Today's (11/10) "No Show" Review of BrunoGaucho

[ad rian]

RE

 

>I do not know Bruno & have no real opinion about his raking

>in the dollars in the U.S., but loved the comical nature of

>the review

>(especially the emphasis on "how much money I have").

 

Don't you find anything comical about Bruno's marketing campaign here? I like Brazil and Brazilians, but I think this boy should change his advisors. I for one have no interest in an escort who is booking 12 guys a day for 2 hours each. There is no way he could possibly live up to his hype here.

[ad rian]

Re

 

>The reviewer says he "arranged for

>a plane to fly around San Paulo [so Bruno could show him the

>city]. The reviewer also makes a point to tell us how much

>money he has: "My time bills out at $500."

>

>Who rents a plane to see San Paulo, one of most crowded,

>unattractive cities in the world? Rio yes, but San Paulo?

 

I forgot to add that while I always say that a helicopter trip around Rio is one the second best $75 I ever spent, I would add that a plane ride around Sao Paulo like a plane ride around New York might not be so bad. In some respects, the only way to see a city with skyscrapers is from the air. From the air, New York might look more impressive than Paris which would never be the case from the ground. The same may well be true of Rio and Sao Paulo.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Who rents a plane to see San Paulo, one of most crowded,

>unattractive cities in the world? Rio yes, but San Paulo?

 

One last point on this. Because of the crime situation in Sao Paulo it is quite common for wealthy people to travel around by plane or helicopter. Most office towers have helicopter landing sites on top or on the ground nearby.

[+ deej]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

This part of the review slays me:

 

I'm just glad I did not send him the $700.00 in advance that he asked for

 

Hmmm ... a guy asks for a deposit on an extended appointment. (Personally I see nothing wrong with it.) Client refuses to send said deposit.

 

Given those conditions alone, I wouldn't at all be surprised to have the escort blow off the engagement. Without the deposit, it was never set in the first place.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>I'm just glad I did not send him the $700.00 in advance

>that he asked for

 

I would never give an up front deposit whether for an hour or longer. Sorry, Bruno has my B.S.-meter working full time. Did you see this one from a prior review: "Am in late forties and really into physical beauty--more interested in the looks and personality of the escort than the mechanics of sex. Does not take much to get me going and Bruno filled all these criteria admirably." Hmmh . . . .?!

[trilingual]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

Somehow, I don't think Bruno's attraction is based on his rate structure. In fact, I think it's the opposite. The interesting article about "Giffen goods" notwithstanding. :-)

 

Why is it hard to believe that some clients may be more interested in someone's looks/personality than the actual mechanics of sex? "Different strokes for different folks" may be a cliché, but none the less true for that. Some guys are into the "shut-up-and-fuck" scene, others prefer the "dinner-and-let's-get-acquainted" approach. Is there some reason we're being so judgmental here?

 

As for Bruno, besides his looks (which obviously have won him a legion of admirers) reviewers who've been with him have been pretty clear that his grasp of the mechanics is excellent. For guys who are attracted to him, time with Bruno seems to have been good value for money spent. Just because he personally doesn't send me into a tizzy doesn't make me feel like I should be saying catty things about guys who turn into a puddle of drool when they see him! ;-) After all, I don't expect such comments just because everybody here is necessarily turned on by my type, which could be considered to be the "anti-Bruno" :9 :

 

http://www.agapollus.com/bruce/agbr03.jpg

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>As for Bruno, besides his looks (which obviously have won

>him a legion of admirers) reviewers who've been with him

>have been pretty clear that his grasp of the mechanics is

>excellent.

 

I guess I don't see any evidence of that. All the reviews that I have read seem extremely pathetic to me. I see lots of drool and little specifics about mechanics. I guess this is why I rely on negative reviews rather than positive reviews on this site.

[Guest]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Hmmm ... a guy asks for a deposit on an extended

>appointment. (Personally I see nothing wrong with it.)

>Client refuses to send said deposit.

>

>Given those conditions alone, I wouldn't at all be surprised

>to have the escort blow off the engagement. Without the

>deposit, it was never set in the first place.

 

First of all, I would like to say that I don't have a strong opinion as to whether or not this review is real or not. Due to the many escort rip-off stories we have seen, I have long advised clients not to send deposits when they fly an escort out somewhere. The fact that the client buys the ticket shows enough intent.

As little sense I see in sending a deposit when flying an escort away from his town, it makes absolutely no sense to me to send a deposit to someone staying in his hometown. Especially when one considers Bruno's rates in Brazil, sending $700 seems particularly absurd. If the review is true, the client flew on an intercontinental flight to meet this guy. How much more serious can one be?

If Bruno decided he didn't want to make any commitment without a deposit, he should have just said so. For God's sake, you don't accept a job and have someone fly thousands of miles just to blow him off (so to speak).

That being said, I do have questions regarding the truthfulness of that review. First of all, it's suspicious that this is a first-time reviewer. Why would someone who's new to hiring escorts fly such a distance for one of his first experiences? Secondly, it's hard for me to believe that someone could be so stupid as to put such trust an escort in a 3rd world country of all things. Of course, one could say that only someone with little experience with escorts and this site in particular would do such a dumb move. Nevertheless, one would think that someone with that much money to burn would at least have common sense... (of course, life aint' fair--I certainly can't afford to blow that much money on an escort!:-( ).

[+ glutes]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

This just goes along with the other reviews here, mostly self-serving BS

[trilingual]

RE: Excuse Me?

 

>it's hard for me to believe that someone could be so stupid as to put such trust an escort in a 3rd world country of all things.

 

Whoa, Nelly! As someone with plenty of experience, I can tell you there are plenty of honest, ethical escorts in the third world and plenty of rip-off artists right here in the "first world." Kindly rethink your ignorant/racist/whatever comment.

 

Anyone who re-reads Bruno's other non-negative reviews will see that the clients who spent time with him enjoyed themselves very much. It's pretty clear he has a wide sexual repertoire and is very good at what he does.

 

I have no way of knowing if the facts in the negative review are true (although there's a certain IamToxic2002 flavor to them). I hadn't thought about the issue of the non-payment of the deposit pointed out above, but if I were Bruno or any other escort (in any world) I'd expect some kind of advance payment to commit an extended period of time exclusively to one client. I'm sure Bruno can't afford to turn away other clients who would like to be with him during the same period without some guarantee that the extended-period client will show. If there was such an arrangement, and no deposit was received, I can certainly understand that Bruno might concluded the client wasn't serious or that his plans had changed. In that situation, it's reasonable that Bruno wouldn't make the effort to go into São Paulo from his home town, which is more than an hour away from the city, to meet a client who gives signs of being a "no-show" or flake himself.

 

It would be useful to have some more reviews from actual clients of Bruno's during his visit to the U.S. Then people will have more information about the real experience of being with Bruno. Gentlemen? Start typing, please!

[ad rian]

RE: Excuse Me?

 

>It would be useful to have some more reviews from actual

>clients of Bruno's during his visit to the U.S. Then people

>will have more information about the real experience of being

>with Bruno. Gentlemen? Start typing, please!

 

Bruno, stop typing, please!?

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>First of all, it's suspicious

>that this is a first-time reviewer.

 

For some reason, my earlier response to this post was deleted. I assume that was a technical glitch. What I said was that I don't trust positive first time reviews because they smack of advertising. As for negative first reviews, I think they tend to be more reliable. I don't know why anyone who found an escort gem like Mr. Bruno would want to literally share him with the world.

 

My only two negative reviews here were for the sole purpose of warning of two truly horible escorts who actuallly threatened me. I never understood why Hooboy deleted that review. I have given positive reviews on Londonlads at the request of an escort, with whom I had an exceptional time, who had just received a negative review from an unwashed reviewer.

 

I think that Mr. Bruno's negative reviews are consistent with his positive reviews, if one bothers to read bewtween the lines and to read the description of the reviewers.

 

Hopefully, this post will not disappear too.

[trilingual]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

Ad rian, it's time to take a pill or lay off the sauce or something. You're reading way to much between the non-existent lines. There's nothing consistent with the negative review of Bruno and his positive ones (at which he obviously showed up).

 

As for the issue of the "no-show" and the deposit, if you add into the mix Bruno's limited grasp of English any number of scenarios could have occurred leading to Bruno and this besotted client not getting together.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

Bruno Gaucho has been lauded and castigated ever since he has been discovered. Is it now time to cease the foolishness about this young man? Hire him or don't! That's your prerogative. Accept the negative reviews over the positive, something that I think is ludicrous. What's the purpose of M4M's reviews anyway if it's the former and not the latter? Let Mr. Gaucho establish his rates as all of the other escorts who grace this board has done. Again, let me reiterate: leave the guy alone to experience America in a positive light. We have far too much at stake as it is in the eyes of "this here world" of ours!

 

ENOUGH SAID! Adrian and other "stick in the muds"!

[Guest]

RE: Excuse Me?

 

>If there was such an arrangement, and no deposit was

>received, I can certainly understand that Bruno might

>concluded the client wasn't serious or that his plans had

>changed. In that situation, it's reasonable that Bruno

>wouldn't make the effort to go into São Paulo from his home

>town, which is more than an hour away from the city, to meet a

>client who gives signs of being a "no-show" or flake himself.

>

>

 

Come on. I can't imagine that someone would fly from the US to Brazil unless there was some agreement that Bruno would meet him. I don't think you can either. If the review is true, meeting Bruno was the entire purpose of the trip. If the events really happened, the sociopathy of it boggles the mind. Can you just imagine the horror to the client (or potential client)?

I would certainly like to believe that the review was made up. It's difficult to imagine that anyone could play such a rotten trick on a fellow human being. It would take a complete lack of conscience and empathy.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>You're reading way to much between the

>non-existent lines. There's nothing consistent with the

>negative review of Bruno and his positive ones (at which he

>obviously showed up).

 

Well, go back and have a look at the reviewer who rated him on everything but his sexual performance, and then check out the other one who talked about him keaving his phone on while hired. I could go on, but I won't. How on earth can we rely on reviews that laud some guy with praise like that. Hey if you want to pay $400 for that, go for it!

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Accept the negative reviews over the positive, something that

>I think is ludicrous. What's the purpose of M4M's reviews

>anyway if it's the former and not the latter?

 

Why is that ludicrous? Is the purpose of the site to act as a shill for escorts, or to warn of scam artists. Personally, I am more interested in the latter than the former.

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>Accept the negative reviews over the positive, something that

>I think is ludicrous. What's the purpose of M4M's reviews

>anyway if it's the former and not the latter?

 

Why is that ludicrous? Is the purpose of the site to act as a shill for escorts, or to warn of scam artists. Personally, I am more interested in the latter than the former.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

So there are 5 threads all bumped to the top by adrian on Bruno Gaucho today. What's with that, pal? Are you his jjilted lover or what?

[ad rian]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>So there are 5 threads all bumped to the top by adrian on

>Bruno Gaucho today. What's with that, pal? Are you his

>jjilted lover or what?

 

No, one of my correspondents suggested that I read prior threads. I took the advice, and realized that I missed Mr. Bruno's advertising campaign in the previous rounds and so I thought I might as well add my five cents!

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

I see lots of

>drool and little specifics about mechanics.

 

In other words, a review is no good unless *you* are doing the drooling, eh?

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

What I said

>was that I don't trust positive first time reviews because

>they smack of advertising. As for negative first reviews, I

>think they tend to be more reliable.

 

**OR** they tend to come from bitchy guys that want to trash an escort but don't want the review to be identified with their better known persona here.

[Guest]

I'm getting this chilling feeling that maybe that review was real, after all. It's been up for three days, and it's hard to imagine why he wouldn't have responded to it by now if it were a fake...

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>Accept the negative reviews over the positive, something

>that

>>I think is ludicrous. What's the purpose of M4M's reviews

>>anyway if it's the former and not the latter?

>

>Why is that ludicrous?

 

Why?

Because there are 3 positive reviews, at least 2 of which give specifics of the encounter: not lurid details, but enough to know what you can expect from him, and 2 of them are from men who have written other reviews.

 

And then there is 1 negative review, which REEKS of bogus: how can anyone believe this story: American flies thousands of miles to third world country just to see escort he has never met; third world escort (in a country where the currency has lost over 40% of its value this year alone) blows off john who was going to pay a fortune in *dollars* (just the *deposit* is $700 - already several times the average monthly wage - and dollars would keep their value unlike the local currency), and which is from an unknown first-time reviewer.

[Guest YFSC]

RE: Today's (11/10)

 

>>Accept the negative reviews over the positive, something

>that

>>I think is ludicrous. What's the purpose of M4M's reviews

>>anyway if it's the former and not the latter?

>

>Why is that ludicrous? Is the purpose of the site to act as

>a shill for escorts, or to warn of scam artists. Personally,

>I am more interested in the latter than the former.

 

**Why do you feel you need to tell us this twice?

 

I'm not going to explain why it's ludicrous twice. You can read my explanation above.