DON'T TOUCH SCOTT MATTHEW'S HAIR!!!!!!

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Before I start, I feel I should disclose that I did the nasty with Scott Matthews a few years ago in a non-paying encounter (an AOL hook-up) and it ranked as the second most bizarre AOL encounter I've ever had. He was a nutjob from the moment he walked in my apartment and from there it only got worse. I've related the whole story to friends many times and, to this day, we can't decide if he was drugged out of his mind or merely certifiable.

 

When I started reading his reviews, no one would mention the fact that he was a wacko so I began to believe that he had gotten his act together.

 

Until this morning........

 

 

There's plenty to chew on in Scott's response this morning but the part that leapt off the screen was this:

 

"When he mentions about touching my head, I am very conscious about people grabbing my neck and forcing me to do things, since I did have somewhere else to be that night, I didn't have anything to fix my hair (I know that it sounds very vain but I don't carry a large bag of supplies with my [sic] to redo my do and toiletries with me to each client I go to). I like to go with the minimum. Well, so I asked the client not to touch my hair, neck or head so that I didn't have much to redo it when I left the appt."

 

My my my.

 

I, like the rest of you, am very familiar with what Scott looks like and he has a basic short haircut that's parted on the side. What is this "do" he's referring to that requires a "large bag of supplies" to restore it to its state of grandeur? Frankly, I don't think this incident has anything to do with Scott's hair. I think there's some other "issue" at play here. If it were merely the john he was with, he would have said so, instead he put it squarely upon his shoulders.

 

I never cease to be amazed at how escorts sometimes defend their bad behavior. Scott thinks his explaination clears it all up. Instead, it makes him look like a preening jerk.

 

In my encounter with him, I don't remember any issue with his hair. I remember his #1 obsession was talking/chattering NON-FUCKING-STOP about how his cock was nine inches long (which it isn't) and from there it rapidly spiraled into incoherence.

 

By the way, a warning to you ladies: don't ever try to measure Scott's cock to verify that it's nine inches long (and you can foget about the ridiculous claim of his that it's 8" around), he will go postal on you. He does NOT like being questioned about his size.

[Traveller]

And he's a fucking huge lady-man to boot. If you like girly-girls he's for you. Otherwise, stay far, far away.

 

Later.

[guyinsf]

I've never met Scott Matthews but I love his pictures....what a cutie. His dick does look impressively big to me...but 8 inches around does seem exaggerated. (Does any man have 8 inches around?!)

 

As to the hair comment, well, it does seem rather silly to me, too; then again, he is a "porn star", so maybe being in front of the camera has warped his sensibility as to the need for "perfect" hair, etc. Bottom line: vanity isn't necessarily logical.

 

What I found more incredible in Scott's response is his admission of having three clients in one evening because business had been "slow." Well, at his rate, three one-hour clients would mean $900 in fees. The guy who wrote the review said he requested two hours; that means at least $1200 in fees that evening. How greedy does one need to be? (Or how slow had business been?!) Is Mr. Matthews trying to only work a few days per month? I don't think that booking three clients back to back makes much business sense. How could anyone give his best under such circumstances? It would seem to me that doing business like this would likely result in reducing one's client base, in the long run, precisely because of disappointments like this. I can see having one client earlier in the day and then someone else that evening, with time in between for "regrouping" (and hair styling!), but it seems to me that even a horny 18-year-old wouldn't be at his best scheduling three guys back to back.

[+ Lucky]

Mr. Foom, I would be interested in a post of yours where you had nice things to say about someone. Perhaps you can post an AOL profile that you find really admirable?

[Guest elwood]

I have had my say on this topic via my review. Scotts reply was very similar to his e-mail reply to me. My review was not intended to "trash " Scott...I did have some positive comments about him...but I felt I had to express my disappointment. I did not find him to be a "nut case" or "girly". I think that the posting by guyinsf captures my feeling pretty well. I learned from this encounter as well. In future I will indeed speak up when the meeting is not going well and indeed as a result of this I actually have terminated a meeting with an escort when I felt justifiably dissatisfied. Showing up to meet a client under such circumstances is treating the client disrespectfully and unprofessionally...and is not to be tolerated.

[Guest bottomboykk]

All I can say is that my 2 experiences with Scott were wonderful. He is definitely no lady-man (I don't know where Traveller ever got that idea!); he was very masculine yet sweet, a powerful top who knows how to use that huge cock of his (no, he's not as big as he says it is, but he's at least 8.5 x 6) and it feels wonderful ramming into your ass.

 

I'm sorry Elwood had a negative experience. All people have off days, and I guess Scott had one that evening. (I do admit that the thing with the hair is a little bit weird; he didn't act like that with me).

[N.N.]

Wow, $300/hr and you can't muss up his hair.

 

Scott, if you really mean it when you say "I like to treat

each client like my only client," you wouldn't ask someone

to avoid ruining your hairdo. It's not cool to blame this

on the client not speaking up about this bothering him.

For $300, you should be giving the client your all, not

asking for favors to make it easy for you to see the next

client right away.

 

HooBoy is right when he says escorts reveal a lot about

themselves in how they respond to critical reviews.

[Donnie]

"Escort Essentials" by Scott Matthews

 

1. Eros

2. Magnums

3. Final Net

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: "Escort Essentials" by Scott Matthews

 

That is the funniest, bitchiest comment I have ever read.

I'm still laughing.

[+ nycman]

RE: "Escort Essentials" by Scott Matthews

 

The Pepsi I spit out is still burning my nose.

 

Note to self...don't read M4M at work while drinking sodas.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

A few more things since we're on a roll here.............

 

1. I have to second what was said earlier. It's pretty ballsy for a guy to charge $300/hr and then insist you can't mess up his hair. Let me get this straight.....I can shove my cock up his ass but I can't mess up his hair. What's wrong with this picture?

 

2. It has been pointed out to me that Miss Matthews has "chem friendly" in his AOL profile. It would make sense that some of his problems with the earlier reviewer may stem from the fact that he's a crackhead. It never ceases to amaze me that these guys will tell you how hot they are in their profiles (and require the same of you) and then essentially add: "oh yeah, I'm also a drug addict". Ooooooo, hot man!

 

3. Also in his AOL profile (ScottMatthews01) he lets it be known that he's not into "asian/black men/groups". Does he mention on his website that if you're Asian or Black you shouldn't contact him for work?

[+ nycman]

NYC Haircuts...no laughing matter

 

>1. I have to second what

>was said earlier. It's pretty

>ballsy for a guy to

>charge $300/hr and then insist

>you can't mess up his

>hair.

 

FFF, I don't think you understand...it's BECAUSE of his hair that he has to charge $300/hr. I mean that bi-weekly visit to Frederic Fekkai certainly can get expensive!

 

P.S. I hope you ignore the goody-goodniks, and stay your nasty self.

[Guest bottomboykk]

The AOL profile is for personal hookups, not as an escort. It clearly says "not an escort on AOL."

 

Those are his personal preferences for hookups, having nothing to do with his work as an escort. Everyone is entitled to his own preferences as to what he's looking for.

 

I'm not crazy about the fact that he's "chem friendly," but it didn't affect his performance with me. And keep in mind that the guy has 48 reviews on here (any escort have more???), and virtually all are very positive, if not glowing. I'm proud that my review was the very first published of him.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>The AOL profile is for personal

>hookups, not as an escort.

>It clearly says "not an

>escort on AOL."

 

 

Which makes absolutely no sense since he's using his porn name for his AOL name and he has a link to his ESCORT website. Sounds like he's advertising to me.

 

OR, he's not secure enough to try to hook-up without trading on his porn name.

[Guest Nocturnal]

My goodness! How petty some people can be. It must have been a bad experience for both of you. It is now over with. Move on!

[Guest]

>I'm not crazy about the fact

>that he's "chem friendly," but

>it didn't affect his performance

>with me. And keep in

>mind that the guy has

>48 reviews on here (any

>escort have more???), and virtually

>all are very positive, if

>not glowing. I'm proud that

>my review was the very

>first published of him.

 

I'm a little confused. How could he be so highly rated with all of the problems mentioned in this string? And how can someone get so many reviews in such a short period of time? Am I the only guy who suspects he's been writing his own reviews? Sometimes I think there are escorts who get one great review, see how it affects their business, and then write their own for marketing purposes...

[Guest bottomboykk]

A year and a half is not a "short time" (first review was November 1999). I think it's highly unlikely he's written his own reviews, but anything's possible. The only review of which I have personal knowledge is the first one, which I wrote.

[Guest scotty]

what is chem friendly????????????????

[Guest Jason Coxx]

LAST EDITED ON May-13-01 AT 05:56PM (EST)[p]>what is chem friendly????????????????

 

It's a nice way to say that you're a drug addict.

 

Jason Coxx

http://www.jasoncoxx.com

917-242-8307

[Guest ChicagoCorey]

Color me naive.

 

I always considered myself "chem friendly" -- I don't do any real hard drugs and don't even really drink when working. But I still considered myself "chem friendly" because I respected another's choice to do so. I was friendly to others using chemical. I'll have to make sure I forever watch my language again.

 

--Corey

 

 

-------

chicagocorey@yahoo.com

new site and pictures

http://www.geocities.com/chicagocorey

[Guest Tex]

If being chem friendly makes you a drug addict, call Betty Ford quickly. I absolutely never cease to be amazed at why I come back to this section of the site. Actually, I'm still looking for Skeptic ...

[Guest trekker]

>>what is chem friendly????????????????

>

>It's a nice way to say

>that your a drug addict.

 

Isn't "addict" a little strong, Jason? *Does* drugs, yes, but not necessarily drug-dependent. (Not that I approve either way...)

[Guest Jason Coxx]

Let me clarify what I meant by "drug addict".

 

My generation is abusing drugs at an alarming rate. It doesn't "get high", it "parties". My generation isn't "drug abusers", it's "chem friendly".

 

A trip to NYC's #1 bath house at 3:00am on a weekend is chock full of guys who are "chem friendly". The halls are filled with guys staggering about, pupils large as saucers, and the rooms are stocked with "chem friendly" guys on their stomachs, asses in the air. These are the same guys who say they are "chem friendly" in their AOL profiles. They may not be in some alley with their arms tied off shooting heroin but it doesn't make them any less "addicted".

 

If someone is so comfortable with drugs that they make sure they include it in their AOL profile, they have an addiction (whether they want to admit that or not) and the definition of an "addict" is someone with an addiction. This isn't being judgmental, it's merely a statement of fact.

 

Jason Coxx

http://www.jasoncoxx.com

917-242-8307

[Guest albinorat]

>Let me clarify what I meant

>by "drug addict".

>

>My generation is abusing drugs at

>an alarming rate. It doesn't

>"get high", it "parties". My

>generation isn't "drug abusers", it's

>"chem friendly".

>

>If someone is so comfortable with

>drugs that they make sure

>they include it in their

>AOL profile, they have an

>addiction (whether they want to

>admit that or not) and

>the definition of an "addict"

>is someone with an addiction.

>This isn't being judgmental, it's

>merely a statement of fact.

>

>

>Jason Coxx

>http://www.jasoncoxx.com

>917-242-8307

 

Boy, is this a smart post. The "partying thing" is weird to me in the current gay culture and I am, shall we say, no virgin when it comes to inducing altered states of consciousness. However, I did learn a long time ago, that many substances, even in the Ice Age where tea was weak, so to speak, deformed personalities, created paranoia, interfered with sex drive and diminished sexual performance, as well as left you with a bad headache and a less reliable short term memory.

 

It's true that tolerance for substances is an individual thing. There are fairly significant numbers of people who use heroin or drink alcohol heavily but are not addicted, for example. On the other hand heavy cocaine or speed use can deform the brain. Many of the "party" drugs are full of clashing things the long-term effects of which in combination none of us can be sure. It's well to remember the Andrew Cunanan circuit was the "partying", porn star, escort circle. Makes you wonder....

 

But even "weed" can interfere with judgment and common sense.

 

I would think a "professional" escort would be drug and alcohol free when working (not that a beer or two or a shared joint is horrifying to my sensibilities). I have seen escorts who were semi-regulars the night after they've indulged heavily. A new person showed up, a person a lot less appealing. So even fifteen hours later there were bad effects.

 

I won't be quick to call anyone an addict but I steer clear of people who offer to party, say they are "chem friendly" and I ask those who show up obviously inebriated to leave.

 

Al

[Guest DickHo]

>If someone is so comfortable with

>drugs that they make sure

>they include it in their

>AOL profile, they have an

>addiction (whether they want to

>admit that or not) and

>the definition of an "addict"

>is someone with an addiction.

>This isn't being judgmental, it's

>merely a statement of fact.

 

This is not fact, it's your opinion. And, yes, you are being judgmental since the word is defined as"tending to judge or criticize the conduct of other people."

 

And the human race has had a relationship with drugs since the beginning of time--neither your generation nor mine has a monopoly on this. The experience you describe at the bath house is mild compared to the opium dens of the 20th century.

 

Yes, I am chem friendly. No, I am not a drug addict. And now I will get off the soap box and make room for the next opinionated queer.