Papi in SF--Sunday's Review

[Guest DickHo]

This is a review of a private (non-escort) encounter at a bath house. This doesn't belong here. Not to mention that it reads like a cheesy porn magazine story.

 

Publishing details of the escort's private life goes against the "respect" issue so thoroughly discussed here.

[guyinsf]

When I read that review this morning, I also wondered why it got published. It doesn't sound like the reviewer paid Papi. Are all escorts (unpaid) sexual encounters open for review?

[+ honcho]

Let's blur the line a bit ... Suppose, just hypothetically speaking of course, there's some stud at the gym that I so have the total hots for , that I would have rented him in a heartbeat if I ever had the nerve to ask if he'ld be offended accepting bribes for favors.

 

Suppose, just hypothetically speaking, that we do get it on after, say, flirting when he comes to look at a room-for-rent-in-shared-appartment situation (not on the spot, but later when he gives me his cell number).

 

Suppose, just hypothetically speaking, that I notice the aforementioned cell phone number in an Escort ad?

 

Now suppose further, that I get up the nerve some time in the future to mention that I saw the ad in the local gay rag, and offer to write up a review as-if-it had been paid for, 'cause the guy is total stud muffin and has not as yet been reviewed on the board here?

 

I do seem to recall somebody (Talvin De Machio, even) sending in a review where the fee was soft-pedaled as services exchanged (like maybe sex for a massage?).

[Guest DickHo]

Do you think the reviewer asked Papi if he wanted his performance at the bathhouse reviewed?

[+ honcho]

>Do you think the reviewer asked Papi if he wanted his

>performance at the bathhouse reviewed?

 

Probably not. I clearly was trying to co-opt the discussion to a topic I had been thinking about for a while ;-)

[hiJinX]

Reads more like an ad for the prowess of the "reviewer". I found myself wondering what he looked like and wishing there had been a posting of his "beautiful cock" to put things in perspective.

The "one look at my semihard cock and this escort fucked me for free" aspect and the "I fuck 4-5 guys everytime I go to the bathouse" seemed like a good advertisement for the reviewer. I'm sure this is no doubt influenced by my penchant for hot guys over 40 though...and I was looking for a new buddy.

 

I dropped Papi an email mentioning the review and he didn't seem to care btw.

[guyinsf]

The issue for me isn't whether Papi cares about the review; it's about the purpose of the review section. If escorts' "off-duty" sexual encounters start getting reviewed, then I think the meaningfulness of the reviews is diluted. So what if two guys who are sexually attracted to one another had a good time fucking in a bathhouse? Does that mean that the escort will perform with similar enthusiasm when he's being hired by someone to whom he may or may not be physically attracted? I don't think one translates into the other, which is why I think it would be a mistake to allow the former situations to be reviewed.

[sman]

guys , eat your hearts out.!!!!!!!

 

hehe, this papi is a hot young guy and he enjoyed a fantastic fuck by a hot daddy.

i wished i was there to watch it must have been a sight to behold.!!

the article read like like a porno magazine.. well, beat your dicks. its free.

i ENJOYED it.

 

sman.:9

[hiJinX]

>The issue for me isn't whether Papi cares about the review;

>it's about the purpose of the review section. If escorts'

>"off-duty" sexual encounters start getting reviewed, then I

>think the meaningfulness of the reviews is diluted.

 

I agree. I was addressing the post about whether Papi would want his performance reviewed. My impression is that if clients read the account and become interested in hiring him as a result, it's all good.

 

But again I agree, it is not a proper representation as to what an escorting experience would be. This is a case where there was confirmed mutual attraction, as is often not the case when hiring an escort.

[Rick Munroe]

If we're going to allow reviews of escorts when they are not being escorts, then we should allow reviews of everyone when they are not being escorts...i.e. clients, or anyone with whom one happens to hook up. Shall escorts start writing reviews of clients' performances, physiques, hygiene, etc...using clients' Message Center handles? If so, my guess is that if that get-together does take place next year, some guys will not want to wear their name tags (this is fun being devil's smartass). Bad analogy but the best I can do since I just woke up: movie reviewers critique actors in their latest films...not in how well they performed the other day at lunch with their agents (or something like that).

[+ Axiom2001]

Rick, the first paragraph was "spot on"! The second one could have been left out, and yes, I completely agree with you and others who adamantly opposed this particular review. Clients write reviews of their experiences with escorts, not what we all received in this particular review. Perhaps the one who does this board should have read this one or given it a cursory reading before agreeing to post it for Papi.

 

Papi had reviews and photo up some time ago, what happened? He, I think, had more than one; I have read the negative one previously and Papi's response.

[CT Dick]

And, when I went to Sunday, 10/20's reviews, there is no longer a Papi from SF.

 

So be it.

 

Dick