Nice to see BN and 15 Minutes Back!!!

[Kippy]

I was delighted to see BN's column "15 Minutes" posted here again today. Always funny and whether every inch is original doesn't matter to me. Time to put the fangs away my pretties and realize that detraction (as opposed to the obligation for "quest of truth") mouthiness and bitchiness are not virtues.

 

Humble pie for Easter this year!!;-)

 

Peace,

 

Kipp

 

PS. Would someone please tell NP she's not Empress of America?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

Sadly, when writing his own material, Benji is full of shit. His appeal is now to the homophobes who hate gay pride parade and are disgusted that a successful company like Colt Studios could be honored by the City of San Francisco on its 40th Anniversary.

 

Ben, who famously took a dirty dildo in his mouth, now cries: "What I can’t understand is why the mayor-under-fire of one of the most ultra-liberal cities in the country decided to make February 23rd forever known as ‘Colt Day’ in San Francisco.

 

As in PORN STUDIO COLT VIDEO. As in, ‘we’ve made a real contribution to San Francisco by shoving things up our asses for almost half-a-century’ COLT VIDEO."

 

Would he have been happier if they honored him, he who has been selling his ass to horny men for several years now?

 

He states: "Nice fucking job Mr. Mayor. It's tough for me to convey the right amount of total sarcasm in that statement, but know it's there in full force." But Ben ignores the fact that the award was given by a city commission with pre-signed honorifics by the mayor. In other words, the mayor knew nothing about it until it was done.

 

Then our world-travelling male prostitute takes on gay pride parades:

"I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen gay porn stars, drag queens or scantily clad go-go boys headlining at quasi-political or pride events in the past few years. Is this really what our community wants to present as an honest version of who we are? I’m not shocked that straight-society stereotypes us as sexual deviants."

 

Well, excuse me dude. The parade is for us, not some straight redneck who drinks beer while jacking off to your eye-candy section, which I notice is now missing from your homogenized new blog. What's the matter? Didn't have any original pics to post or is eye-candy not suitable for your new homophobic readers?

 

But it gets more ludicrous: "I truly don’t see the gay community finding a common ground with the rest of the world until they can control the culture of ‘being’ gay."

 

What? The gay community must now control the culture of being gay? What the hell does that mean? And who is looking for "common ground?" We are who we are and the rest of the world can deal with it or not! But maybe we should turn over control of our culture to icons such as blogger Ben. Yes, he can set the moral standard for the rest of us! Fosterchow will be his cultural enforcer!

 

The new, reformed Ben states: "I traded my personal opinion on life for the overall entertainment value of Page Six. I had always said that 15mm was nothing more than cotton-candy fluff, but I began believing my own spin and ended up writing less of what I really wanted to and more of what I assumed would ‘sell.’"

 

So now, to make amends, he will sell out his own community to take comfort in a common ground with the rest of the world, even if it means that we can't watch Colt videos, march in parades, or use ID lube.

 

Ben, I suggest that you move to Key West and take up residence at a B&B that shows non-stop Absolutely Fabulous re-runs. Your new blog just didn't work for me.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

Earlier I read the two posts that precede mine; I have just gone to BN's blog and perused it, too. Now after reading the guy's blog, I think he was being satirical throughout.

 

When I read Lucky's assessment (before reading the blog, I became unnerved, but after reading Ben's blog of this week-- I think the guy attempted to view some serious issues and lend his talent in satirizing them!

 

...did miss his eye candy and will write him a private e to encourage a long post about his Brasilian experiences during Carnaval of 2007.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

I didn't see it that way, Axiom, but I hope you are right. I realize that my post wasn't so warm and fuzzy as I might have liked, but I was distressed that after my protesting the Ben bashing that was going on here the first blog Ben puts up is a bash gays blog. Anita Bryant I wasn't prepared for!

[Guest alanm]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

Whether or not the comment in 15 MINUTES were meant seriously or not, people may not know the following:

 

John Rutherford, the head of COLT Studios since 2003, succeeded the late Charles Holmes as president of Falcon Studios. Holmes, the founder of Falcon Studios, passed away in 2000.

 

The Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which indirectly owned Falcon Studies until 2004, supports a wide range of organizations, including groups protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, organizations which provide support to people living with HIV/AIDS and others that help homeless youth or fight pediatric cancer and autism.

 

I assume that San Francisco already honored Falcon Studios with a day.

 

Rutherford shares Holmes' vision of strong community involvement (I was a member of Falcon's on-line message board for a brief period), so a day to honor COLT Studios seems proper also.

 

We could really accomplish something by successfully lobbying for higher pay for the "models" who work at the two studios.

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

I disagree with Axiom that the post was satirical (but it did contain sarcasm) and I agree with Lucky that it was rife with self-hating homophobia. Benjamin states that "straight-society stereotypes us as sexual deviants" and "the rest of the world sees homosexuality as singularly seedy and sexual." That may be true for religious right-wing hate groups such as the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family, and Benjamin has stated that he's a Fox News viewer, so that may explain why he has this view.

 

But perhaps he just needs a gentle reminder that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders way back in 1973. Or that an overwhelming majority of Americans now think Don't Ask Don't Tell should be abolished and that gays should serve openly in the military, that support for gay adoption is increasing and that opposition to gay marriage is declining: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

 

The Anglican church in North America now has openly gay clergy and gay weddings. Reform Judaism now has gay weddings, and the Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative Judaism!) has just begun accepting gay applicants. And don't forget the United Christ Church and their wonderful (banned) ads for inclusion.

 

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa all have legalized gay marriage, and other European nations offer civil unions.

 

Yes, hate crimes and gay-bashing are also on the rise, but I think those are more of a reaction to our gains in visibility and civil rights than a reaction to porn stars and drag queens at Gay Pride events. I do not see the "rest of the world" or "straight society" viewing us as "sexual deviants"...maybe that was true in Archie Bunker's day, but not now. And how are we, as "gay society," supposed to view straight people? Everywhere you look, from music videos to magazine covers to advertising (for any product), we see straight sexuality. We see Girls Gone Wild. We see Desperate Housewives. We even see Alanis Morissette's "Humps." Let's face it; human beings are sexual beings, whether they're gay, straight or bi. Straight people don't have to be neutered and hide their sexuality and we shouldn't have to, either.

 

Playboy's Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends have (had?) their own reality show on E! channel, so why can't Colt Studios be honored by SF?

[FinFangFoom]

RE: Not Nice to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

>I think the guy attempted to view some serious issues and lend

>his talent in satirizing them!

 

 

Satire requires talent and the only real talent Little Benjie (let me once again stress this is not a veiled reference to the size of his cock) has demonstrated is his talent to lube himself up and then climb into slings in rural Pennsylvania garages and get himself fucked senseless - when he's not busy sucking on shit-encrusted dildos.

 

I will leave you with that mental image.

 

Delicately yours,

 

FFF

[RockHard]

RE: I'm glad to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

"I agree with Lucky that it was rife with self-hating homophobia."

 

And I completely disagree (no surprise there).

 

"Benjamin states that "straight-society stereotypes us as sexual deviants" and "the rest of the world sees homosexuality as singularly seedy and sexual." That may be true for religious right-wing hate groups such as the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family, and Benjamin has stated that he's a Fox News viewer, so that may explain why he has this view."

 

I believe Tony Hendra wrote a scathing article in the 2003 issue of Details on Steven Cojocaru and his national influence on conservative America's opinion of homosexuals. I loved the article so much I saved it (but it's in storage and I apologize if my facts are wrong).

 

Basically Hendra argued, with a caustic and electric writing style, that gay "extremes" don't help gay rights because conservative thinkers view these extremes as majority and commonplace. I think NYC's pride parade is awful. Doesn't make me feel proud at all. And, yes, make no mistake, I do love myself.

 

Whether BN was being satirical or not, I sincerely questioned Newsom's decision to honor Colt in such a way. There are other ways to pay homage to steroid users. But given Newsom's behavior lately, he may not care about his future as it pertains to the national political scene. Maybe he's perfectly happy to govern that strange, yet beautiful city known as San Francisco. I could never live there. Most of the gay men who live there are as backwards as the mountain-folk in Deliverance.

[AdamSmith]

We are richly blest

 

>Satire requires talent

 

FFF, have a heart! Consider the inventions the boy lavishes upon us...

 

"giving creedence to something as socially meaningless as pornography" -- Surely this is a provocative invitation to debate, not just a thoughtless throwaway. Note, too, the clever misspelling of the second word to slyly allude to the swamp blues-influenced rock band of yore.

 

"Nice fucking job Mr. Mayor. It's tough for me to convey the right amount of total sarcasm in that statement, but know it's there in full force." The lacerating wit in explaining what one meant to say, just in case one failed actually to say it.

 

"writing less of what I really wanted to and more of what I assumed would ‘sell.’" More, that is, of what someone else had already sold. A sure-fire formula!

 

"a bi-monthly blog (beginning this month) that splices apart my feelings" Profound postmodern conjunction of "splice" (join together) with "apart" -- the impossible action! Italo Calvino, eat your heart out.

 

Carping? We should be paying for the privilege!

[+ Tom Isern]

RE: I'm glad to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

ROCKHEAD: "...that strange, yet beautiful city known as San Francisco. I could never live there. Most of the gay men who live there are as backwards as the mountain-folk in Deliverance."

 

Good attempt, (once again) to set yourself up as the arbiter of all things progressive, Rockhead. You failed. Your ignorance (a “caustic and eclectic writing style”—what the fuck is that?), arrogance, condescension, and self-righteousness (…there are other ways to pay homage to steroid users) oozes out of your venomous post. You are indeed WAY BEYOND A TROLL. You are Daddy’s very own Internet Orc.

[jackhammer91406]

Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

No secret here. Not a big fan. Sorry to see the link appear as well.

Guess the signal intended is everyone gets a do over. The signal being received here is some people have most favored nation status. Even when you lie, cheat and steal. Well, nobody's perfect I guess and I know I surely am not.

I just dislike seeing favored status for someone who so clearly disregards truth, honesty, integrity and now apparently all things gay.

 

On a side note, as sure as night follows day, the sun always rises again. No matter what topic or thread; if Rockhard replies , it will eventually contain a slam on Isern, and subsequently, a return slam from Tom. Like a Hirschfield cartoon, you wonder where the "Nina" is coming in a Rockhard post. It was a game for me for a while to guess how long before he would post a rip on Isern. It would be entertaining still if there was variety, but after a while, I just don't care anymore. Personally, these guys need to get in a room together, slug it out, and leave us with just one to avoid instead of two. Guys, unless you are the same person venting a split personality, (yikes) this feud between the two of you has gotten so boring, and is really polluting way too many threads.

 

And in case no one noticed, it seems just a few weeks ago, Rock you were decrying Daddy's administration of tolerance in allowing too many people to post freely. You predicted the imminent death of the site. Now you say he is great and the site is great. I am just trying to keep up.

[Louis]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

It's good that 15minutes is back. I might not agree with everything in 15minutes, but it caused me to think. A person can find faults with anything, and I am reminded of a certain film clip a friend saw. (yes it was film and not a video)

The film showed a horse starting from the hooves up. They showed the flaws in the feet, all the ways up the legs, the chest was too narrow, and so on. This part of the horse was weak and that part of the horse was weak, finally the camera pulled back, and the horse was Secretariat.

So while people can be critical, a lot of people have read and continue to read 15minutes.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

Well, good for you. Glad you enjoy it.

My problem is not with the blog, he can write (or copy) whatever he wants. I don't read it.

 

I take issue with the fact that it's linked here. That has ALWAYS been my issue. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough for you.

[GloriousGodfrey]

RE: I'm glad to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

>ROCKHEAD: "...that strange, yet beautiful city known as San

>Francisco. I could never live there. Most of the gay men who

>live there are as backwards as the mountain-folk in

>Deliverance."

 

I live not too far from where Deliverance was filmed and I can vouch for the fact that San Francisco folk are NOWHERE near as bad as the people of North Georgia. From my POV, it seems as though Rockhead is doing a very poor imitation of the always entertaining FFF.

 

One thing that connfuses me though. Lucky comes across as Benjamin's staunchest defender in one thread and his worst critic in another. Schizophrenia?

[+ deej]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

>I take issue with the fact that it's linked here. That has

>ALWAYS been my issue. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough for you.

 

So I take it you're in favor (as I am) of also removing links to Rick Munroe's and Scott Adler's blogs? And anyone else that comes along in the future?

 

Or is this a "just this one" complaint? }(

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

I think it's always been clear to anyone who has followed my posts on this subject.

 

I am fine with links. I think there should be more discretion on what links are provided. That is a point I have made since it became clear that Ben violated client confidentiality by providing clients with info on other clients. That is rule number one. And a site dedicated to protecting clients by offering a place to review escorts and document information on escorts so that a client doesn't have to hire without some insight, should take that seriously when deciding what to link to.

 

I don't think this site would knowingly link to a site backed by the notorious cupcake guys would it? So linking to an escort's blog who has knowingly shared client info which resulted in identifying a client seems to be beyond what is acceptable. When you add the recent issue with stealing copyrighted material, I don't see any way around it. I couldn't care less about whether he is truthful about his age or service. That's part and parcel of the internet. Buyer beware.

 

But hey, it's just an opinion. I know BN has his fans and they are free to support him without reservation and regardless of the risk, just as I am free to call a spade a spade.

 

 

When my opinion is no longer acceptable, then someone in authority can pull the plug on me and that's their right.

[+ deej]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

>I think it's always been clear to anyone who has followed my

>posts on this subject.

 

Yes, and I think you're a hypocrite. (And you know I say that with love.)

 

>I am fine with links.

 

No, you're not. You want censored links. As in...

 

>I think there should be more discretion on what links are

>provided.

 

In other words, you want Daddy to assume responsibility for and control over content he does not author and does not host. You want the LA Times to control content in the Washington Post. Not gonna happen.

 

>But hey, it's just an opinion. I know BN has his fans and they

>are free to support him without reservation and regardless of

>the risk, just as I am free to call a spade a spade.

 

As am I. I'm not a fan, for whatever it's worth.

 

*MY* opinion is that *NO* escort blogs should be featured because we can't possibly feature them all. It has nothing to do with quality or content. we can't do anything about that anyway. Featuring *any* creates an uneven playing field for all.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

Well, you're free to think I am a hypocrite. That's fine.

 

I don't think that it's too far a stretch to expect that this site would be concerned with what kind of support it gives to an escort that violates confidentiality. I am not asking the owners of this site to be responsible for editing what an escort writes in his own blog. PLEASE don't put words (or anything else )in my mouth. Whether that has anything to do with the Times or the Post is for smarter people than me.

 

The content (which is the main selling feature for the review site and drives the advertising that pays for the site) is provided by the clients. It would be a disservice to them for any site so dependent on client goodwill to take such a cavalier attitude about whether a clients safety and identity are at risk. I don't care whether it's Ben or any other escort. When an escort is proven to be untrustworthy, no amount of cock sucking or sweet ass changes that for me. My opinion is based on hearing "pillow talk" from Ben's clients. To provide a link to such a person which offers assistance in defrauding clients (who expect discretion and confidentiality from an escort) violates I think what this site was founded for. If the mission purpose has changed with new ownership, then that should be stated and I can then make a decision about whether or not to stop providing content.

 

It's not uncommon for family to express disappointment in each other when they are faced with it. Such is the nature of families. Perhaps you can recommend me to a hypocrites anonymous meeting here locally that can help me address my shortcomings,.

 

Now, I think I have been clear, so I don't think I need to say much more.

[+ deej]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

>I don't think that it's too far a stretch to expect that this

>site would be concerned with what kind of support it gives to

>an escort that violates confidentiality.

 

Personally, I think we should expose it. Not hide it.

 

When Vincent Michael spilled his guts about clients, nobody here seemed to mind. (Yes, that's meant as sarcastic.)

 

Where do you want that line drawn, Jack? Do we ban everybody for everything or do we give them enough rope to hang AND EXPOSE themselves?

 

Is it better you KNOW where the snakes are, or should we hide them?

 

You seem to be saying we should hide the fact that Stef LaCoste discusses his clients with others. (Just one personal example.) If we hide one, we should hide them all or we truly do have "protected status".

 

The point of this site is to shine a light on it, not to sweep it under the rug.

 

But whatever we do, it should be the same for all. The blog situation isn't doing that.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

Just when you think you're out they suck you back in...

 

Deej, look, my point is simply this:

When you provide a link on the opening page of your website to any site that is owned and operated by someone who obviously takes advantage of clients, and has no regard for their security, you send a signal that you support that behavior. I seem to recall Vincent making apologies. Don't know about LaCoste. But Ben has always denied what I KNOW to be true. For the site to give ad hoc support to him this way does the site (and us as clients and content providers) a disservice. The owner of this site does deserve credit for allowing this topic to be discussed openly even tho it contains what amounts to criticism of it's policies.

 

As for the other incidences you mentioned, and shining the beacon or finding snakes or whatever metaphor you choose to use, that's what the message center is for. Some of those things were discussed at length. I remember them.

 

I am talking about this site (Daddy's Reviews), what is stands for and what it represents. If I didn't care about the site and didn't wish to see it stay and stand for something, please believe me when I say I wouldn't waste a minute more of my time.

 

If I am wasting my time now, then please let me know. I am sure I can find something better to do. Like.... Maybe write a letter to the Times or the Post and ask why the Cubs can't win a pennant and the Dodgers can barely squeak out a win against the Brewers..

[+ deej]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

>When you provide a link on the opening page of your website to any site

>that is owned and operated by someone who obviously takes advantage of

>clients

 

Daddy has also placed links on the top page to Focus on Family's anti-gay bullshit.

 

That's an endorsement?

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[+ glutes]

RE: We are richly blest

 

deleted by glutes~~

[Luv2play]

RE: I'm glad to see 15 Minutes Back!!!

 

I have gay friends who own a mountain-top retreat in north Georgia which I have visited several times. After they bought the place they discovered a rusted old still in a gorge which dated from prohibition times. Their porch looks out over a babbling river much like the Deliverance river but until I read your post I never associated the two. How weird! I found it to be a very peaceful place where gay guys could relax and enjoy the natural surroundings! Who knew what lurked out there in the woods!!! :o

[RockHard]

RE: UnCut and content.

 

"Your ignorance (a “caustic and eclectic writing style”—what the fuck is that?)" from Issey

 

What the fuck is THAT? How about your blind-ass eyes, bitch. There's a world of difference between eclectic and electric. How about doing us a favor and take a bath with your plugged-in blow-dryer. Maybe then you might regain your eyesight and get my gist.

 

And spare us your boring Wookiee language. It's breakwind, sweetie. I don't think anyone is interested in speaking Chewbacca with you.

 

San Francisco progressive? Oh Puhhhhhleeeeeeeeeeze! There's nothing progressive about any city who can't figure out how to provide for its homeless population.

 

"No matter what topic or thread; if Rockhard replies, it will eventually contain a slam on Isern" from jackhammer

 

Jack, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I simply follow Issey's lead. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't offer the same criticism of Isern, who typically takes a stab at me first. I can't recall the last time your name appeared in a thread title, Jack, started by an escort hellbent on belittling you. It seems the men (customers) here defer to those men (escorts) who are willing to stick dicks in our mouths. I get that. But if any escort on this board tried to pull that bully-bullshit on you, Jack, I'd be there to support YOU.

 

When Isern decides to file her fangs, you may not hear a peep out of me. When she doesn't bite, she's quite far from my gaydar. But, let's not forget her rentboy link at the bottom of every post. She claims that her attacks on me are good for her business. She's workin' it, for sure. I, on the other hand, am not here to sell ANYTHING. So who am I to deny her income from men who think they hate me and adore her? The dregs have to go to someone.

 

If it weren't for my charming, loving, hopeful presence here, she'd have to converse with herself (in her favorite mirror) or beat up on someone else, which she did before I hit the scene. Better it be me because she can't bully me to leave the board in a huff. I'll kick that bitch's ass any day.

 

I find it easy to dish her shit right back into her ugly, dopey face and EXPOSE the contempt-filled escort that she is. Issey breaks all Business 101 rules and stupidly thinks she's unique, carefully carving out a niche audience while robbing you blind and loathing you. Well, as long as she displays her contempt for being an escort and taking desperate, lonely men's money for sex, I'll continue to EXPOSE her for the fraud that she is. The ball has always been in her court.

 

My goal here is to support the escorts who are deserving of our support and EXPOSE the frauds. Many escorts make it quite easy to figure out who is deserving and who is not. Some escorts love to play you for a fool.

 

"It would be entertaining still if there was variety"

 

Lucky for us, there's only ONE ESCORT who takes pride in bullying his audience and treating members of this forum with contemptuous disrespect. His name is Tom Isern. I'd be quite surprised to find another escort/businessman on this site so utterly stupid and misguided. Self-destruction is pretty commonplace in the escort arena. Issey's style of self-destruction is NOT clever or hidden. Her game ain't funny.

 

You're not the only reader, Jack. There are hundreds of guys who come here to do research who do not post. You can't imagine how many emails I have received with complaints about Isern. Nobody deserves his shit, I don't care how much low self-esteem a guy has. Issey would do better if he spared us his public acts of degradation and kept them private, between himself and customers willing to pay for that kind of shit.

 

"this feud between the two of you has gotten so boring, and is really polluting way too many threads"

 

Fued? For me, slapping Issey back is healthy therapy.

 

I'm not interested in winning popularity contests, Jack, and I don't feel any compulsion to entertain you, or anyone else. I moved away from L.A. because my nose and eyes could not handle the smog. I suggest you consider doing the same.

 

"And in case no one noticed, it seems just a few weeks ago, Rock you were decrying Daddy's administration of tolerance in allowing too many people to post freely. You predicted the imminent death of the site. Now you say he is great and the site is great. I am just trying to keep up."

 

Yes, tolerance of TROLLS, Jack. And that's the unique thing about this special place. Who is a troll and who isn't? Who behaves like a troll and who doesn't? When is the escort the troll and when is he not? The question marks are endless.

 

Contrary to Fin, Jack, I have a heart and it beats with great passion. Sometimes my passions change. I'm not a cardboard doll.

 

I have written Daddy regarding "troll-control" and he has written back. It's clear, Daddy has much more patience than I do and a higher level of tolerance. Upon reading his recent opinions, my awareness of his generosity became more focused and I could see how I benefitted from his positions. No matter who attacks me first, Daddy provides an opportunity to defend myself. Few other boards offer that option. Daddy also knows the difference between an attack and a challenge, an insult and an opinion. I wished him luck with that. And the escorts get plenty of rope here. So be it.

 

Thank you for reading my posts, Jack. :-)

[best hotel]

RE: Can we cut down on the number of minutes?

 

...not until we find out the identity of the escort couple who wear hairpieces gossiped about in bn's blind item...anyone have any suspects?