Daddy's Extraordinary Jan 14 review of https://rent.men/Rainer

[+ purplekow]

That's when it's good to get the locks changed!

 

Back to the review/story: It strikes me as the sort of thing you'd hear from someone who either has broken up with the guy or is jealous of the relationship that the "friend" may be having with the guy reviewed. No direct evidence, of course, but it brings to mind the sort of stuff that the former escort/boybander with multiple names (Drako was one) said about another escort (Mike Grey) form whom he broke up. Drako later admitted he posted false stuff about Mike because he was hurt by the break-up.

Remember Mike Gray's long hair. Contacted him to be my first hire and he told me that he would be too much for me and that I should hire someone else. Not sure what he meant as I have never had a sex partner be too much for me. But I did as he suggested

[+ oldNbusted]

You know guys there are things that Daddy does and doesn’t do with which I have disagreed in the past. This is NOT one of those instances. This review is so bizarre that I have NO doubt that Daddy read it very carefully and vetted it with extreme care. He thought it should be posted so he posted it – he runs this site. Whether or not we agree with him is irrelevant

 

 

I am surprised at the skeptical reactions, as if this was some newbie posting here in the forum, and not the trusted review site.

[former lurker]

I totally agree with you. However, I am inclined to think that the escort/masseur was given ample opportunity to write a rebuttal - AND DIDN'T.

 

I don't think we have any evidence one way or the other about how "ample" an opportunity Rainer was given to respond. After all, days before the "review" was posted, Daddy wrote that the holidays led to a lag in review submissions.

[former lurker]

You know guys there are things that Daddy does and doesn’t do with which I have disagreed in the past. This is NOT one of those instances. This review is so bizarre that I have NO doubt that Daddy read it very carefully and vetted it with extreme care. He thought it should be posted so he posted it – he runs this site. Whether or not we agree with him is irrelevant

 

I agree, at least with your last sentence. It's Daddy's site, he decides. Of course we all all free to reach our own conclusions, but it's pointless to criticize Daddy. This isn't a courtroom where you can move to have the judge recuse himself. He's the final word.

[BaronArtz]

I don't think we have any evidence one way or the other about how "ample" an opportunity Rainer was given to respond. After all, days before the "review" was posted, Daddy wrote that the holidays led to a lag in review submissions.

 

Perhaps. The 'incident' took place on Oct. 9, according to the reviewer. Why was the review published on Jan 14? Why the wait? The time lag does not make any sense. Neither does "He had taken a key from a friend that used my place. " and many other aspects of this review including, but not limited to, erratic grammar and spelling. I do not find this review convincing.

 

It would have been easy for the escort to write a swift and effective rebuttal. But he didn't. I am inclined to believe that there are checks and balances in place that give a negatively reviewed escort ample time to respond.

Edited January 15, 2020 by BaronArtz

[former lurker]

Perhaps. The 'incident' took place on Oct. 9, according to the reviewer. Why was the review published on Jan 14? Why the wait? The time lag does not make any sense. Neither does "He had taken a key from a friend that used my place. " and many other aspects of this review including, but not limited to, erratic grammar and spelling. I do not find this review convincing.

 

It would have been easy for the escort to write a swift and effective rebuttal. But he didn't. I am inclined to believe that there are checks and balances in place that give a negatively reviewed escort ample time to respond.

 

There is always a lag, and especially when several holidays intervene as they did here. Also, Daddy posted about hiatuses occurring due to computer transitions and related work. Thus, your only "evidence" is really what you say in the last sentence of your last post: you "are inclined to believe" that the checks and balances in place provide "ample" time to respond. That is fair, but surmise nontheless. Truth is, none of us knows when a review is submitted (we know when the get together occurred), when it's vetted, when an escort is contacted for response, how much time elapses until the escort either responds or runs out of time (if there's a set time) to respond, etc. But, as I said in another post, there's little point to questioning why Daddy chose to publish a "review" or what process he followed. It's his site, he decides. I'm just not sure there's sufficient basis to draw the inference that you drew.

[rossthebosssf]

I take all negative reviews with a few grains of salt. The reviewer isn't established and it sounds a bit personal and emotional. Not sure why it was even published as it does not fit the criteria IMHO. It's not a direct hiring experience - it's a personal one. Unless I see a pattern of multiple reviews by established reviewers, I would still consider hiring him. He is pretty delicious.

[Jim_n_NYC]

I take all negative reviews with a few grains of salt. The reviewer isn't established and it sounds a bit personal and emotional. Not sure why it was even published as it does not fit the criteria IMHO. It's not a direct hiring experience - it's a personal one. Unless I see a pattern of multiple reviews by established reviewers, I would still consider hiring him. He is pretty delicious.

From what I can tell, that review of Rainer is the only review by that person while Rainer is a known quantity, especially on the massage side of the house. I actually hired him once for a massage and, since he has an escort ad, am thinking of hiring him for my first escort experience. That review would not dissuade me from doing that one iota.

[Kyle Clinton]

I've hired him for a massage. It was't the best massage I've ever had but still a very good experience. He's WAY hotter than his pics and VERY "connected" and "attentive" to his client. I left happy and – though I haven't followed thru yet – he's been put on the top of my "to-hire" list for more. Rainer knows he's hot but he's a very sweet guy and extremely likable and playful. Refreshing.

[rvwnsd]

I read the review, furrowed my brow, shook my head slightly, and decided not to cross Rainer off my "to-hire" list. Some stories are so fantastical that they are best ignored.

[+ bencleve29]

I’ve seen Rainer for massage and escort easily a dozen or more times in total and that “review” does not sound like him at all. He is one of the best. He is careful about matching his services with his rates but that is just smart business imo.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I totally agree with you. However, I am inclined to think that the escort/masseur was given ample opportunity to write a rebuttal - AND DIDN'T.

True.

[Jim_n_NYC]

I totally agree with you. However, I am inclined to think that the escort/masseur was given ample opportunity to write a rebuttal - AND DIDN'T.

Just the fact that Rainer did not respond does not indicate guilt. WE have no idea why he didn't, whether he chose not to, didn't know he could, hasn't had time...whatever. I'll put my personal experience up against a badly written, anonymous, one-shot review anytime.

[Poincare]

Rainer is very sexy and quite handsome. I don’t think it was such a foul to post the key-stealing-apartment-squatting melodrama on daddy’s. It was a nice change of pace from the usual fare of “he took my breath away”, “so much more handsome in person”, “I’m too private to share the details” drivel.

[Joeysf]

He provides one of the best massages I've ever received. He's impossibly hot. He's so good, he's hard to book when he's in town. Maybe this will discourage enough clients so that I can actually get an appointment when he visits...

[maninsoma]

I finally read the review and am perplexed by it having been posted. Apart from the warning from the reviewer to potential clients that maybe they will have their sessions cut short because the owner or leaseholder of the residence will come home and interrupt a session, I don't see how it has any bearing on Rainer's service.

 

As to whether the scenario that's described in the review is plausible, I can see how something like that could happen among people with poor boundaries. Rainer could have been using another guy's apartment for business and then got a request for a booking during a time he couldn't use that place, so the friend he was with said, "Here, use my friend's place since he's out of town." At any rate, none of us knows whether what was written is true or just an attempt to smear Rainer. Speaking as a client, I wouldn't let a review like that dissuade me from hiring someone if that was the only negative piece of information I had on the guy. If true, it definitely shows a lack of consideration but since we don't know whether it's true I wouldn't give the allegations a lot of weight.

[former lurker]

I finally read the review and am perplexed by it having been posted. Apart from the warning from the reviewer to potential clients that maybe they will have their sessions cut short because the owner or leaseholder of the residence will come home and interrupt a session, I don't see how it has any bearing on Rainer's service.

 

As to whether the scenario that's described in the review is plausible, I can see how something like that could happen among people with poor boundaries. Rainer could have been using another guy's apartment for business and then got a request for a booking during a time he couldn't use that place, so the friend he was with said, "Here, use my friend's place since he's out of town." At any rate, none of us knows whether what was written is true or just an attempt to smear Rainer. Speaking as a client, I wouldn't let a review like that dissuade me from hiring someone if that was the only negative piece of information I had on the guy. If true, it definitely shows a lack of consideration but since we don't know whether it's true I wouldn't give the allegations a lot of weight.

 

Or he could be the guy given the key and then the OP broke up with him; or the "friend" who "loaned" the place to Ranier didn't tell him the OP didn't want his placed used; or it's entirely made up; or . . .

 

It all rings of either outright fabrication or sour grapes. In either case, I don't understand why it constitutes a review, but then again it's not up to me.

[+ Charlie]

What I find hard to understand is that there is no indication in the "review" that the "reviewer" was a client or ever had had any kind of hiring relationship with the escort or masseur in question. I thought a "review" was only allowed for an actual meeting between an escort/masseur and a client.

[J-Man]

New review of Rainer yesterday, with the language "Even armed with 5 glowing reviews from his previous and current clients (see below)." All I see "below" are two reviews: one positive, and the one unusual one that prompted this thread. Where are these "5 glowing reviews"? Am I missing something?

[+ Charlie]

New review of Rainer yesterday, with the language "Even armed with 5 glowing reviews from his previous and current clients (see below)." All I see "below" are two reviews: one positive, and the one unusual one that prompted this thread. Where are these "5 glowing reviews"? Am I missing something?

He is referring to the 5 glowing reviews of Rainer on rent.men, not on Daddy's.

[+ poolboy48220]

or this... https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/50303f5a-6361-4c91-b2d6-62c9da08c162

[J-Man]

He is referring to the 5 glowing reviews of Rainer on rent.men, not on Daddy's.

Well those are not "below," are they? And my impression is that reviews on rent.men are not worth the bandwidth they use.

[former lurker]

Well those are not "below," are they? And my impression is that reviews on rent.men are not worth the bandwidth they use.

 

They are "below" the same review as it was posted on RM, before it was cut and pasted into the Daddy's review.

[rvwnsd]

They are "below" the same review as it was posted on RM, before it was cut and pasted into the Daddy's review.

The RM review in question was written by a client who has been a member since 1/19/2018 and has submitted a prior review of a different escort on 12/19/2019. It appears the reviewer is legitimate. To me, copying and pasting a review is not a red flag. (Not saying @former lurker is stating or implying that it is, BTW)

[former lurker]

The RM review in question was written by a client who has been a member since 1/19/2018 and has submitted a prior review of a different escort on 12/19/2019. It appears the reviewer is legitimate. To me, copying and pasting a review is not a red flag. (Not saying @former lurker is stating or implying that it is, BTW)

 

The added gloss is helpful. And you're right, I wasn't suggesting anything was amiss with the RM review or it's repitition on Daddy's site -- I was merely trying to explain why the word "below" appeared in the Daddy's review.