she could ask to have her profile pulled to protect herself, I was just pointing out that your solution does not always work. And your new fix is even worse because you missed the point yet again: if a lady has certain issues her quality of performance and quality of review has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a child custody case, etc. Do you think any judge will say “Oh, you have a lot of 9/9 scores so I will let you keep the kids—but if you had a bunch of 6/6 scores I would give them to your psychotic ex husband.” When you say this is makes you seem as if you are arguing for the sake of arguing and did not even pay attention to the posts.
She has numerous reviews, and now she requests that this specific hobbyist not review her. Does she know of him, and thinks it might hurt her biz if it was known that she saw him? Does she have something to hide? When was her last review? I don't know. Personally, I'd have to look somewhere else. If I recall correctly, she's in Vegas. Maybe LE has her in their sights? Maybe something about her services or appearance has changed? For me, it brings up too many questions on top of the illegal activities already taking place, so I'd just visit with a woman who doesn't appear(to me)to have anything to hide. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but if I were traveling anywhere for whatever and wanted to include seeing a courtesan, in this case, I'd see someone else. EOM
Transaction declined
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!