General Reports

[PghTraveler]

Sadly, there are A LOT of lap dogs who think that they'll get better treatment if they tell the girls "secrets. " It happens all the time.

So this happened to me.

Last week I saw a provider off BP. I wrote a review on the other site, and before I could post here, I lost my privacy. Such is life.

In my review I mentioned maybe she was a little pricey, didn't know if I'd repeat. I might not have given her a sufficiently high enough rating on looks either. I also may have used a term that wasn't really complimentary. But, when I review I try to give my honest opinion. My last mistake in the review was referring to something that kind of identified the appointment.

So in the last few days I figured what the hell, it was a good enough time, maybe more will happen, gave her a call back to set something up.

Provider: You wrote a review on me. Why did you say this, this and this?

Slappy: What are you talking about?" (You weasly motherclucker!

P: I have a really good regular who shows me all my reviews, the juicy details, and I know you wrote that review!

S: (Starts swearing under his breath at smarmy monger who has no life, is in stupidly love with the provider, and is basically this provider's personal ATM) OK, thanks, have a nice day.

P: Wait, do you want to set up an appointment?

S: Have a nice day.

So I was reminded of a hard lesson about putting something out there on the internet. And it's come back to bite me in the arse.

But wow, what a douche move on this monger's part. I read reviews, here and the other site, and if the majority are good, I try and see them. But I sure as hell don't bring up negative reviews to her, and promise to give her shining marks in mine to curry favor.

I'd *never* undercut anyone else like that, because frankly, it's none of my business. If y'all got a problem with a provider, that's between you and her.

[Ron M]

I visited Prague, Czech Republic a few years back. There was this place called "Sex Park". No joke. It was like a strip club with a hotel attached. You basically walk through halls, meet all the different girls outside their rooms, make your pick, negotiate your price, then go in the room and have a good time. Everything was covered and safe. Lots of security and everyone behaved themselves.

We need that shit here. Like, yesterday.

In college in the early 1990's I wrote an essay and class speech on why prostitution should be legalized. All I got was "Deer In The Headlights" look. Legalizing this won't happen. At least in our lifetime.

[GMan25]

Brief chat with the she pimp I met couple weeks ago. Said her friends were all 800. Any of you guys ever go that high? They were hot, but-.

It's milk and ice cream. It's five dollars. And they don't put bourbon in it or nothing.

God damn that's a pretty fuckin good milkshake.

[GotMilf]

I visited Prague, Czech Republic a few years back. There was this place called "Sex Park". No joke. It was like a strip club with a hotel attached. You basically walk through halls, meet all the different girls outside their rooms, make your pick, negotiate your price, then go in the room and have a good time. Everything was covered and safe. Lots of security and everyone behaved themselves.

We need that shit here. Like, yesterday.

[DMichaels69]

I'm all AMP so this type of thing has only come up twice and it was just a general statement about reviews. I always say I'm not there to discuss reviews and to get back to the massage which is what I'm paying for. Your feelings about that monger are spot on and in the end it won't get him any further with her then anyone else has no matter what she or his ego tells him. But as you say such is life.

So this happened to me.

Last week I saw a provider off BP. I wrote a review on the other site, and before I could post here, I lost my privacy. Sucvih is life.

In my review I mentioned maybe she was a little pricey, didn't know if I'd repeat. I might not have given her a sufficiently high enough rating on looks either. I also may have used a term that wasn't really complimentary. But, when I review I try to give my honest opinion. My last mistake in the review was referring to something that kind of identified the appointment.

So in the last few days I figured what the hell, it was a good enough time, maybe more will happen, gave her a call back to set something up.

Provider: You wrote a review on me. Why did you say this, this and this?

Slappy: What are you talking about?" (You weasly motherclucker!

P: I have a really good regular who shows me all my reviews, the juicy details, and I know you wrote that review!

S: (Starts swearing under his breath at smarmy monger who has no life, is in stupidly love with the provider, and is basically this provider's personal ATM) OK, thanks, have a nice day.

P: Wait, do you want to set up an appointment?

S: Have a nice day.

So I was reminded of a hard lesson about putting something out there on the internet. And it's come back to bite me in the arse.

But wow, what a douche move on this monger's part. I read reviews, here and the other site, and if the majority are good, I try and see them. But I sure as hell don't bring up negative reviews to her, and promise to give her shining marks in mine to curry favor.

I'd *never* undercut anyone else like that, because frankly, it's none of my business. Why'all got a problem with a provider, that's between you and her.

[Call Me Slappy]

So this happened to me.

Last week I saw a provider off BP. I wrote a review on the other site, and before I could post here, I lost my privacy. Such is life.

In my review I mentioned maybe she was a little pricey, didn't know if I'd repeat. I might not have given her a sufficiently high enough rating on looks either. I also may have used a term that wasn't really complimentary. But, when I review I try to give my honest opinion. My last mistake in the review was referring to something that kind of identified the appointment.

So in the last few days I figured what the hell, it was a good enough time, maybe more will happen, gave her a call back to set something up.

Provider: You wrote a review on me. Why did you say this, this and this?

Slappy: What are you talking about?" (You weasly motherclucker!

P: I have a really good regular who shows me all my reviews, the juicy details, and I know you wrote that review!

S: (Starts swearing under his breath at smarmy monger who has no life, is in stupidly love with the provider, and is basically this provider's personal ATM) OK, thanks, have a nice day.

P: Wait, do you want to set up an appointment?

S: Have a nice day.

So I was reminded of a hard lesson about putting something out there on the internet. And it's come back to bite me in the arse.

But wow, what a douche move on this monger's part. I read reviews, here and the other site, and if the majority are good, I try and see them. But I sure as hell don't bring up negative reviews to her, and promise to give her shining marks in mine to curry favor.

I'd *never* undercut anyone else like that, because frankly, it's none of my business. If y'all got a problem with a provider, that's between you and her.

[WhiteRookDown]

Brother I'm not trying to be a dick, I swear I'm not but you just used the same false analogy that the christian right uses for this.

The issue is you just put consensual commercial sex in the same basket with pedophilia, bestiality, and human trafficking which are all activities where all parties are most certainly NOT all giving consent (polygamy deliberately excluded because if everybody consents and are all adults then it's their business not ours) with an activity where there is consent. It's a false analogy.

A2.

I don't think you're being a dick at all, A2. You're expressing your opinion, just as I did. Nobody ever gets more stupid by exchanging opinions.

[Admin2]

You almost make a good case. In practice, society doesn't regulate the sexual activities of two (or more) consenting adults in private, because they are in private, and nobody knows what is going on. Street prostitution's public nuisance isn't just tying up traffic or paying attention to the sidewalk, it's the prostitute and her client having sex in public. While you may think ordinances, statutes, or laws are "relics of the 19th Century morality mindset", they actually do serve some purpose. If we don't believe that society should tell us who we can love (and society really doesn't), and shouldn't tell us who we can have sex with and under what conditions, then we are very much on a really slippery slope. Society, and morals, SHOULD tell us who we can have sex with, and to a lesser extent, under what conditions. Otherwise, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, human trafficking, and any number of other perversions become acceptable, even lawful. When society's guardrails are removed, things always regress, rather than progress. In other words, I may never murder someone. But I most certainly do not wish to live in a society where murder is acceptable.

Brother I'm not trying to be a dick, I swear I'm not but you just used the same false analogy that the christian right uses for this.

The issue is you just put consensual commercial sex in the same basket with pedophilia, bestiality, and human trafficking which are all activities where all parties are most certainly NOT all giving consent (polygamy deliberately excluded because if everybody consents and are all adults then it's their business not ours) with an activity where there is consent. It's a false analogy.

A2.

[Mr Charmo]

Had met a girl a while ago, poster pro. Tries to dissuade you from FS. Tries to keep it to he for $. 5.

I know hard to go for that when you can get FS for the same.

Then again, I just posted about 800 girls.

[WhiteRookDown]

If you think about it, most laws against prostitution are nothing more than attempts by society as a whole to regulate the sex life of those who partake of the services of prostitutes. While a case could be made that street prostitution is a public nuance (traffic tie-ups and / or customers paying more attention to who's walking the side walk than traffic), on what grounds does society justify the regulation of sexual activities of two consenting adults in private? The laws are, by and large, relics of the 19th Century morality mindset, and they are ardently defended by the 'Moral Majority' types who see sex as something they need to control. But if we no longer hold that society should tell us who we can love, then why should it be allowed to tell us who we can have sex with, and under what conditions? I wouldn't call these people "fringe lawyers", they just might be the people who pull America into the 21st Century as far as sexual relations go, and for those of us who like the services of 'working women', that might not be a bad thing at all.

You almost make a good case. In practice, society doesn't regulate the sexual activities of two (or more) consenting adults in private, because they are in private, and nobody knows what is going on. Street prostitution's public nuisance isn't just tying up traffic or paying attention to the sidewalk, it's the prostitute and her client having sex in public. While you may think ordinances, statutes, or laws are "relics of the 19th Century morality mindset", they actually do serve some purpose. If we don't believe that society should tell us who we can love (and society really doesn't), and shouldn't tell us who we can have sex with and under what conditions, then we are very much on a really slippery slope. Society, and morals, SHOULD tell us who we can have sex with, and to a lesser extent, under what conditions. Otherwise, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, human trafficking, and any number of other perversions become acceptable, even lawful. When society's guardrails are removed, things always regress, rather than progress. In other words, I may never murder someone. But I most certainly do not wish to live in a society where murder is acceptable.

[Mr Charmo]

Brief chat with the she pimp I met couple weeks ago. Said her friends were all 800. Any of you guys ever go that high? They were hot, but-.

It's milk and ice cream. It's five dollars. And they don't put bourbon in it or nothing.

[Castlerae]

Fringe lawyers started writing articles about how the right to "sexual privacy" immunized them from prosecution in any right, decent, and just society..

If you think about it, most laws against prostitution are nothing more than attempts by society as a whole to regulate the sex life of those who partake of the services of prostitutes. While a case could be made that street prostitution is a public nuance (traffic tie-ups and / or customers paying more attention to who's walking the side walk than traffic), on what grounds does society justify the regulation of sexual activities of two consenting adults in private? The laws are, by and large, relics of the 19th Century morality mindset, and they are ardently defended by the 'Moral Majority' types who see sex as something they need to control. But if we no longer hold that society should tell us who we can love, then why should it be allowed to tell us who we can have sex with, and under what conditions? I wouldn't call these people "fringe lawyers", they just might be the people who pull America into the 21st Century as far as sexual relations go, and for those of us who like the services of 'working women', that might not be a bad thing at all.

[Mannheim]

All this went down while the forces of the "Progressive Left" occupied the White House, not the Fundamentalists. The Bush years were pretty quiet on this front.

I don't understand your hardcore right wing quotes. We already know George Bush didn't do jack on the homefront, especially when money was to be made in blood and defense contracts.

[XXXlaw]

In other related prostitution news, the Rentboy case seems to be coming to an end with guilty pleas.

That was the pre-eminent Gay escort advertising site, and for a very long time it acted as though prostitution wasn't illegal, just an alternative lifestyle. A bit delusional to my tastes. They had a scholarship program for the young, twinky kids who serviced other men and they went so far as to have an annual event giving awards to outstanding gay prostitutes, the "Hookies". When the raid and arrests came down, the gay activists screamed loudly that this would never happen to a straight site and was based purely on homophobia, and every radical left fringe group got on the podium screaming about the injustice. (though, really, the same thing had gone down with SF Redbook in San Francisco's Tenderloin just a couple of years earlier. There were legal defense fund-raisers. The radicals screamed that this case was managed by Homeland Security because it was so outrageously unfair that the FBI wanted to stay out of it. They really got themselves worked up about it, seeming to say that the rules that applied to others shouldn't apply to them because of Gay Rights or something like that. Fringe lawyers started writing articles about how the right to "sexual privacy" immunized them from prosecution in any right, decent, and just society.

Now the dust has settled some. The moral outrage seems to have disappeared, negotiations took place, and a result not far different from that in the Escort.com case, a few years back, has been announced. Here's the New York Times take on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/ny...stitution.html.

All this went down while the forces of the "Progressive Left" occupied the White House, not the Fundamentalists. The Bush years were pretty quiet on this front.

[Fiasco 20]

So. My workplace public Wifi has started blocking questionable websites. They pretty much have everything blocked, except I managed to find this one.

http://exploreyourholiday.com/classi...d_city=Chicago

I'm curious if anyone has used it or found it useful? It appears to have little or no graphic photos but plenty of ads. The button that links to The othER site usually comes up empty.

Anybody ever seen someone from this site? OR this one.

http://kjh2o.com/classifieds/?state=...d_city=Chicago